Tier-2 labour standards: remediation or responsible exit
A fashion retailer sources cotton T-shirts from a tier-1 supplier in Bangladesh; the yarn comes from a tier-2 mill in India. An unannounced audit finds 14 workers aged 15-16. Local law permits work at 14, but the retailer's code sets 18 for hazardous work and 16 for general work. The mill also reports 68-hour weeks in peak, wages below its own living-wage benchmark, no grievance mechanism, and a falsified age document. Tier-1 says it did not know; the mill is 22% of its capacity. The retailer has a £6m order at risk and three weeks to peak season. The supplier asks for six months to remediate; an NGO demands immediate termination. The code allows remediation but requires zero tolerance for child labour. The retailer is a member of a multi-stakeholder initiative and has published a responsible exit policy.
1. What immediate actions should the retailer take, and how should it apply its code and the UN Guiding Principles?
Read the worked answer
First, protect the workers. The 14 young workers should be removed from any hazardous work, their ages independently verified, and their schooling and hours reviewed. The falsified document means the mill's age-verification system has failed, so the retailer should require an independent investigation, not accept the mill's assurance. Because local law permits work at 14 but the code sets 16 for general work and 18 for hazardous work, the retailer must apply the higher standard. Zero tolerance does not automatically mean immediate termination; the code allows remediation, and the UN Guiding Principles expect leverage and responsible exit. Immediate termination could push the workers into informal, worse employment.
Actions: notify tier-1 and the mill in writing; suspend new orders to the mill until a remediation plan is agreed; require payment of unpaid wages; appoint an independent auditor; engage the NGO and the multi-stakeholder initiative; report to the board and, where required, customers. The retailer should keep the £6m order under review and consider reallocating part of it, but it should not abandon the workers without a transition plan.
2. Design a six-month remediation plan with milestones and responsibilities.
Read the worked answer
Month 1: independent verification of all worker ages; remove under-18s from hazardous tasks; payroll audit for wage arrears; worker interviews without management present. Responsibility: retailer funds, third-party auditor leads, mill implements.
Month 2: new age-verification procedure with ID checks and a second sign-off; written contract for young workers; hours reduced to legal and code limits; grievance mechanism established with a confidential hotline. Month 3: living-wage gap analysis and a phased wage plan; overtime controls; training for supervisors. Month 4: first unannounced follow-up audit; publish a summary to the NGO. Month 6: full audit against the code; if passed, resume new orders with conditions; if failed, escalate to responsible exit.
KPIs: zero workers below the code age; 100% verified age records; working hours at or below 48 regular plus limited overtime; wage arrears paid; grievance cases logged and resolved within 14 days. The retailer should pay for remediation where needed and adjust lead times so the mill can comply.
3. How should the retailer respond to the NGO's demand for immediate termination and the commercial pressure?
Read the worked answer
Termination is a legitimate option only if remediation fails or the risk to workers is immediate and unmanageable. The retailer should explain its decision with evidence: the workers have been identified, removed from hazardous work, and a time-bound plan is in place. It should not use the £6m order as a reason to lower standards, but it can use commercial leverage: a conditional order, shorter payment terms to fund wages, and technical support. The NGO should be offered monitoring access and a joint review. If the mill misses milestones, the retailer should suspend the mill and execute a responsible exit, including severance, worker transition and notification to the multi-stakeholder initiative. The board should approve a clear escalation threshold in advance. Communication should be factual and avoid claiming the problem is solved.