A Labor Solutions Case Study A global food sourcing and production company with suppliers operating in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore all with many migrant workers, sought to conduct a global worker survey to pinpoint areas for action and improve worker engagement, particularly amongst migrants. The Challenges Migrant Workers Were Not Being Heard The company wanted to better understand the needs of migrant workers. Despite a large number of migrant workers, the company received no reports from migrant workers on the grievance mechanism the company had established. Migrant workers are often at higher risk for forced labor and exploitation and the lack of feedback from the workers was concerning. The company wanted to ensure migrant workers were being treated with respect, being paid fairly and felt safe at work. The company had conducted surveys before but failed to drive value from them because the surveys lacked standardization across geographies and languages and had no follow up action guidelines. Workers in these facilities faced literacy challenges. While, the workers all had primary schooling, it was clear the workers would struggle to fully understand complex survey questions. A small proportion of workers either did not have phones or did not use the internet on their phones. Solution Surveys Designed for Migrant Worker Realities Inclusive Survey Design Labor Solutions conducted a  WELL Survey designed for both national and migrant workers, selecting indicators aligned with migrant worker experiences. Multilingual and Context-Specific Deployment Surveys were translated by worker rights experts into Khmer, Thai, Burmese, and Malay to ensure accessibility and comprehension. Engaging Suppliers + Supporting Suppliers to Engage Workers We implemented via WOVO , which allowed suppliers to access their own data sets but also deploy additional surveys if needed. Multiple Access Channels Surveys were delivered through QR codes and onsite deployment, allowing workers to participate using personal phones or with additional support where needed. Survey Results High Response Rates, Risks Uncovered Strong Participation Across Facilities Nearly 60% of workers responded to the survey, far more than is necessary for a statistically relevant sample size, sending a strong signal that workers want to be heard. Compliance Strengths Confirmed The survey results were mixed. All facilities received high scores on basic-compliance topics like correct pay and payslip, receipt of health and safety training and ability to take leave when they wanted. Systemic Overtime Pressure Identified However, most workers, 85%, reported that they didn’t feel like they had a choice if they worked overtime, and that they didn’t feel like management made changes based on worker feedback. Impact Turning Worker Voice into System-Level Change Stronger Buyer–Supplier Dialogue Survey findings prompted open discussions between buyers, suppliers, managers, and workers—surfacing issues that had never previously been discussed. Clearer Expectations for Migrant Worker Protections The buyer discovered gaps in how expectations were communicated to suppliers and responded by updating purchasing contracts and delivering targeted trainings. Policy and Management Gap Analysis A gap analysis was initiated to identify where additional policy clarity and management support were needed. Aligning Incentives with Fair Work Unequal Experiences Across Worker Levels Line leaders reported having a choice about overtime, while line workers overwhelmingly did not—revealing inconsistencies in how targets were experienced. Incentives Driving Unintended Pressure Further investigation showed that line leaders were positively incentivized through bonuses, while line workers faced wage penalties for missed targets. Reforming Targets and Incentives The buyer worked with suppliers to redesign incentive structures so both leaders and workers were positively motivated—an ongoing process showing early positive results. Strengthening Worker Representation and Grievance Resolution Underutilized Worker Committees Although worker committees existed at all facilities, they were under-resourced and under-trained, limiting their ability to advocate effectively. Upskilling Workers and Management Targeted training was provided to worker committees and management teams to strengthen participation in grievance remediation and decision-making. Why It Matters Insights Audits Missed Worker Voice Revealed What Audits Could Not Despite more than a decade of audits, these issues had never been identified until workers were directly asked in a safe, accessible way. A Foundation for Continuous Improvement Both buyers and suppliers reported greater clarity, stronger engagement, and committed to conducting worker surveys annually going forward.

Labor Solutions Launches Improve Labor Solutions is proud to announce the launch of Improve , our newest digital tool designed to support supplier self-governance through standardized assessment and automatic action planning — aligned to the WELL indicators   and informed by worker voice data. At Labor Solutions, we believe that assessments alone do not create change. Real improvement happens when suppliers are empowered with clear expectations, practical guidance, and achievable next steps. Audits, surveys, and data collection are only the starting point. What matters is how insights are translated into support, action, and continuous improvement. Historically, improvement plans required significant time, resources, and external consultants, making them difficult to scale across supply chains. Improve  was built to change that. Improve Turning Worker Voice into Focused Supplier Action Improve is a fully digital supplier self-assessment and automatic action planning tool, built on the WELL indicators and designed to support risk-based due diligence and continuous improvement, in line with emerging regulatory expectations such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Action plans are triggered by the three lowest-scoring WELL Worker Survey indicators , ensuring improvement efforts are grounded in real worker experiences and focused on the areas of highest risk and impact. Rather than overwhelming suppliers with long corrective action lists, Improve prioritizes focus, feasibility, and progress over time . Meets Suppliers Where They Are A Progressive Maturity Framework Improve uses a progressive maturity framework , with defined levels that reflect different stages of supplier performance. Suppliers are assessed against WELL-aligned competencies When competencies are not met, an action plan is automatically generated Action plans are calibrated to the supplier’s maturity level, supporting realistic, step-by-step improvement This maturity-based approach aligns with CSDDD expectations around ongoing risk mitigation and continuous improvement, rather than one-time compliance or disengagement. Focused Action Plans Drive Continuous Improvement To ensure improvement efforts are achievable and sustained: Suppliers receive only three priority topics per action plan Topics are selected based on the lowest-performing worker survey indicators Each topic includes clear guidance, resources, and evidence requirements By limiting action plans to three focused areas, Improve helps suppliers take meaningful action, build internal capacity, and demonstrate progress over time — a core principle of continuous improvement under CSDDD. Instant Insights + Scoring Faster Risk Management Improve provides instant insights that support faster review, prioritization, and follow-up. Key capabilities include: Module-level scoring aligned to the WELL indicators Immediate results upon assessment completion Fast reviews with automatic or manual validation options Aggregated views across suppliers, countries, regions, and commodities These insights help companies identify systemic risks, monitor progress, and document ongoing improvement efforts — supporting internal governance and regulatory reporting needs. Scalable, Digital, and Built for Global Due Diligence Improve is designed to support scalable human rights and environmental due diligence  across global supply chains: Multilingual assessments with automatic translations Comprehensive data collection, including documents and verified signatures Real-time supplier-level and portfolio-level reporting Suppliers receive their results and action plans immediately at the end of the assessment and via email, reinforcing accountability and follow-through. CSDDD Principles Supporting Supplier Ownership CSDDD emphasizes engagement, prevention, mitigation, and continuous improvement  — not box-ticking or one-off audits. Improve supports these principles by: Grounding improvement in worker voice data Prioritizing the most salient risks Providing clear, achievable actions Enabling ongoing tracking and follow-up over time Improve helps companies operationalize continuous improvement at the supplier level — supporting responsible business conduct and alignment with CSDDD expectations, while keeping worker wellbeing at the center.

Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) begins with stakeholder education on rights + responsibilities. Workplaces and value chains are safer when more workers and leaders know their rights + responsibilities. In 2023, Labor Solutions introduced 20 NEW lessons to increase worker rights, safety, and productivity; including Inclusive Leadership, Responsible Recruitment, Child + Forced Labor and more to help ensure safer, better workplaces. Core Lessons Risk or Issue-Based Lessons Wellbeing + Growth Lessons Understanding Grievances 👷🏽‍♀️ Your Right to Freedom of Association and Right to Organize [Better Work] 👷🏽‍♀️ Managing Grief 👷🏽‍♀️ Introduction to Human Rights Due Diligence 💻 Preventing Child & Forced Labor 💻 Staying Fit 👷🏽‍♀️ Introduction to Grievance Management 💻 Responsible Recruitment [Fifty Eight] 💻 Fair Working Conditions 👷🏽‍♀️ Workplace Free from Child Labor and Forced Labor [Better Work ] 👷🏽‍♀️ Your Right to Fair Working Conditions [Better Work] 👷🏽‍♀️ Gender 101 [ICRW] 💻 Occupational Safety & Health [Better Work] 👷🏽‍♀️ An Inclusive Workplace 👷🏽‍♀️ A Workplace Free from Discrimination and Harassment [Better Work] 👷🏽‍♀️ Introduction to Responsible Recruitment [Fifty-Eight] A Workplace Free from Discrimination and Harassment Communication with Workers ⚙️ Collaborative Communications ⚙️ 👷🏽‍♀️ - For Workers ⚙️ - For Production + Line Managers 💻 - For Corporate Management + Practitioners The modular lessons cover three primary areas: core lessons, risk or issue-based lessons, and wellbeing + growth lessons. Core Lessons:  address fundamental issues and risks that are faced across industries and geographies. Workers and managers are provided with a basic understanding and awareness of these issues to recognize, report, and provide feedback for a better work environment. Risk or Issue-Based Lessons: address potential risks and specific challenges in a particular situation, industry, geography, or commodity. These lessons equip workers and management with the necessary knowledge to ensure workers have the knowledge + tools they need for a safe working environment. Wellbeing + Growth: designed to support holistic employee development, exploring topics related to personal growth, career development, and work-life balance to help workers become more productive and satisfied at their workplace. Lessons are available for both workers and managers. eLearning lessons for workers provide a basic understanding of rights + responsibilities, awareness of the specific risks or issues they need to be aware of, and various self-care skills. While the lessons for managers provide insights into fostering a supportive work environment, recognizing issues, and promoting open communications. [How One Company Leveraged eLearning and Saw a 23% Increase in Worker Satisfaction] New Lessons by Industry Experts + Leading Designers The lessons are designed by an in-house team with a background and expertise in worker training and pedagogy. The contents are co-developed with leading industry experts – ensuring they are up-to-date and beneficial to the learners. Better Work  co-designed five lessons for workers on understanding their rights and responsibilities in fair working conditions, occupational safety and health, freedom of association and right to organize, child & forced labor, and discrimination & harassment-free workplace. International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) put their 47 years of expertise into developing a “Gender Equity 101” lesson for supplier management teams in manufacturing who are looking for ways to make their business policies and practices more gender equitable. Fifty-Eight  co-developed a lesson specifically focusing on responsible recruitment practices for both workers and managers providing important information on responsible recruitment to both parties. eLearning: Affordable + Effective Solution to Improve Workforce eLearning lessons are affordable and much more flexible than traditional face-to-face training. Labor Solutions provides customized eLearning lessons to help workforce onboarding, improve overall safety and well-being, and more.

From Case Study to Action Inspired by adidas’ Global Deployment of WOVO The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires companies to engage affected stakeholders, including workers, as part of human rights due diligence.  Many companies understand the requirement. Fewer understand how to implement worker engagement at scale across hundreds of supplier facilities and hundreds of thousands of workers.  This blueprint translates adidas’ real-world implementation of WOVO by Labor Solutions—reaching 400,000+ workers across 105 factories in 16 countries—into a practical, repeatable plan that other companies can follow.  Proven Scalability What adidas Achieved through Worker Engagement Before outlining the steps, it is important to understand the scale this model has already proven:  400,000+ workers active workers 105 supplier facilities  100% of strategic Tier 1 suppliers covered  16 manufacturing countries  35,700 grievances handled digitally in one year  99% grievance resolution rate  <12-hour average response time  These outcomes demonstrate that tech-enabled worker engagement can operate at enterprise scale, not just in pilot programs. Step 1: Establish Worker Engagement as a Due Diligence System  Objective : Formally embed worker engagement into your human rights due diligence (HRDD) framework. How adidas did this at scale   adidas defined worker engagement as a core element of its social compliance and due diligence strategy, applying it consistently across 100+ supplier sites rather than limiting it to high-profile factories.  Actions for replication   Define worker engagement as part of ESG, compliance, and HRDD governance  Identify priority labor and human rights risks across your supply chain  Assign ownership across compliance, sourcing, sustainability, and local teams  Ensure worker data feeds into risk assessment and remediation processes  Result: Worker voice becomes a structured input into decision-making across large supplier networks.  According to adidas’ 2024 Annual Report WOVO is "highly effective" and "trusted by workers" throughout the supply chain, evidenced by the “consistent, widespread”, “sustained usage" and "the high volume of cases received through the app.”    Step 2: Deploy Worker Technology Across Strategic Suppliers  Objective : Enable consistent engagement and comparable data across geographies and suppliers.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas deployed WOVO across 100% of its strategic Tier 1 suppliers, reaching 400,000+ workers in 105 facilities across 16 countries.  Actions for replication   Roll out worker technology across:  All strategic Tier 1 suppliers  High-risk Tier 2 suppliers where relevant  Prioritize regions with known labor risks or weak protections  Set Year-1 targets for:  Number of facilities  Number of workers reached  Geographic coverage  Result : Worker engagement becomes enterprise-wide, not fragmented.  Step 3: Operationalize a Digital Grievance Mechanism  Objective : Ensure access to remedy at scale, as required under CSDDD.  How adidas did this at scale   All strategic Tier 1 suppliers were required to operate a digital grievance mechanism through WOVO Connect , handling 35,700 grievances in 2024 alone.  Actions for replication   Mandate a standardized digital grievance mechanism at supplier level  Train supplier HR teams on grievance handling  Actively promote the system to workers in local languages  Monitor grievance performance centrally  Benchmark KPIs (based on adidas’ experience)   Utilization rate: ~9%  Resolution rate: ≥95% (adidas achieved 99%)  Response time: ≤12 hours  Worker satisfaction: ≥70% (adidas reached 76%)  “We are attentive to worker concerns and issues and continuously review and assess the feedback received through the WOVO platform...“It helps us understand the main challenges and labor rights issues... and undertake timely interventions where necessary.”— adidas 2024 Annual Report Result:  Grievance mechanisms function as real accountability tools, even across hundreds of thousands of workers.  Step 4: Launch Regular Worker Surveys at Scale  Objective : Capture worker sentiment continuously and proactively identify risks.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas conducts biannual worker surveys across all strategic supplier facilities, with favorable responses increasing from 78% in 2020 to nearly 90% in 2024.  In addition, targeted surveys reached 46,000 workers in a single year on gender equality alone.  Actions for replication   Conduct surveys at least twice per year  Use short, focused surveys that scale across languages and regions  Deploy targeted surveys for specific risks or worker groups  Result : Worker sentiment becomes measurable, trackable, and comparable at scale.  Step 5: Integrate Worker Data Into Due Diligence Systems  Objective : Turn worker feedback into actionable due diligence intelligence.  How adidas did this at scale   WOVO data feeds directly into adidas’ human rights due diligence systems and supplier social compliance scores, enabling real-time visibility across 100+ facilities.  Actions for replication   Integrate grievance and survey data into compliance dashboards  Flag facilities with repeated or unresolved issues  Use insights to trigger targeted remediation or supplier support  Result : Due diligence shifts from periodic review to continuous monitoring.  Step 6: Make Worker Engagement a Supplier Performance Standard  Objective : Create accountability across large supplier networks.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas embeds worker engagement metrics—such as grievance resolution and survey participation—into supplier KPIs across all strategic suppliers.  Actions for replication   Embed worker engagement indicators into supplier scorecards  Set minimum performance thresholds  Incentivize strong performance with preferred sourcing or support  Share comparative benchmarks across suppliers  Result : Worker engagement becomes a measurable, enforceable expectation.  Step 7: Communicate Results to Meet Regulatory Expectations  Objective : Demonstrate compliance, transparency, and impact.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas publicly reports worker engagement outcomes—covering hundreds of thousands of workers and thousands of cases—in its annual reporting.  Actions for replication   Publish aggregate metrics (workers reached, grievances resolved, survey participation)  Share examples of improvements driven by worker feedback  Report outcomes to regulators, investors, and auditors  Result : Companies can evidence CSDDD compliance with data, not narratives.  Outcomes What This Blueprint Proves for Worker Engagement under CSDDD This model has already been tested at scale:  Hundreds of thousands of workers  Over 100 supplier facilities  Multiple countries and legal contexts  Tens of thousands of grievances handled digitally It demonstrates that meaningful worker engagement under CSDDD is operationally feasible at enterprise scale when supported by the right technology and governance.  Worker engagement should not live in pilots, audits, or standalone initiatives.  As adidas’ experience shows, when worker voice is embedded into systems, KPIs, and due diligence processes, it becomes a driver of resilience, accountability, and continuous improvement.  Want to learn how to apply this blueprint to your own supply chain? Talk with us about scaling worker engagement under CSDDD.

Addressing a Critical Need in Chemical Safety Training  The electronics industry relies on complex manufacturing processes, many of which involve hazardous chemicals. Without proper training, workers and supervisors may not fully understand the risks, leading to unsafe conditions and long-term health hazards. Recognizing this urgent need, the Clean Electronics Production Network (CEPN) , in collaboration with industry leaders, worker rights organizations, and manufacturers, set out to create a comprehensive, industry-specific chemical safety training program .  As the eLearning development partner, we worked alongside CEPN, Electronics Watch, ICRT, and other stakeholders to transform technical safety content into an engaging, accessible, and practical digital training solution . Our mission is to ensure that this training effectively reaches and empowers workers and supervisors in electronics supply chains worldwide.  A Worker-Centric Approach  Unlike traditional compliance training, this program puts workers at the center, with a dual focus on both frontline employees and their supervisors. Key features include:  Real-World Relevance  – Scenarios and strategies drawn directly from electronics manufacturing.  Role-Based Learning  – Training tailored for both workers and supervisors.  Collaborative Development  – Built with input from multiple stakeholders to ensure credibility and practical application.    How We Built It  We designed the program for flexibility, interactivity, and impact:  Collaborative Content Design  – Developed with subject matter experts, labor groups, and factory managers.  Flexible Delivery  – Offered in three formats:  In-person   Live webinars   SCORM-compliant digital modules  (launching August 2025)  Interactive & Inclusive  – Includes engaging interactions, case studies and multilingual support.    Tested and Refined in the Real World  The training was piloted in Vietnam and Malaysia from November 2024 to January 2025. Feedback from these sessions helped refine the final program. Early outcomes showed:  Greater worker and supervisor confidence  Improved hazard reporting  Seamless training platform integration for better tracking    Now Live: CEPN Chemical Safety Training The program is now officially available. It covers key topics like hazard identification, emergency response, and worker engagement, and will be available from June 2025 in Chinese, English, Filipino, Malay, Thai and Vietnamese languages with additional languages offered upon request. CEPN is also expanding its trainer network, with Train-the-Trainer sessions planned for August 2025 . Facilities implementing the training may be publicly recognized for their commitment to worker safety.    For companies looking to enhance their worker safety programs, this training represents a powerful and practical tool . We are proud to have played a role in its development and continue to support organizations in integrating it into their LMS platforms and workplace safety strategies .  Pilot Results Results Now Available. Preventing Chemical Safety Risk in Electronics Manufacturing Using Targeted Training Read More Here   Want to bring this training to your organization?    Reach out today to learn how we can help.

A Labor Solutions Case Study This case study examines how targeted, role-specific training can function as a practical preventive measure within human rights due diligence systems. Designed and delivered by Labor Solutions in partnership with the Clean Electronics Product Network (CEPN) , the pilot addressed chemical safety risks in electronics manufacturing through training—particularly in lower-tier suppliers where awareness and access to remedy are often limited. Implemented across facilities in Vietnam and Malaysia, the initiative directly engaged 922 workers, managers, and supervisors, with an estimated 7,000 indirect beneficiaries. Following the training, 95% of workers  reported improved understanding of chemical safety practices, 97%  indicated they would use grievance mechanisms to raise safety concerns, and 89% of managers  committed to system-level improvements in chemical safety controls. The results demonstrate well-designed, accessible training  can measurably strengthen risk awareness, prevention, access to remedy, and management accountability—while supporting alignment with emerging expectations under the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)  and international HRDD standards. From Policy to Practice: Strengthening HRDD Under CSDDD Under CSDDD, companies are required to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights risks across their operations and supply chains. Occupational health and safety—including chemical exposure—is a recognized material risk in electronics manufacturing. Effective due diligence requires more than policies and audits. It depends on accessible information, worker and manager awareness, and operational systems that support safe practices and access to remedy. Targeted, scalable training plays a critical role in translating due diligence commitments into preventive action on the factory floor. The Approach Role-Specific, Scalable, Chemical Safety Risk Prevention Training for Electronics Supply Chains Labor Solutions, in partnership with CEPN, developed a Chemical Safety Training Series  designed to address chemical safety risks at both the individual and system level.  Target Groups  Workers who handle or are exposed to chemicals  Managers and supervisors responsible for chemical safety systems The Lessons Chemical Safety for Workers   5 lessons focused on rights, responsibilities, and safe handling practices  Chemical Safety for Managers   3 lessons plus a practical toolkit focused on oversight, prevention systems, and worker engagement  Delivery The trainings were delivered using a blended classroom approach to support scalability, accessibility, and repeatability  across supplier tiers and geographies. Learners received training in person, via webinars and digital learning platforms. Key Outcomes Training Drove Measurable Improvements in Risk Awareness, Reporting, and Prevention Improved Risk Awareness and Prevention  95% of workers  reported the training would be beneficial to their work  Workers demonstrated increased understanding of:  Chemical labeling and Safety Data Sheets (SDS)  Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE)  Emergency procedures  This supports risk prevention , a core requirement under CSDDD. Strengthened Access to Remedy and Worker Voice  97% of workers  indicated they would use grievance mechanisms if they had chemical safety concerns  92%  expressed willingness to participate in safety committees and worker surveys  This reflects improved awareness of reporting channels and collective mechanisms , supporting access to remedy and stakeholder engagement obligations. Managerial Commitment to System-Level Improvements  89% of managers  found the training useful and relevant  88–92%  plan to review and improve chemical labeling and SDS processes  80%  intend to strengthen or establish:  Joint safety committees  Worker surveys  Grievance channels  These actions directly support mitigation and continuous improvement  under HRDD.  Next Steps Continuous Improvement and Localization  As part of ongoing due diligence and learning from the pilot, Labor Solutions and CEPN further strengthened the program by expanding language accessibility .  Following the pilot, training materials were further localized beyond Vietnamese and Malay. Additional languages now include: Simplified Chinese  Filipino  Thai  Expanding language coverage reduces barriers to understanding, strengthens worker access to information, and improves the effectiveness of risk prevention measures—particularly for migrant and contract workers.  Want to find out more about customizing trainings for your LMS? Why this Matters Training as a Strategic Lever for Human Rights Due Diligence This case demonstrates that well-designed, accessible training can function as a practical and scalable preventive measure within human rights due diligence systems. When embedded into broader worker engagement and compliance processes, training strengthens awareness, reinforces grievance mechanisms, and supports systemic improvement rather than operating as a standalone intervention. Specifically, the case shows that: Training can prevent risk , not just respond to it, by strengthening worker and manager awareness Language accessibility is essential  for meaningful worker engagement and effective implementation Scalable training models can be iterated and strengthened over time  as part of continuous improvement Increased awareness reinforces grievance mechanisms and collective processes , improving access to remedy Training supports alignment with international standards  when integrated into existing HRDD frameworks By embedding chemical safety training into due diligence systems, this approach supports companies in meeting CSDDD expectations by reducing occupational health and safety risks, strengthening supplier capacity, and improving worker awareness and access to remedy. In this way, training becomes a strategic lever for responsible sourcing and worker protection—rather than a one-off compliance activity. Get in touch to see  how integrated training strengthens safety, supplier capability, and CSDDD compliance for you.

A Labor Solutions Case Study As expectations around human rights due diligence rise, seafood companies need tools that move beyond compliance and deliver real insight into worker experience.  This case study demonstrates that the WELL Survey is effective in the seafood industry, capturing credible worker voice at scale and translating it into actionable labor insights. The pilot revealed seafood-specific risks, exposed inequities within workplaces, and generated clear priorities for action—showing how worker-centered measurement can strengthen due diligence in complex supply chains. Pilot Objective  Testing Whether Worker Voice Delivers Actionable Insight in Seafood Operations The WELL Survey was piloted in the seafood industry to assess whether a worker-centered, cross-sector tool could effectively capture worker voice and generate actionable labor insights in a complex supply chain context. The primary objective of the pilot was to assess whether the WELL Survey could, in the seafood industry:  Accurately reflect workers’ lived experiences  Surface labor and wellbeing risks specific to seafood operations  Reveal differences across gender, job type, and work location  Produce insights that are relevant and actionable for seafood companies  Findings The WELL Survey is Effective at Uncovering Risks in the Seafood Industry The WELL Survey Works in the Seafood Context  The pilot confirmed that the WELL Survey is effective when applied in the seafood industry. Specifically, it demonstrated that the tool can: Engage seafood workers meaningfully, generating credible and differentiated responses Capture authentic worker voice across roles, genders, and work environments. The variation in results across worker groups confirms that the survey is sensitive to the realities of seafood workplaces, rather than producing uniform or superficial findings. Identify labor and wellbeing risks specific to seafood operations Reveal inequities within seafood workplaces that are often obscured in aggregate data Support informed decision-making and continuous improvement through actionable insights Seafood-Specific Risks Were Clearly Identified  The pilot surfaced risk patterns that are particularly relevant to the seafood industry, including:  Worker fatigue and exhaustion linked to production demands  Harassment and psychological safety concerns, especially among women  Unequal access to opportunity and voice across job types  These risks appeared even where traditional compliance indicators performed relatively well.  Disaggregation Added Critical Value in Seafood Operations  By disaggregating results, the pilot highlighted how worker experience differs significantly within seafood workplaces, particularly between:  Production and non-production roles  Supervisory and non-supervisory workers  Women and men  These differences are especially relevant in seafood supply chains, where hierarchy and job segregation are common.  Results Were Actionable for Seafood Companies  The pilot generated clear, sector-relevant priorities for improvement, including:  Strengthening harassment prevention mechanisms  Addressing workload and fatigue management  Improving worker participation in decision-making  Closing gender-based gaps in opportunity and voice  The findings were specific enough to inform corrective actions within seafood operations.  Next Steps Scaling Within the Seafood Industry  Based on the pilot results, the WELL Survey will now be rolled out at scale within the seafood industry. Scaling will enable:  Consistent benchmarking across seafood operations  Identification of systemic, sector-wide risks  Tracking of improvement over time  Stronger integration of worker voice into seafood-specific due diligence  Why This Matters Strengthening Seafood Supply Chains Through Worker Voice The pilot confirms that worker-centered tools, when validated in the seafood industry, can generate reliable insights and support stronger, evidence-based due diligence across complex seafood supply chains. Ready to find out how the WELL Survey can support you?

The fight against forced labor remains one of the most urgent human rights challenges facing global supply chains. Millions of people worldwide are affected, and regulatory expectations on companies to identify, prevent, and remediate forced labor risks continue to increase. Recent assessments make clear that many companies are still struggling to meet minimum expectations. A report by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s KnowTheChain  initiative found that only a small number of companies met baseline standards for forced labor due diligence. Among them, adidas  stood out for its approach to worker engagement, risk identification, and grievance mechanisms. This post examines what companies can learn from adidas’s approach, and how those lessons align with emerging legal expectations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Where Companies Are Falling Behind Across jurisdictions, mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) frameworks increasingly require companies to demonstrate that their systems function effectively in practice , not merely that policies or procedures exist. This expectation is grounded in: UNGP Principle 18, which requires companies to identify and assess actual and potential human rights impacts through meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders UNGP Principle 29, which calls for effective operational-level grievance mechanisms UNGP Principle 31, which sets effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms The CSDDD, which requires companies to take appropriate measures to identify, prevent, mitigate, and bring to an end adverse human rights impacts, including through stakeholder engagement and grievance mechanisms Two gaps consistently emerge in assessments of forced labor due diligence: Risk identification that is not grounded in worker experience Grievance mechanisms that exist on paper but do not function in practice Both gaps undermine legal compliance and effective risk management, because many forced labor risks are not visible without direct worker participation. Challenge #1: Risk Assessments That Don’t Reach Workers Many companies continue to rely primarily on audits and supplier self-assessments to identify forced labor risks. While these tools can play a role, they are often limited by: narrow audit windows management-selected interviews documentation that does not reflect daily practice lack of real-time insight into working conditions This approach is increasingly misaligned with legal expectations. Under UNGP Principle 18, companies are expected to assess human rights impacts by drawing on direct input from affected stakeholders, including workers, particularly where risks are severe. Similarly, the CSDDD emphasizes ongoing risk identification across the value chain, not periodic verification exercises. What Works Better in Practice Effective forced labor due diligence requires ongoing, systematic worker engagement that complements traditional tools. adidas’s approach demonstrates how worker input can strengthen risk identification by: surfacing risks that audits miss revealing country- and sector-specific dynamics enabling earlier prevention and targeted mitigation This approach aligns with both UNGP Principle 18  and CSDDD requirements to identify risks based on actual impacts, not assumptions. Challenge #2: Grievance Mechanisms That Exist on Paper but Not in Practice Many companies report having grievance mechanisms, yet worker usage remains low. Under HRDD frameworks, low grievance volume is not evidence of low risk. The UNGPs are explicit on this point: UNGP Principle 29  Requires companies to establish or participate in operational-level grievance mechanisms UNGP Principle 31  Specifies that such mechanisms must be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, and trusted The CSDDD similarly requires companies to provide a grievance mechanism that affected persons can access in practice, not merely in theory. In practice, low usage often indicates that grievance mechanisms are: unknown to workers inaccessible due to literacy, language, or technology barriers not trusted to protect against retaliation unable to deliver timely or meaningful outcomes What Operational Grievance Mechanisms Look Like Operational grievance mechanisms differ from traditional hotlines or compliance-only reporting channels. They are embedded into day-to-day operations and supplier management, rather than existing as symbolic or external tools. Effective mechanisms typically include: multiple access points appropriate to worker context anonymity and confidentiality safeguards structured case management and documented follow-up supplier responsibility for resolution, with appropriate brand oversight evidence of dialogue, outcomes, and learning over time These characteristics align directly with the effectiveness criteria set out in UNGP Principle 31 and the CSDDD’s emphasis on remediation and corrective action. adidas’s experience illustrates how embedding grievance mechanisms within supplier operations can increase trust, usage, and meaningful resolution. Why Supplier Engagement Is Central to Legal Compliance A key lesson from adidas’s approach is that grievance mechanisms are most effective when suppliers are actively involved in resolving issues, rather than bypassed. This is legally significant because: UNGP Principle 29 anticipates mechanisms that operate at the point where impacts occur The CSDDD expects companies to take appropriate measures to bring adverse impacts to an end and prevent recurrence, which often requires supplier-level action Supplier engagement supports: faster remediation prevention of repeat violations clearer accountability stronger evidence of effective due diligence Moving Beyond Tick-Box Compliance Forced labor due diligence is no longer assessed by whether a company can point to: a policy a hotline a completed audit Instead, companies are increasingly expected to demonstrate: how risks are identified on an ongoing basis (UNGP 18) whether workers can safely raise concerns (UNGP 29) whether grievance mechanisms meet effectiveness criteria (UNGP 31) how remediation and prevention are carried out in practice (CSDDD) To acheive this adidas closely monitors worker engagement with performance metrics to “evaluate the efficacy of the grievance channels, see major cases in real time, and undertake timely interventions where necessary.” a didas’s experience shows that worker engagement and operational grievance mechanisms are central to meeting these expectations, not optional add-ons. What Companies Should Be Asking Themselves As forced labor and HRDD expectations continue to evolve, companies should ask: Do our risk assessments meaningfully engage workers as rights holders? Can workers raise concerns safely and without fear of retaliation? Do our grievance mechanisms meet the effectiveness criteria in UNGP Principle 31? Are suppliers equipped and accountable for resolving issues? Can we demonstrate prevention and remediation over time, as required under the CSDDD? Answering these questions requires systems that function in practice—not just on paper. Want to see what worker-driven HRDD looks like in practice? Explore how adidas operationalized worker engagement and grievance mechanisms to strengthen forced labor due diligence. If you’d like to discuss what these approaches could look like in your own supply chain, contact us at info@laborsolutions.tech .

Listening to Workers Isn’t Optional — It’s a Supply Chain Strategy   New research by Dylan Nelson and Nathan Wilmers at MIT  offers something rare in the labor space: causal evidence  that worker voice pays off. Their study, Earnings Effects of Direct Worker Voice in Production  (May 2025) , finds that when manufacturers actively use worker input in production decisions , three things move in the right direction: Productivity increases Earnings increase Turnover decreases For brands facing HRDD and CSDDD expectations, this isn’t a niche social outcome.It’s a core supply chain capability .   Worker Voice Creates Performance Gains You Can Feel Downstream   Source: Mandiri Abadi, 2022 Nelson & Wilmers show that moving from low to high use of worker input is associated with productivity gains of up to 15%   (Table 3, pp. 19–20). That’s not symbolic. In practice, higher productivity means: Fewer last-minute production crises More stable output and fewer quality dips Better ability to manage bottlenecks and shifts in demand When factories operate more smoothly, downstream partners feel it: Fewer surprises, fewer fire drills, more predictable supply. Worker voice doesn’t just improve the shop floor — it improves the flow . Worker Voice Is Now Evidence — Not Just Engagement   From “Engagement” to Evidence Under HRDD and CSDDD, the question is no longer: “Do you have a grievance mechanism?” It is: “Do workers trust it, use it, and does it change outcomes?” Audits can’t answer that. Worker-generated data can. In the Nelson & Wilmers study, workplaces that integrate worker input into decision-making show: Higher earnings  (Table 2, p. 18) Lower turnover  (p. 13) Stronger operational performance  (Table 3) These are exactly the signals regulators, investors, and brands look for when they ask whether worker voice is real  or just on paper. Worker voice becomes not only a practice — but proof .   A Functioning Voice System Shifts Power, and That’s the Point   One of the most important findings is that wage gains persist even after controlling for productivity  (pp. 19–20). That means the earnings effect is not just “workers produce more, so they earn more.”It reflects a shift in bargaining power : When workers’ knowledge becomes indispensable, Their ability to influence outcomes increases. This is precisely the kind of structural change that many due-diligence frameworks aim for: workers who can assert rights, shape outcomes, and negotiate remedy  because the mechanism works , not because an audit checked a box.   Voice Without Use Is Noise. Use Is What Matters.   Channels Don’t Matter If They’re Not Used. Nelson & Wilmers make a critical distinction: It’s not the existence of a mechanism that matters — it’s whether worker input is actually used  in decisions. Many systems collect data but never close the loop.Workers speak. Management listens (sometimes). Nothing changes. The study shows that when worker voice becomes: An operational tool , not a performative channel A regular input  into planning and problem-solving …both productivity  and earnings  rise. For brands evaluating supplier maturity, this is the key question: Are workers’ insights shaping decisions — or just filling reports?   Workers See What Audits Can't. Worker Voice Is Your Earliest Warning System Audits see the past .Workers see the present . Frontline workers are usually the first to notice: Deteriorating conditions Abusive supervision Wage inconsistencies Safety shortcuts Bottlenecks and inefficiencies When factories rely on structured worker feedback to make operational decisions, these signals are: Captured early Interpreted in context Acted on before they become non-compliances That is real-time risk mitigation  — and often the most cost-effective kind.   High-Voice Factories Are High-Value Partners   Taken together, the study describes a particular kind of workplace: More productive More stable With higher retention  and higher wages For brands, these are the facilities that tend to: Deliver more consistently Manage volatility better Absorb shocks more effectively Require fewer corrective action plans In other words: worker voice is not a social add-on. It’s a management competency. And in global value chains, good management cascades .   The Strategic Takeaway: Worker Voice Is a Capability, Not a Program  Nelson & Wilmers give empirical backing to what many practitioners have seen in practice: When worker voice is real, factories perform better and workers do better. For brands, that means worker voice should live in: Sourcing strategy Risk management HRDD and CSDDD reporting Supplier selection and performance criteria This is exactly where Labor Solutions works. WELL  helps brands and suppliers measure worker experience and trust at scale. WOVO  helps assess whether grievance mechanisms are trusted, used, and effective , not just in place. Improve  turns worker feedback into structured action plans , so suppliers can own and demonstrate progress. The study doesn’t just validate “listening to workers” as a principle.It validates it as a capability  — one that can be designed, measured, and scaled. Listening to workers isn’t good PR.It’s good operations  — and the brands that require it will be the ones better positioned for resilience in the decade ahead.

Executive Summary Human rights due diligence (HRDD) is increasingly evaluated as an operating capability , not a policy exercise. Across jurisdictions, companies are expected to demonstrate that their systems for identifying, preventing, and addressing human rights risks function effectively in practice. This article outlines how HRDD expectations have evolved and what companies are now expected to do differently. In particular, it highlights why worker-driven approaches —including worker voice, accessible grievance mechanisms, and rights awareness—are critical to effective due diligence. The key takeaway is that audits and policies alone are no longer sufficient. HRDD systems are strongest when they are grounded in direct engagement with rights holders , generate evidence of real-world functioning, and support ongoing prevention rather than one-time compliance. Human Rights Due Diligence Is Now an Operating Requirement. Are You Ready? Human rights due diligence (HRDD) is no longer a future requirement or a voluntary best practice. Across jurisdictions, it is increasingly becoming a baseline expectation for doing business in global supply chains . Driven by mandatory due diligence laws, expanded sustainability reporting requirements, and forced-labor import enforcement, companies are being asked not just whether they have policies in place—but whether they can demonstrate that their systems actually work . Failure to do so can result in disrupted buyer relationships, legal exposure, reputational damage, and in some cases customs enforcement that prevents goods from entering key markets. This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. HRDD obligations vary by jurisdiction, sector, and company profile. Companies should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific obligations. What Has Changed—and Why HRDD Matters More Now Since early HRDD laws came into effect, the landscape has shifted in three important ways: Mandatory due diligence expectations are expanding, particularly in the EU and other major markets. Sustainability reporting requirements increasingly depend on credible underlying due diligence systems, not just disclosure. Forced-labor enforcement has become more operational, placing the burden of proof on companies rather than regulators. Together, these trends mean HRDD is no longer evaluated as a policy exercise. It is increasingly evaluated as an operating capability . What Is Human Rights Due Diligence? Human rights due diligence is a risk-based process through which companies identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse human rights impacts connected to their operations and value chains. While specific legal requirements vary by jurisdiction, most HRDD expectations are grounded in widely used international standards and converge around several core principles: proactive risk identification meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders prevention and mitigation, not just response access to remedy documentation and accountability over time In practice, HRDD has moved beyond audits and disclosure toward systems that generate reliable, defensible evidence . Several countries and regions have passed laws over the last few years regulating industries and imports into their country. Laws range from issue specific to disclosure reports to national -level mandatory due diligence and reporting that cover all human rights. The enforcement mechanisms vary from case to case and could result in hefty fines or customs’ seizure of goods. Here are a few: the UK , US  and Australia Modern Slavery Act , and the Dutch Child Labor Due Diligence Act . The  California Transparency in Supply Chains Act  and the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (EU NFRD) . Mandatory supply chain human rights due diligence laws recently passed in   France , Switzerland , the  Netherlands , Norway , Germany , and proposed in Canada , Japan , Spain  and the  EU . What HRDD Laws Generally Require Although requirements differ, most HRDD frameworks—largely informed by the   UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights —expect companies to be able to demonstrate the following: Policy and governance Clear commitments to respect human rights, embedded in procurement and supplier management, with defined accountability. Risk identification Ongoing identification of actual and potential human rights risks across operations and supply chains, informed by credible data and effective complaints mechanisms. Prevention and mitigation Actions to prevent harm and reduce risk, including supplier engagement and follow-up—not one-off assessments. Remediation Processes to address harm and support remedy when violations occur. Tracking and reporting Documentation of risks identified, actions taken, and effectiveness over time. Enforcement mechanisms vary, but expectations around effectiveness are becoming more explicit. Why Worker-First Design Matters for HRDD Most workplace and supply chain systems are designed primarily for employers, auditors, or compliance teams, with workers treated as data sources rather than primary users. However, human rights due diligence is ultimately about protecting rights holders . Effective due diligence therefore requires engaging directly with those rights holders—not relying solely on proxy indicators, documentation, or management-filtered information. When workers are able to participate safely and meaningfully, accessibility, trust, and safety become core design requirements rather than optional features. This has a direct impact on HRDD outcomes, because many risks remain invisible unless workers can speak openly and be heard. Worker-first design helps turn HRDD from a theoretical exercise into a system that functions in practice. Demonstrating That HRDD Systems Work in Practice HRDD is increasingly evaluated not on whether systems exist, but on whether they function in reality . Traditional social audits can play a role, but on their own they are limited. Audits are periodic, often announced, and typically rely on documentation reviews and management-selected interviews. As a result, many risks—especially those affecting vulnerable workers—remain hidden or are identified only after harm has occurred. Worker voice changes this dynamic because workers experience day-to-day conditions that audits often cannot capture. Research and field experience show that worker surveys and feedback mechanisms are often more effective than audits alone at identifying risks , particularly those related to treatment, coercion, discrimination, and retaliation. Worker voice tools are especially important for: understanding lived realities and daily practices identifying bad actors even where formal systems exist revealing gaps between worker experience and management perception surfacing risks that fall outside audit windows identifying patterns that point to systemic issues rather than isolated incidents Real Access to Remedy Ensuring Grievance Mechanisms Are Known, Trusted, and Used Effective HRDD depends on grievance mechanisms that work in practice—not just on paper. Companies should be able to demonstrate that grievance mechanisms are: known and understood by workers accessible regardless of literacy, language, or technology constraints trusted enough that workers feel safe using them capable of responding and resolving issues in a timely and appropriate way Rather than simply confirming that a grievance policy exists, effective due diligence assesses whether workers can and do use the mechanism, and whether it leads to meaningful outcomes. This requires speaking to workers at scale. Informed Rights Holders Preventing Risk Through Rights Awareness HRDD is not only about identifying harm—it is also about preventing it . A recurring driver of risk is lack of clarity around rights and responsibilities. When workers and managers do not understand expectations, harmful practices can persist or go unchallenged. Companies should ensure that workers (rights holders) and relevant staff receive practical, accessible learning   on rights, responsibilities, and grievance processes. In many contexts, this requires training approaches designed for low-literacy and high-risk environments, using visuals, audio, and clear examples rather than legal or technical language. When people understand both their rights and their responsibilities, risks are less likely to occur—and more likely to be addressed early. Evidence-Based HRDD, Not Assumed Compliance The result of these approaches is an HRDD system grounded in evidence , not assumptions. Rather than relying solely on policies, periodic audits, or supplier self-assessments, companies gain: worker-informed risk data insight into whether grievance mechanisms function in practice documentation of prevention, mitigation, and remediation actions trend analysis that supports continuous improvement This type of evidence is increasingly critical when HRDD practices are reviewed by buyers, regulators, investors, or courts. HRDD Is Not a Project. It’s a Practice. Human rights due diligence is now evaluated as an operating capability: whether a company can identify risk early, prevent harm, and demonstrate credible action over time. Audits establish an important baseline, but their effectiveness often declines over time. Once checklist requirements are met, audits tend to reveal less about how systems function day to day. Human rights—and human resources—are not projects that get completed; they are ongoing practices. Worker surveys and engagement tools are better suited to this reality. They capture how systems function in daily practice, surface blind spots, and help validate or challenge audit findings. Used alongside audits, they support more continuous due diligence and help companies prioritize action—particularly for high-risk or strategic suppliers. It’s a lot, we know. Don’t worry, Labor Solutions is here to support you. If you want to understand how HRDD expectations may affect your business, or what an implementable HRDD system looks like in practice, contact us at info@laborsolutions.tech .