Policy paper outlines mechanisms to improve quality & accountability in textile industry auditing processes
„Liability of Social Auditors in the Textile Industry”, December 2016
…[T]he mechanisms described to create accountability do not have any legal implications but are based...on the voluntary commitment of brands, auditors and scheme holders to improve social audits and create accountability...[T]he question remains how to hold auditors to account that conduct their audits negligently with severe consequences for the lives of workers...The recent changes in the globalized textile production...warrant new legal shifts...Especially with regard to the Ali Enterprises fire and the Rana Plaza collapse there are different initiatives...aiming at creating liability of the involved actors, including the auditing companies…When retailers request audits...they are in the position to set the standards for quality...The problem is that they generally do not have an incentive to sue. This might change, though, when retailers are held liable for injuries due to abusive working conditions...Thus far, workers have very few possibilities to hold auditors to account for their reports...[as they] are not parties to the auditing contract...A simple and direct legal remedy should be in place…
[Also refers to: Benetton, Bureau Veritas, El Corte Inglés, Ether Tex Ltd., George Weston Ltd., H&M, Joe Fresh, KiK, Loblaw, New Wave Bottom Ltd., New Wave Style Ltd., Phantom Apparels Ltd., Phantom Tac Ltd., Primark, RINA Services S.p.A., Tazreen Fashions, TÜV Rheinland, Walmart]