What does the Who Pays For The Crisis Tracker (The Tracker) record?

Since 2022, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) has monitored an uptick in coverage of factories and subsequently workers being negatively impacted by changes in brand purchasing practices in response to crises that impact their supply chain, including economic crises, climate change and natural disasters, and conflict.

The allegations tracker records cases at factories across apparel producing countries, where brand purchasing practices in the midst of crises have been reported to have had a negative impact on workers, including: factory closures, mass layoffs, reduced working hours and reduced wages.

Where do we find the allegations we input into the Tracker?

As per the BHRRC’s process, allegations are found via publicly available materials, such as international and local news outlets. The Resource Centre may also use social media sources in incidences where individuals in certain apparel producing countries are facing a crackdown on freedom of speech and have limited mediums to share news regarding working conditions in factories.

How is an allegation chosen?

The allegations are carefully identified based on a series of criteria.

1. Identification of the impact of purchasing practices on workers, and particularly worker livelihoods: The source reports how brand purchasing practices have impacted workers.
   Based on allegations we collected between 2022-2024, we identified the following impacts:
   1. Impacts on employment – this includes mass layoffs, retrenchments and factory closures
   2. Impacts on wages – this includes non-payment of wages, wage reductions, non-payment of severance pay and other compensation
   3. Impacts on work patterns – this includes reduced working hours or forced leave
      
2. Identification of crisis: The event is happening in the context of an emerging event/crisis or supply chain shock in a sourcing country. Types of crises identified may include:
   1. Economic crisis
   2. Natural disaster and/or climate event
   3. Political and social unrest
   4. War and conflict
      
3. Identification of types of brand purchasing practices: The source links brand purchasing practices to the negative impacts that take place. BHRRC has utilised the framework outlined by the peer-reviewed papers (see here and here) of Mark Anner at Penn State University, who has identified four key purchasing practices that lead to poor or positive outcomes for workers.

BHRRC will be identifying purchasing practices that fall under the following four categories throughout this project:

1. Prices: Prices paid by buyers meet the cost of production, including allowing for the maintenance of safe workplaces and the payment of living wages and the ring fencing of worker wages. Where costs for suppliers (e.g. inputs) and workers (e.g. cost of living) have increased, order costing reflects this.
   
2. Lead times: Lead times for orders are predictable and stable. They allow for suppliers to plan staffing and hours, encouraging the hiring of workers on a permanent basis and predictability of work that doesn’t rely on forced overtime
   
3. Order volume: Order volumes remain predictable and stable with limited late changes to orders, and that take into account the cost of production to suppliers of small volumes and rapid changes in design requirements.
   
4. Payment terms: Payment terms are stable and within timeframes that allow for suppliers to meet their own obligations, including on worker pay. In the wake of unpredictable events (e.g. supply chain crises that could disrupt production), normal payment terms are maintained.

An allegation will only be included if it meets these three criteria.

How do we choose which brands to contact?

When we identify a factory where negative impacts have been reported, we will contact brands that have been linked to these factories in publicly available sources, including Open Supply Hub, shipping data and brands mentioned in the article that mentions the allegation itself.

When a brand is identified we contact them ahead of publishing the allegation via our Company Response Mechanism, to allow brands to share information regarding whether the factory they have been linked to is in their supply chain, actions taken to remedy the situation, and what brands are doing to ensure changes in their purchasing practices during crises don’t harm workers. All brand responses can be located in the Tracker alongside the corresponding allegations linked to the brand.

Brand relations in the Tracker are classified in the following way:

• ‘Buyer’: A brand is identified as a Buyer if:
  • A brand confirms the factory is part of its supply chain
  • In the case of a factory closure, a brand confirms the factory was part of its supply chain at the point of closure
  • A brand does not respond to our request for response
    
• ‘Former Buyer’: A brand is identified as a Former Buyer if:
  • A brand informs us that they no longer source from the factory
    
• ‘Reported Buyer’: A brand is identified as a Reported Buyer if:
  • The brand informs us that they do not source from the factory
  • The brand informs us that they do source from a manufacturing firm, but do not source from the specific factory where the allegation took place