COPENHAGEN - A new paper from the University of Southern Denmark, authored by Sarmin Sultana, Julie Bundgaard, Saika Nizam, and Peter Hasle, examines the state of social compliance audits in Bangladesh’s garment sector, presenting a critical outlook on their current practices and future potential.

Social audits, a mechanism for monitoring working conditions and potentially preventing human rights violations in the global fashion supply chain, have grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry. According to the report: "The garment sector in Bangladesh, especially after the Rana Plaza tragedy in 2013, has been subject to an increased number of audits, leading to what is described as 'audit fatigue' among suppliers."

The Rana Plaza collapse, which claimed over 1,100 lives, served as a wake-up call for the industry, prompting the establishment of the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. This tragedy exposed the flaws in the auditing system, with some factories having been declared safe just months before the disaster. Since then, the number of audits has skyrocketed, driven by organisations such as the Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI) and Sedex. However, the proliferation of audits has led to concerns about redundancy and inefficiency, as factories are often inspected multiple times under different standards.

The study asks the pivotal question: “How can audits be implemented in practice to genuinely improve working conditions?”

The research suggests factory responses to audits typically follow two distinct pathways, these being the "low road" and the "high road."

Factories on the "low road" approach audits as a bureaucratic hurdle, maintaining only the bare minimum standards and often engaging in "window dressing" to pass inspections. In contrast, those on the "high road" use audits as an opportunity to enhance worker conditions and productivity. These proactive factories invest in robust occupational safety systems, staff training, and improved management protocols. "High road" factories, the report notes, view workers as a valuable resource rather than merely a cost factor.

The researchers conducted extensive fieldwork, including visits to nine factories and interviews with over 40 compliance managers and garment workers. One key finding is that many audits focus heavily on visible safety issues, such as fire exits and personal protective equipment, while often neglecting critical ergonomic concerns. Workers frequently reported chronic pain due to poor workstation design, yet such issues rarely feature in audit reports. The report claims this oversight represents "a missed opportunity to address work-related musculoskeletal disorders and improve overall productivity."

The study also highlights the limitations of worker interviews during audits, noting that employees often feel constrained in sharing their true experiences. One aspect of the research involved a "photo voice" project, where 31 workers documented their daily lives through photographs. These images revealed not only financial stress but also a complex interplay of job satisfaction and low self-efficacy. Many workers expressed contentment despite difficult working conditions, reflecting an acceptance of their circumstances rather than an indication of well-being.

Transparency and accountability in the audit process are other areas of concern highlighted by the research. The report notes that auditors are often paid by the factories themselves, creating a potential conflict of interest. In some cases, factory representatives have reportedly convinced auditors to omit certain non-compliance issues from official reports. The authors argue for stronger regulatory oversight and improved collaboration among stakeholders to address this imbalance.

The researchers also call for a paradigm shift in how audits are conducted. They propose incorporating workers' voices more directly into the audit process and expanding the focus to include psychosocial well-being and long-term career development. "Audits should not only rectify current problems but also support the development of a strong preventive safety culture," the report states.

Looking ahead, the report acknowledges the growing influence of international regulations, such as the European Union’s new Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, which will require more detailed reporting from suppliers. These new requirements, the authors suggest, could drive significant changes in the audit landscape, moving beyond simple pass/fail assessments to more nuanced evaluations of working conditions.

The study concludes that while audits alone cannot guarantee ethical practices, they have the potential to drive meaningful improvements when integrated with broader efforts to empower workers and enhance factory management. The authors caution, however, that achieving this goal requires commitment from all stakeholders, includng buyers, suppliers, and auditors alike. "Window dressing and minimum standards constitute old-fashioned practices," the report warns. “The expectation for the future is full environmental and social compliance.”