Pillar Two
Supplier engagement
Helping large suppliers and operators run their own governance and systems, independently verified and trusted by many buyers — and enabling SMEs to meet a standard they cannot carry alone.
What this pillar covers
Focus areas
- Running due diligence, not just passing audits
- Worker voice at the source, worker organisations at the table
- Practical systems for SMEs
- Compliance capability as market access, and advantage where buyers reward it
- Partnership with consequence: supplier-run, independently verified, backed by consequence
What we believe
The audit era made suppliers the objects of due diligence. The regulatory era makes them the people who run it. Manufacturing learned this once before: quality moved from end-of-line inspection to systems embedded in how factories run — and those systems are still verified by someone else. Due diligence is making the same journey: ownership of the system, not of the verdict. Suppliers who run their systems, and open them to independent verification and to the workers they cover, will turn compliance capability into market access, and into advantage where buyers reward it. One robust, independently verified assessment for use by many, not many assessments each for a single client.
What we do
We aim to work with suppliers and site operators to build due diligence they run — governance, management systems and worker engagement, verified independently so that many buyers and regulators can rely on one result — and we build shared models so smaller enterprises can meet a standard no single SME can carry alone.
Partnership with consequence
Running the system on its own is not enough. In one global apparel buyer’s supply chain, cooperative engagement alone had a near-zero effect on labour standards; suppliers improved by 22 percentage points only when a credible commercial penalty stood behind the engagement. What works is a system the supplier runs, independent verification, and consequence — for suppliers that do not remediate, and for buyers whose purchasing practices cause the harm. See the evidence →
Ownership of the system, not of the verdict
When a major glove manufacturer estimated for itself the recruitment fees owed to its migrant workers, it arrived at RM53 million. After a US import ban, and on the recommendation of the independent consultant it appointed, it committed around RM136 million — more than two and a half times as much. Suppliers should run their own systems. Someone independent should check them. See the evidence →
How we engage
Where we can help
01
Running the system
- Supplier governance and management-system design: policy, responsibility, root-cause and prevent-recur discipline instead of corrective-action theatre
- Site-level human rights and environmental due diligence — knowing your own risks before your customers ask, and having the findings independently checked
- Grievance mechanisms and worker engagement operated as your system, not the buyer’s checkbox: anonymous channels through our partner &Wider for detection, and trade unions or elected worker committees involved in resolution and remedy
- Remediation you can evidence: recruitment-fee repayment and corrective action tracked to closure and independently verified
- Your emissions, your case: site-level energy, efficiency and process improvement identified and prioritised by payback — reductions you own commercially, not a data request answered for a customer
- Access to finance and technology: connecting efficiency and renewable projects to the buyer commitments, green finance and shared programmes that make them bankable at site scale
02
Meeting the standard, once
- Mapping buyer and regulatory expectations (CSDDD cascade, ESRS value-chain cap, forced-labour evidence standards) into one coherent requirement set
- One robust, independently verified assessment for use by many: evidence packages designed to travel across customers, regulators and financiers
- Preparation for the new evidence bar: translated documentation, sub-tier visibility, and data that answers customs-grade questions
- Due diligence that works under local law: where rules restrict foreign information gathering, as China’s 2026 supply chain security provisions now do, due diligence a supplier runs on its own operations, within its own legal environment, is harder to characterise as foreign information collection than an inspection commissioned from abroad. The reading is untested and should be taken with local counsel — see the conflict of laws
03
SME & shared-capacity models
- Sector and cluster programmes that pool assessment, training and tooling costs
- Practical toolkits and coaching sized for SME realities — not enterprise paperwork scaled down
- Shared worker-voice and grievance infrastructure with published safeguards and worker organisation involvement
- Pooled decarbonisation: cluster-level energy, logistics and utilities programmes — the projects no single SME can justify alone
Large suppliers and operators building their own programmes; industry groups and buyers sponsoring SME enablement in their chains.
For suppliers, one verified system that many buyers accept. For buyers sponsoring SME programmes, pooled cost and verified results. For procurement, fewer and better assessments.
Five principles
Five principles run through every pillar
- Run by suppliers, verified independently. Suppliers run their own systems. Independent parties verify them, and many buyers rely on one result. Ownership of the system, not of the verdict. Evidence →
- Informed by workers, organised where possible. Anonymous channels to detect what audits miss; trade unions and worker organisations in governance, verification and remedy wherever they exist. Evidence →
- Partnership with consequence, both ways. Capability building backed by consequence: for suppliers that do not remediate, and for buyers whose price, lead times and payment terms cause harm. Evidence →
- Disclosure by design. What is recorded and disclosed, to whom and under what legal protection, decided with counsel before the first data point is collected.
- Exposure first. What the business stands to lose and what workers would be owed, quantified with the time evidence takes to build, set the case. Revenue reward is upside. Evidence →
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
Use what is yours so as to harm no other.
Talk to us about owning your system