amfori Speak for Change in action: Discover the grievance process through real cases
In global supply chains, providing workers and stakeholders with a safe and effective way to raise concerns is essential to conducting responsible business. That is why amfori Speak for Change has introduced a new and improved grievance handling process that is more effective, collaborative, and action-oriented.
But what does this look like in practice? Discover two real cases that demonstrate how the revised process is making a tangible difference.
Case 1 – How integration with amfori BSCI leads to a stronger response to grievances
As part of the revised process, amfori Speak for Change and amfori BSCI are more closely aligned to support a truly integrated approach to social risk management. When we receive a grievance, our case handlers and auditing experts collaborate to verify claims and guide remediation efforts in a coordinated way.
Let’s illustrate this with a case from a textile factory in Türkiye.
A worker reported being pressured and insulted by their supervisor, indicating issues of verbal violence and possible harassment. Although the problem had been raised with the factory management, it continued. So, the worker turned to amfori Speak for Change.
The case handler reviewed the latest amfori BSCI audit report to assess whether there were any indicators of harassment risks. Although the factory had received a B rating, the audit findings mentioned that workers had expressed communication-related concerns through a satisfaction survey, which the factory management hadn’t addressed. While audits are not always the best tool to uncover interpersonal conflicts, these clues provided important context.
To determine whether this was an isolated incident or part of a broader, systemic issue, the case handler coordinated with the auditing team. Since an amfori BSCI audit was already scheduled in the following weeks, amfori briefed the auditor to pay special attention to the factory’s grievance mechanisms, policies against verbal abuse, and workers’ awareness of these protections. The case handler anonymised the grievance to avoid bias against the supervisor and ensure a comprehensive review across all performance areas.
The auditor found that the factory did have policies in place. Moreover, interviews with workers did not reveal any widespread harassment concerns. These findings revealed that the issue was likely tied to a specific supervisor rather than a systemic problem.
To resolve the situation, the case handler advised the amfori members sourcing from the factory to engage with its management. The supplier acknowledged the issue and confirmed that the supervisor had been warned. They committed to monitoring the situation and, if necessary, disciplining future misconduct.
Case 2 – Faster grievance resolution through triage and supplier engagement
Another important part of the new grievance process is the introduction of a triage system to address grievances based on their complexity. This enables our case handlers to address cases that are easier to fix faster and more efficiently.
In one recent case in Bangladesh, a worker raised a safety concern regarding a machine that was sparking, posing a serious occupational health and safety risk. However, the factory had not yet taken action to repair it.
The photo evidence submitted by the complainant clearly supported the claim, making an investigation unnecessary and allowing for quicker remediation. And given the straightforward nature of the issue, the case handler concluded that the factory management could easily resolve it.
The case handler advised the amfori members sourcing from the factory to contact the management, requesting that they resolve the issue and provide evidence of the fix. The supplier acknowledged the problem and provided both the repair invoice and the scheduled maintenance plan for the machine. The case handler followed up with the complainant, who confirmed that the machine was safe to use again.
Key takeaways
Both cases show the importance of adopting a differentiated approach to ensure an appropriate and effective response to grievances based on their complexity. While the second case was resolved in a short amount of time, highlighting how the triage system and strong collaboration with suppliers can lead to swift fixes, the first case required a deeper investigation.
Furthermore, the first case demonstrates how the integration of amfori Speak for Change with amfori BSCI enables more informed responses to social issues. By leveraging audit findings and coordinating with auditors, our case handlers can handle grievances more efficiently and guide resolution efforts with greater precision.
That case also reveals a missed opportunity. Had the linked members reviewed the full amfori BSCI report, they might have spotted early warning signs and acted proactively. This could have potentially prevented the grievance altogether. Grievance handling is not only more resource-intensive, but in more serious cases, issues can escalate, causing supply chain disruptions and/or posing significant reputational risks.
And this isn’t an isolated case. The majority of amfori Speak for Change cases reveal that early signs of social risks were present in the audit findings. It is therefore important to look beyond the rating, even when a factory receives an A or a B. This highlights how valuable these reports can be when fully reviewed and acted upon in time. For example, via the Continuous Improvement feature on the amfori Sustainability Platform.
How to detect those early signs in audit reports? Review the findings related to the performance areas that you have flagged as high risk, either through your own assessments or tools like amfori ESG Risk Compass. This will help you adopt a more proactive and informed strategy to tackle risks in your supply chain.
For more information about amfori Speak for Change, please contact speakforchange@amfori.org.