Alignment with International Standards

1. No explicit commitment to international human rights standards or covers some but not all salient human rights
​
​2. No explicit role for rights holders in standard setting

Scope

3. No requirement of brands to share responsibility with suppliers

​4. Does not adequately account for vulnerable people
​
5. Does not adequately account for gender

Audits

​6. Allows the company or supplier being audited to pay directly for and/or choose the auditor

7. No requirement for auditors to have human rights competencies and knowledge of the local context

8. Audits not carried out in person, among other procedural weaknesses
​
9. Audit passed on a non-representative sample or insufficient sample size

Grievance Mechanisms

10. No grievance mechanism at the initiative level and/or no requirement for a grievance mechanism in the standard
​
11. No controls to ensure grievance mechanisms provide effective remedy

Governance & accountability 

12.  No or poor communication of the initiative standard and requirements to all stakeholders
​
13. No process to suspend or withhold membership or certification until corrective action plans are adopted and implemented
​
​14. Does not make information on audits, complaints, or compliance public

Go to Red Flag 6

Main Page > 14 Red Flags > ​​Scope > Red Flag 5

5. Does Not Adequately Account for Gender

• What this means 
• Why investors should care
• What to look for 
• Checklist

<

>

Many of the vulnerable workers and community members referred to in Red Flag 4 are women and girls. They face unique challenges including low or no pay, job precarity, denial of land (inheritance) rights, and gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH). In the agriculture and mining sectors, it is common that women and children are expected to work alongside their husbands without pay to meet quotas. These issues cannot be addressed adequately within a certification scheme without accounting for the particularly difficult circumstances facing women.
 
A gender lens is critical for conducting effective audits, which need to be designed with awareness that women are often reluctant to come forward with evidence of sexual harassment and assault for fear of reprisals and stigmatization within their workplace or community. Building affected stakeholders’ trust in auditors and the standard and establishing procedures for stakeholders to report harms without reprisals is vital.

The gender of auditors also matters for trust and detection. Evidence from a large-scale analysis of 17,000 supply-chain audits found that teams including women auditors reported more violations than all-male teams, underscoring the importance of gender-balanced audit teams to ensure that women workers’ experiences are recognized and recorded.[1]
 
Certification schemes can build trust with stakeholders in these circumstances by improving auditor human rights competencies, training enough women auditors, and providing anonymity, for example through anonymous survey mechanisms, or in some cultures carefully designed focus groups. However, no single measure is sufficient to reduce the risk of faulty audits. Rather, a comprehensive strategy grounded in gender awareness is essential.

---

[1] Jodi L Short., Michael W. Toffel, and Andrea R. Hugill. “Monitoring Global Supply Chains.” Strategic Management Journal 37, no. 9 (2016): 1888, 1893. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2417

A 2018 Profundo report on two palm oil certification schemes, Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), identified significant gender gaps within the standards and governance of each.[1] The report cites Amnesty International’s 2016 investigation of RSPO revealing that “women are forced to work long hours under threat of having their pay cut. They are paid below minimum wage and kept in insecure employment without pension or health insurance.”[2] As a result, some palm oil plantations which RSPO adhering entities, such as US giants Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble, source from were granted certification despite documented harms to women and girls in their operations. According to the same report, the ISPO “is lacking in indicators relating to harassment or violence against women.”[3] In 2020, RSPO revised its Principles and Criteria for the Production of Sustainable Palm Oil to include additional protections surrounding gender discrimination. 
 
Similarly, in 2011 Unilever faced allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of female workers at its Rainforest Alliance-certified Kericho tea plantation in Kenya following an investigation by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO).[4] A subsequent analysis found that Rainforest Alliance certification lacked auditor training and sensitivity to the specific challenges of reporting sexual abuse,[5] and in 2023 a BBC Panorama report documented that the problem continues.[6] This example highlights that, in addition to gender blind spots in the initiative's standard and governance, inadequate auditor training is also a weaknesses.[7]
 
→ Demonstrates: Reputational risk, legal risk

---

[1] Retno Kusumaningtyas, External Concerns on the RSPO and ISPO Certification Schemes (Profundo, January 21, 2018), 2,  25,  https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2018/report_profundo_rspo_ispo_external_concerns_feb2018.pdf.
[2] Ibid, 9.
[3] Ibid, 11.
[4] Sanne van der Wal, “Precarious work in certified tea production for Unilever,” SOMO, October 31,  2011,  https://www.somo.nl/precarious-work-in-certified-tea-production-for-unilever/.; SOMO and ICN statement to reactions by Rainforest Alliance and Unilever following publication of the SOMO report: Sanne van der Wal, Certified Unilever Tea: Small cup, big difference?, (SOMO, October 1, 2011), 16-17, https://www.somo.nl/certified-unilever-tea/.
[5] Libby Abbott, Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse in Unilever’s Kericho plantation, Kenya: A case study of due diligence and certification processes, (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, February 2012), 24,
https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/abbott-papper-re-unilever-somo-report-feb-2012.pdf.
[6] “True cost of our tea: Sexual abuse on Kenyan tea farms revealed,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, February 20, 2023, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/true-cost-of-our-tea-sexual-abuse-on-kenyan-tea-farms-revealed/.
[7] Click here for Rainforest Alliance’s response to the allegations.

Gender awareness for a certification program means that the scheme recognizes the trauma women face and develops ways of creating trust with women and girls facing a high risk of gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH). To understand whether a scheme’s auditing procedures are gender-aware and capable of gaining the trust of female rights holders, investors and companies can find out whether the scheme:

• Requires the presence of women’s organizations or at a minimum women auditors who speak the local language.
• Provides that the interviews be conducted privately.
• Promotes the use of technologies that allow for affected women to respond anonymously.
• Has a remedial system that punishes GBVH offenders, aligned with the International Labour Organization (ILO) definition.

Moreover, investors can ask how the scheme is fighting the practice to have women and children work without pay on certain tasks and/or helping the husband fulfill a quota – a practice which is particularly commonplace in agriculture and mining.
 
The following examples demonstrate gender awareness:

➔    The Performance Standard of the Aluminum Stewardship Initiative,  an initiative striving to “foster responsible production, sourcing and stewardship” within the aluminum value chain, requires members to “implement a program which promotes gender equity and women’s empowerment.”[1] It also requires gender analysis as part of the organization’s human rights impact assessments and a gender-sensitive impact plan.

➔    The Agreement to End Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Lesotho among three brands purchasing from Nien Hsing Textile Co., Ltd, labor unions, and women’s rights organizations, is dedicated to ending GBVH. Lauded by women’s rights advocates, the initiative builds in strong protections for freedom of association requiring,

• the involvement of women’s rights organizations and trade unions or other workers’ representatives in the scheme;
• a non-profit investigative body “with the power to issue findings and direct Nien Hsing Textile Co. to implement remedies, up to and including termination of harassers;
• a toll-free information line run by a women’s organization;
• an oversight body with equal representation of brands and civil society;
• a binding obligation on signatory brands to use their economic leverage to ensure that Nien Hsing Textile Co. addresses any non-compliance with its commitments;
• defining GBVH according to ILO Convention 190 on Eliminating Violence and Harassment in the World of Work.[2]​

Investors can also ask if the initiative encourages the use of worker voice technologies:

➔    The Worker Sentiment Survey of the apparel supply chain advisory, ELEVATE, enables workers to report anonymously and in a secure way. In one application of this survey with Bangladeshi workers, the survey found that up to 30% experienced GBVH, whereas traditional audits during the same period identified GBVH in only 0.18% of cases.[3] The survey may not be safely implementable in the most high-risk regions such as Xinjiang, China, where ELEVATE reportedly continued to operate into 2021, according to the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.[4]

---

[1] Aluminum Stewardship Initiative, ASI Performance Standard (April 2023), 25, https://aluminium-stewardship.org/asi-standards/performance-standard.
[2] Motšeoa Senyane, ‘Malehlohonolo Molelengoane-Luru, and ‘Mampiletso Kobo, 2021-2022 Report: Agreements to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Lesotho (Workers’ Rights Watch, 2023),   
​https://www.solidaritycenter.org/publication/2021-2022-agreements-to-eliminate-gender-based-violence-and-harassment-in-lesotho/.
[3] "ELEVATE Response to Clean Clothes Campaign report, 'Fig Leaf for Fashion: How social auditing protects brands and fails workers,'" ELEVATE, September 30, 2019, https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/documents/ELEVATE_response_to_CCC_report_Fig_Leaf_for_Fashion_20190930.pdf.; Aruna Kashyap, ‘Obsessed with Audit Tools, Missing the Goal:’ Why Social Audits Can’t Fix Labor Rights Abuses in Global Supply Chains (Human Rights Watch, November 15, 2022), https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/11/15/obsessed-audit-tools-missing-goal/why-social-audits-cant-fix-labor-rights-abuses.
[4] “China: Auditors, certification firms & organisations answer questions on their approach in Xinjiang as forced labour concerns grow,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, March 5, 2021, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/auditors-answer-questions-on-their-approach-in-xinjiang-among-growing-forced-labour-concerns/.

Does the scheme apply a gender lens in designing the standard and establishing procedures for conducting audits?
❐  Yes 
❐  No
❐  Partially

Signs of a gender lens include but are not limited to: 

• Explicit guidelines or training on how to fight the practice (commonplace in agriculture and mining) of women worker exploitation, for example having women and children work without pay on certain tasks and/or helping the husband fulfill a quota.
• The presence of a women’s organization during the audits.
• The use of women auditors that have human rights competencies and speak the local language.
• A requirement that interviews are conducted privately and in a safe space.
• A remedial system that punishes gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) offenders, as defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

• Use of technologies that allow women to respond anonymously.