Her expertise is grounded in real-world experience, from factory floors to boardroom decision-making. She has visited more than 500 workplaces across global supply chains, engaging with thousands of factory managers and even more workers and rights-holders. 

Anna has recently rejoined Impactt after a ten-year hiatus. During her first tenure, she played an important role in shaping some of its most influential early work. 

In this Q&A, Anna shares her journey into ethical trade and human rights, delves into what she has learned from two decades at the forefront of human rights consultancy, and explains what clients can expect from her now that she’s back at Impactt. 

How did you get into ethical trade and human rights? 

My journey started in textile engineering. My academic research focused on sustainable and environmentally friendly production methods in the textile industry – well before sustainability became a mainstream business priority. 

After my PhD, I began my career at Nike as a material developer. I later moved into roles with major brands, including Marks & Spencer. It was during my time as Ethical Trading Manager at Marks & Spencer that I realised how much I cared about improving the lives of workers in global supply chains. 

I was lucky enough to work with Impactt as a client. I was struck by their leadership and their ability to identify and remediate risks and impacts that others simply couldn’t. Inspired by that approach, I later joined Impactt as Business and Innovations Manager, working closely with founder Rosey Hurst. 

Together, we developed several initiatives, including Benefits for Business and Workers (BBW), which later evolved into Impactt’s RESTART workplace transformation programme. At the time, our work on living wages and purchasing practices was pioneering within the ethical trade space, and still is today! 

What did you do after Impactt, and what shaped your approach? 

I founded my own consultancy, advising companies including Walmart and Sedex on strengthening their approaches to responsible business and ethical trade. I later joined twentyfifty, where I worked with global companies such as Airbus, BAT, Mars, and many more.  

The single most important thing that has shaped my approach has been time spent on the ground – visiting workplaces across the globe and engaging directly with workers and managers. This is what allows me to bring realism, credibility, and practicality to human rights due diligence (HRDD). Real credibility when speaking to the most senior global business leaders.  

Why did you return to Impactt? 

I believe Impactt is still unique in the human rights consulting space – especially because of its deep experience working directly with workplaces and workers. 

Impactt has 28+ years of on-the-ground experience. In that time, it has developed tried-and-tested methodologies and programmes that remain highly relevant today. 

Just as important is the depth of worker and workplace data the organisation has gathered over three decades. That foundation creates huge potential to build on what already works and create even greater impact. 

I also bring a personal connection as the daughter of a factory worker. That background shapes how I approach my work and why it matters to me, which aligns with Impactt’s core mission. 

What can clients expect now you’re back at Impactt? 

Businesses I talk to often feel overwhelmed by complex international frameworks and legislation and heavy technical jargon from my peers. My role is to help companies understand what they mean in practice, so they can clearly see what needs to change within their business to protect human rights and take practical steps forward. 

For example, we are getting a lot of questions from businesses about the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States. We help companies interpret these legal requirements and translate them into clear, practical actions for the business. 

In addition, more companies are realising that policies and tick-box audits alone can’t uncover the most serious human rights risks. 

Impactt’s approach recognises that effective human rights due diligence (HRDD) starts with diagnosing the risks a business faces: understanding the most significant impacts, prioritising them, and then focusing on meaningful solutions, rather than trying to fix everything at once. 

Because I’ve also been a client, I put a lot of emphasis on quality and practicality. It’s about turning insights into logical, practical next steps that strengthen business resilience and improve conditions for workers across supply chains.  

All of which can deliver value to a business’s bottom line – through employee satisfaction that improves productivity and enhanced brand reputation that can positively affect a company’s share price. 

What are the key shifts you’re seeing in the human rights and ethical trade landscape? 

Expectations on business have changed significantly. In the past, companies could claim they simply didn’t know what was happening across their value chain. Today, that’s no longer considered an acceptable defence.  

While recent European regulatory developments (Omnibus) are moving in the wrong direction, legislation is always evolving. As global legislation is grounded in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights the direction of travel will, in the long term, seek to protect human rights. 

There is therefore a real opportunity to get ahead of HRDD legislation, rather than rushing when regulation tightens. A deliberate, strategic approach is often much more cost-effective than a knee-jerk reaction once new legislation lands. 

Companies that are proactive and get on the front foot with HRDD, rather than waiting for legislation before they act, are seeing the benefits of future-proofing their business.  

Additionally, a robust HRDD and ethical trading policy is something that consumers are increasingly looking for. We work with many clients that use it as a differentiator to win market share. Consumers care about a product’s provenance – be it food, fashion, or even energy. 

Get in touch with Anna, at anna@impacttlimited.com.  

The post Bringing clarity and real-world insight to complex supply chains: Spotlight on Anna Harvey  appeared first on Impactt.

In response, Wage Management Systems (WMS) are increasingly recognised as a practical way to strengthen how wages are governed within supply chains. Rather than relying on isolated initiatives or short‑term fixes, WMS focuses on building the underlying systems that enable wages to be calculated, monitored and adjusted in a consistent and transparent way. 

Drawing on Impactt’s experience supporting the implementation of the WMS pilot throughout 2023-2025, in collaboration with 3 global brands from the garments sector, alongside wider discussions with brands within the garments and footwear industries exploring adoption, this article reflects on what is helping (and hindering) progress. It examines the key barriers brands encounter, why expectations of rapid impact can be misplaced, and how more deliberate sequencing and collaboration can create the conditions for sustainable improvement. 

What is a Wage Management System (WMS)? 

A Wage Management System (WMS) refers to the set of policies, processes, data, and management practices that enable factories and brands to understand, calculate, track, and manage wages accurately, transparently, and consistently over time. This includes visibility of wage structures, legal requirements, working hours and key cost drivers that influence wage outcomes.  

Crucially, WMS is not designed to deliver one‑off wage increases. Instead, it enables wages to be managed as a system, strengthening foundations so that change can be planned, understood and sustained. By improving data quality and transparency, WMS helps distinguish between legal compliance and genuine wage progression, supporting more informed decision‑making in different country and business contexts. 

1. Barriers: uncertainty, causality and cost pressures 

One message that emerges consistently from brand discussions is that there is no guaranteed “wow moment” to impress internal or external stakeholders with when it comes to WMS. Progress looks very different depending on country context, wage‑setting mechanisms, factory maturity and broader commercial pressures. 

Wage outcomes are shaped by multiple, overlapping factors rather than single interventions. Economic variables such as inflation, labour supply and statutory wage reviews all play a role. In countries such as India, for example, legally mandated wage increases set a shifting baseline, with any additional progression sitting on top of those regulatory changes. WMS helps bring clarity to this complexity by enabling brands and factories to see what is driven by compliance and what reflects real improvement, or wage progression. 

Where suppliers are not meeting statutory wage requirements it is difficult to create a level playing field from which it’s possible to adopt WMS meaningfully. Legal compliance therefore needs to be the entry point for participation in WMS. Without this clear baseline, it is hard to create the conditions for fair competition or sustained progress within a price‑sensitive market. 

2. Overcoming barriers: building from the base up 

Previous experience with WMS confirms that attempting to improve wage outcomes without strengthening underlying systems first often creates new risks. Where foundational elements such as wage structures, payroll records or HR processes are weak or unclear, premature interventions can lead to inconsistency, confusion and loss of trust between workers, management and buyers.   

For this reason, brands increasingly frame WMS adoption as a question of sequencing and readiness rather than immediate results. In factories lacking foundational systems, the right starting question is not “how do we raise wages?” but “how do we build the systems that make improvement possible?”  

WMS supports this process by strengthening understanding of wage components, improving record‑keeping and enabling more realistic and informed planning for progression. This creates a more stable basis for planning and reduces reliance on ad‑hoc adjustments that may be difficult to sustain.  

Local context also plays a critical role. In Vietnam, for example, labour shortages mean wages are closely linked to worker attraction and retention. In such settings, WMS functions not only as a compliance tool but as a strategic business mechanism, helping factories manage workforce stability and sustainability in a tight labour market, while responding to buyer expectations. 

Importantly, in Impactt’s experience what we see is that the alternative to robust wage management is not neutral. Weak or absent systems leave brands reactive, factories exposed and workers more vulnerable to cost‑of‑living shocks. Seen in this light, investment in WMS is less about ambition and more about resilience. 

3. Creating leverage: with suppliers and internally 

A recurring question for brands is how to build meaningful leverage to encourage supplier adoption of WMS, particularly where they are not the dominant buyer and where there are tight margins. 

Discussions highlighted that leverage is not defined solely by production volume, but how WMS is framed, and the clarity of the value proposition for suppliers, plays a significant role. Participation is more likely where expectations are transparent and implementation is experienced as supportive rather than punitive or top-down. 

Crucially, supplier leverage does not need to sit with individual buyers alone. Where multiple brands sourcing from the same suppliers align their expectations around WMS, implementation shifts from being perceived as a competitive disadvantage to an emerging industry norm. In this context, WMS becomes less about responding to individual buyer requests and more about meeting a shared baseline of responsible practice or expected industry norm. Collective signals of intent, therefore, can normalise WMS, positioning it as ‘business as usual’ rather than an unusual, optional request.  

Cost pressure, supplier resistance and internal alignment, are difficult constraints to address in isolation, which points to the importance of greater coordination across buyers in an industry-wide effort to drive improvements. Structured approaches, shaped through a memorandum of understanding (MOU), can help brands align on principles, sequencing and learning while protecting commercially sensitive information. This type of coordination supports progress at scale without requiring uniform commercial strategies.  

In conclusion, if one thing is clear from Impactt’s experience and discussions, it is that progress on WMS implementation does not depend on certainty or perfect conditions. Brands engaged in this work recognise that wage outcomes are shaped by complex, shifting factors, and that meaningful improvement depends first on strengthening the systems that support them. 

Approached in this way, WMS is less about short‑term gains and more about building organisational capability and resilience, for brands, factories and workers alike. Where expectations are aligned across buyers and implementation is collaborative, WMS is more likely to be seen not as an additional burden, but as a shared and increasingly normative way of working and pave the way towards responsible and resilient supply chains. 

As scrutiny intensifies and cost pressures persist, the question facing brands is no longer whether wage management matters, but how deliberately, and collectively, they choose to invest in the systems that make long‑term progress possible. 

Collaboration is crucial to overcoming barriers that no brand can tackle alone. In this context, WMS becomes less about commercial ambition, and more about building resilience.  

In short, WMS offers a practical way for brands to move forward, not by promising immediate answers but by building the capability to respond, and act, collaboratively and responsibly. Over time, greater alignment around wage management will help build clearer signals of good practise across the industry, reinforcing trust with suppliers, regulators, and investors. And, ultimately, consumers too.   

For more information, please email info@impacttlimited.com to speak to an expert on WMS.

The post Wage Management Systems (WMS) in Footwear and Garments: Overcoming barriers and unlocking leverage  appeared first on Impactt.

Yet serious human rights risks still surface late, or only after harm has already occurred. Forced labour, harassment, coercion and abuse can remain hidden even in supply chains that appear strong on paper.

The issue is rarely a lack of intent. More often, it is a reliance on tools that were never designed to do what human rights due diligence (HRDD) now requires.

Audits are an important tool, but they are not a due diligence system. In this article, we explain how to take your HRDD to the next level, and why in 2026, “we didn’t know” is no longer a defensible position.

The limits of assurance

Audits play a valuable role in establishing baseline compliance and identifying clear non‑conformances. But they have limits. They assess compliance at a moment in time, rarely surface severe harm or systemic drivers of risk, and do not show whether risks are reducing in practice.

As expectations from regulators, investors and stakeholders continue to rise, this distinction matters. Organisations are increasingly judged not on whether they have systems in place, but on whether those systems are effective.

A different way to think about assessments

At Impactt, we see assessments not as a compliance exercise, but as a decision‑making tool.

Effective HRDD requires organisations to identify salient risks based on severity to people, understand actual impacts (not just policy gaps), prioritise action based on risk exposure, and demonstrate whether those actions are working over time.

This means moving beyond generic assurance towards risk‑led, worker‑centred insight, grounded in real working conditions and lived experience.

What Impactt’s assessments actually involve

Across all our assessment work, from rapid diagnostics to full Human Rights Impact Assessments, we apply the same core approach:

• Severity‑based risk prioritisation, grounded in international standards
• Direct worker engagement, to surface realities that desk‑based reviews and audits miss
• Root‑cause analysis, not just symptoms or non‑conformances
• System‑focused insight, linking findings directly to governance, decision‑making and action

The difference is not the methodology, but how deep and how fast we go, depending on risk, exposure and the decisions that need to be made.

In practice, this approach consistently surfaces materially different findings.

Independent comparative research has shown that Impactt’s assessments identify over twice as many issues on average (2.3×) as traditional audit‑led approaches at the same sites and up to three times more issues in higher‑severity areas, including forced labour indicators, coercion, harassment and discriminatory or abusive treatment.

These are precisely the risks that are least likely to be detected through documentation reviews or short, compliance‑led site visits — and most critical for effective HRDD.

Rapid diagnostics: clarity when speed matters

In many situations, organisations do not need, or are not ready for, a full Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). What they need first is clarity.

Impactt’s rapid diagnostics apply the same methodology as our deeper assessments but are designed to move faster and focus on what matters most. They combine targeted worker engagement with a focused review of systems and practices to understand where risk really sits, why, and what to do next.

They are typically used where risk exposure is unclear or uneven; audits have stalled decision‑making; regulatory, investor or reputational pressure is increasing; or leadership teams need credible evidence to act.

Rapid diagnostics are not a shortcut, and they do not replace a full HRIA where risk is severe. Instead, they provide decision‑ready insight — enough clarity to prioritise action with confidence.

Every engagement is bespoke. You bring what you know and what you need — we help bridge the gap.

From assurance to evidence

HRRD is no longer judged on activity alone. Organisations are increasingly expected to show that risks are being identified, prioritised appropriately, and reduced over time.

If audits are no longer giving you the answers you need, we can help.

Talk to us about where risk is uncertain, where decisions feel stuck, or where clearer evidence is needed to move forward — and we’ll help you work out where to start.

Get in touch with Robin Bishop, at robin@impacttlimited.com, to discuss your needs.

The post Why “we didn’t know” is no longer enough: how to truly move the dial on HRDD appeared first on Impactt.

With ongoing uncertainty across the Middle East and Gulf, some companies are pausing efforts to address the significant risks faced by workers in the region. While prioritising immediate staff safety amid active conflict is understandable, there is a real danger that attention to vulnerable workers, particularly migrant workers, who are often the last to receive support, will fall further down the agenda. 

This is especially concerning given the structural vulnerabilities migrant workers face in Gulf labour markets: 

• Dependence on employers for visas, housing and wages 

• Limited freedom to change employment 

• Recruitment fee debts that heighten coercion risks 

• Limited access to grievance channels and information in their own languages 

• Disruption of remittances that support families at home 

Periods of instability tend to increase these risks, not reduce them. 

A pause in physical operations does not mean HRDD should stop.  

Even when on‑the‑ground activity is restricted, companies can, and should, continue much of their human rights work. 

What can we learn from the pandemic?  

The Covid‑19 pandemic proved that physical access is not a prerequisite for impact. 

Across 2020–2022, Impactt worked with clients in the Gulf, South Asia and Southeast Asia to maintain progress by: 

• Running remote worker interviews in multiple languages through secure phone and messaging platforms 

• Delivering virtual supplier capacity‑building, including supervisor briefings and labour‑rights training 

• Conducting remote recruitment fee remediation, reviewing payment records and verifying repayments digitally 

• Mapping subcontractor risks using remote documentation review and WhatsApp‑based worker engagement 

• Monitoring working‑hours trends and wage practices using payroll data shared electronically 

These methods were not second‑best alternatives, they were effective tools for maintaining visibility and mitigating risk when physical oversight was impossible. 

The lesson remains relevant today; do not let reduced access become reduced action. 

Why continued engagement matters now 

In conflict‑affected contexts, the risks to workers do not disappear, they often intensify: 

• Wage delays and non‑payment increase as businesses struggle 

• Workers’ mobility becomes further restricted 

• Recruitment agents may exploit the uncertainty to charge higher fees 

• Mental health pressures rise as workers face separation, fear, and instability 

• Grievance mechanisms become harder to access or slower to respond 

This is a phenomenon we witnessed as we supported medical glove manufacturer, Top Glove during the pandemic, where rising demand for PPE, restriction of movement to contain the spread of the virus, and the cessation of in-person audits exacerbated the long-standing human rights risks. 

Maintaining even minimal, remote channels of engagement can prevent these issues escalating. 

Don’t let disruption undermine progress 

Periods of disruption can undermine months, and even years, of HRDD progress. 

Companies that stay engaged—remotely or otherwise—recover faster when conditions stabilise. 

Now is the time to: 

• Keep suppliers informed and connected 

• Review existing risk assessments and update them for the current context 

• Plan for the phased return of on‑site assessments 

• Identify lessons learned from earlier work and carry them forward 

• Ensure continuity of recruitment‑fee repayment programmes 

• Maintain open communication with workers in their languages 

Proactive planning now avoids a prolonged slowdown later. 

Impactt’s role in supporting companies through crisis 

At Impactt, we continue to support companies and suppliers across the Gulf and wider region before, during and after periods of crisis. Our experience delivering remote HRDD, worker engagement and remediation during Covid-19 means we can help organisations: 

• Maintain progress when movement is restricted 

• Reach workers directly, even when physical access is limited 

• Monitor priority risks 

• Strengthen systems so they remain functional in volatile environments 

We would be glad to discuss how to maintain momentum, protect vulnerable workers, and prepare for a stronger restart in these challenging conditions. 

Get in touch with Patrick at patrick@impacttlimited.com to discuss further.  

The post Human Rights Due Diligence, in a Time of Conflict  appeared first on Impactt.

This year, Impactt’s Principal Consultant and Sector Lead for Garments and Manufacturing, Raquel Fisch attended the event in Paris, along with Senior Consultant, Nicola Spruyt.

Together with a group of clients, they presented on a side session focused on how Wage Management Systems and factory-level interventions can deliver real improvements for workers, and how industry collaboration can help scale impact across the sector.

In this article, Raquel and Nicola discuss the top three recurring themes from the Forum, from sessions and direct conversations with leaders in the field.

Theme 1: Wages & Purchasing Practices

A number of discussions at the Forum focused on wages as a topic, with strong interest from brands in Wage Management Systems (WMS).

Increasingly, brands are aiming for living wages for workers, going beyond minimum wages, signalling a shift in the sector. Questions in Raquel and Nicola’s side session on this issue circled around the how.

For many brands looking to achieve living wage for workers, data is a key challenge.  Many brands do not systematically collect wage-related data at the factory level, making it difficult to assess wage gaps or evaluate the effectiveness of WMS from suppliers. Without reliable and consistent data, measuring progress and identifying areas for improvement becomes significantly more challenging.

Capability at the factory level also emerged as an important factor. Brands noted that many factories have limited knowledge, time, and capacity to build and manage a strong WMS, which can affect how effectively these systems are implemented in practice.

Purchasing practices are a crucial link to both working towards fairer wages for workers and greater commercial stability.

Despite brands’ efforts to improve purchasing practices, workers often see limited benefits from that. This highlights the need to connect purchasing commitments to collective bargaining and the operationalisation of the 2024 ILO conclusions on wage setting in global supply chains.

If the price a brand pays a supplier is insufficient, the pressure can be pushed onto the workers in the form of excessive overtime, intensified production pressure, and unauthorised subcontracting, which requires remedy in the present and mitigation in the future.

There are ways for brands to create space for fairer wage payments, including adjusting their pricing structures and negotiation models.

Theme 2: Just Transition

Climate change and human rights have often been addressed in silos, but at this year’s OECD Forum, many participants raised concerns around the lack of worker voice in discussions on the green transition, and emphasising the need for joined-up thinking across environmental and human rights teams.

After record heatwaves in 2025, there is increasing concern about the direct impacts of climate change on workers.

The effect of heat is particularly concerning. In Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s 2025 report The Missing Thread, only ten out of 65 leading fashion brands acknowledged heat stress as an occupational health issue in their policies.

Brands, suppliers and workers need guidance on how to navigate this emerging challenge, among the others that ethical trade teams are trying to juggle. Ultimately, climate first strategies that don’t involve workers mean they end up bearing the cost and having to mitigate the risks themselves.

It’s important to remember that we don’t have to start from scratch when tackling this issue: we can embed sustainability into the Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) cycle by incorporating it into existing tools like worker interviews, risk assessments and audits.

One example is the HREIA – Human Rights and Environmental Impact Assessment – which deliberately bridges environmental and human rights due diligence. HREIAs help companies understand how environmental issues, such as industrial water pollution, can directly affect people, for example, communities’ access to clean water. When thinking about a just transition this kind of approach is essential to ensure that environmental progress doesn’t come at the expense of workers or surrounding communities.

When it comes to solutions, long-term sourcing partnerships with suppliers are a core component of operationalising the just transition. Social dialogue, or workplaces with unionised workforces, have benefits for the resilience of the supply chain and sector. This is marked as a key principle in the ILO’s Guidelines for Just Transition.

Finally, this is another opportunity for brands to work together to harmonise expectations and roll out solutions operationally.

Theme 3: Supplier Voice

There was a notable shift at this year’s OECD Forum with an growing number  of suppliers and factory owners actively participating as speakers.

Suppliers are often the ones facing expectations and commercial pressure from brands. Suppliers at the Forum spoke about the desire for  greater ownership of HRDD processes,  rather than experiencing them solely as top-down requirements.

Inclusion of supplier voice in HRDD can also reveal gaps that brands may not see, such as operational hurdles, resource constraints, competing demands from multiple clients. A key insight from the panel, Supply chains 4.0: Due diligence implications of e-commerce-driven business model, was the recognition that HRDD is ultimately a shared responsibility, and that brands cannot effectively respond to  incoming regulations, or international good practice, without meaningful collaboration with suppliers.

One of the highlights of our own side session on wage management was hearing from a participating supplier from the pilot, who shared the impacts that the programme had on-the-ground at a factory level.

So many risks only become clear when we work closely with suppliers to understand root causes — not just what’s written in policies or audit reports, but the real operational constraints behind them.

That’s why Supplier Improvement Programmes are so powerful: they shift the relationship from compliance to genuine collaboration, helping suppliers build the systems, capability and confidence needed to prevent harm and drive lasting change.

In conclusion, workers remain at the core of the agenda. Brands are looking to go above and beyond, seeking fairer wages for workers, but face operational blockers in implementing these changes.

The just transition was also a key topic, with many concerned about how worker voices are being left of out from the conversation. While the majority are of the consensus that the inclusion of worker voice will support a sustainable transition, the practicalities of making it happen are ongoing.

Finally, suppliers were platformed for their on-the-ground knowledge and experience enacting change at the factory level. Their contributions to the Forum were hugely valuable, offering insights that brands can miss on the factory floor.

If you’d like to explore any of these themes further, contact Principal Consultant and Sector Lead of Garment and Manufacturing, Raquel Fisch at raquel@impacttlimited.com.

The post What is Changing in Responsible Sourcing? Themes from the OECD Forum on Due Diligence in the Footwear and Garment Sector appeared first on Impactt.

This highlights a fundamental challenge. The very programmes that we hope will improve worker wellbeing and mitigate risk may be behaviourally ineffective, ultimately worsening conditions and creating new risks. 

In this blog, Raquel Fisch, Principal Consultant at Impactt and RESTART facilitator and Farhana Ellen, a Senior Consultant and RESTART practitioner, discuss the research findings and reflect on how RESTART manages to close the gap between policies and practices, shifting behaviours and creating the conditions for safe and respectful workplaces.  

What are the negative consequences that workplace reforms can create, and why do these arise, even when reforms are grounded in the best intentions?  

There are two main unintended consequences to highlight, which are very common in practice. That is, (1) sending mixed messages to suppliers, and (2) what is known as economic “rents”.  

1. Mixed messages to suppliers: Interventions justified by a business case can lead to the expectation of larger productivity increases. This often results in increased production targets before any positive effects are realised, causing workers to work harder and managers to become disappointed when expected gains do not materialise. 
    

2. Vulnerability to economic “rents”: When interventions target a subgroup within a workplace, those jobs become more desirable. Supervisors may exploit this by demanding workers share their benefits, not necessarily financially but sometimes through intimate contact, making workers vulnerable.
   

In summary, workplace reforms can shift expectations, increase pressure, and even create opportunities for supervisors to extract “rent” in ways that leave workers more exposed. 

It seems that human dynamics, such as empowerment, belonging and everyday interactions, play a critical role in the success of interventions. Why are these human dynamics so important?  

Policies can set expectations, but it’s daily behaviour that determines reality.  

When supervisors are under pressure, they can start to see workers as units of production rather than individuals, and workers often feel disempowered or afraid to speak up. This combination creates silence, miscommunication, and vulnerability. But when people feel a sense of belonging and empowerment, everything shifts: psychological safety rises, trust grows, and problems get solved earlier.  

These human dynamics are what sit beneath harassment, discrimination, and conflict or, on the other hand, respect, communication, and safety. Culture is the operating system that makes or breaks any workplace reform. 

Can you explain exactly what RESTART is, and how it addresses these complex dynamics?    

RESTART is a behaviour-change intervention based on social psychology. It is a session designed to address underlying attitudes, relationships, and power dynamics, and tackle issues such as harassment, discrimination and communication breakdowns.  

It helps organisations close the gap between policies and practices, ultimately creating the conditions for safe and respectful workplaces. 

What did the Tufts research find, when studying RESTART across workplaces?  

The main research questions focused on the impact of RESTART on workplace wellbeing and the attributes that predispose workplaces to sexual harassment. 

The study looked at RESTART as a pre-treatment and found strong improvements in these attributes.  

Significant improvements were observed in factors related to workplace vulnerability, such as power difference and dehumanisation. 

In our RESTART whitepaper, we used the analogy of a ladder to explain the results.  

Supervisors are higher on the ladder than workers, but the critical factor in determining workplace culture is the distance between them. The larger the gap, the greater risk of abusive practices, whereas reforms that narrow this gap improve culture.  

In the independent test carried out by Tufts, supervisors saw themselves as rising 0.5 rungs higher on the ladder. However, they saw their workers as rising double this amount, with the effect deepening further in the months beyond.  

In the inoculation test: there was no effect on supervisor perceptions of themselves, but they perceived workers as moving up by one rung on the power ladder. 

Workplace improvements from the worker surveys were realised across the board, in both tests, measured on a 5 pt Likert scale. Most notably:  

This clearly has the potential to be transformative. How can businesses carrying out RESTART ensure the changes are sustainable?  

The changes are sustainable if there is a change in tone at the top. To ensure genuine long-term change, top management buy-in to whatever commitments come out of the RESTART sessions as part of the ‘code of conduct’ is needed.  

Management should take things seriously, embed elements of the expectations to managers/supervisors, lead by example, make room (and maybe budget) for things that foster a strong culture: get-togethers, trainings, rewards, etc.  

When there is this strategic shift, then change is lasting, and the business can experience improved business performance.  

Did the research uncover what roles unions play? Does RESTART strengthen or undermine them? 

The interaction between unions and RESTART is actually pretty important.  

One of the questions in Tufts’ research explored whether RESTART made workers more comfortable seeking help or raising concerns. Turning to the union was one of the options workers could choose. Interestingly, the data did not show a treatment effect on seeking help from the union. What we did see was a clear treatment effect on seeking help from the HR manager.  

This suggests that RESTART strengthens trust and approachability within the workplace itself, making HR a more credible and accessible channel for workers. It does not displace or diminish the role of unions, but rather improves the internal relationships that matter for day-to-day wellbeing, problem solving and early resolution. 

What about if a workplace is already rolling out supervisor training or productivity reforms, can RESTART still be introduced — and if so, what’s the best sequencing? 

When reforms are already underway, RESTART simply becomes a reset moment, arecalibration. We pause, check in with people, listen to what’s really happening on the ground, and rebuild the trust and psychological safety that help the reforms land well. 

Then we pick the technical work back up — but with stronger relationships, clearer voice, and a much better chance of real, lasting change. 

So yes: RESTART fits easily, and it makes everything that follows more grounded and more effective. 

This is all fascinating, but what about the business case?  

Any reform can backfire when the culture isn’t ready. Tufts found increased pressure, silence, and vulnerability when respect and trust weren’t in place. 

RESTART builds the foundations first: trust, clarity, voice, empathy, and accountability. 

When people feel safe and respected, absenteeism drops, communication improves, and teams become more stable. 

Stable teams lead to more predictable performance and therefore sustainable productivity gains. 

And this matters to brands because without cultural readiness, the investment they make in capacity-building and productivity reforms can be wasted. Instead of reducing HRDD risk, it can actually increase it. RESTART helps ensure those investments deliver performance and genuine risk mitigation. 

Simply put, wellbeing reduces risk and makes productivity reforms work. 

For example, Tufts found that following RESTART, the factory experienced: 

• 52% increase in productivity in the months following  

• Increased output efficiency by 28% 

• Absenteeism fell by 0.6 days per worker per month 

Culture is clearly decisive. Not soft, but structural. It shapes risk, stability, and performance in ways that policies alone can’t reach. 

The Tufts research makes the business case crystal clear: when trust, respect, and accountability improve, workplaces become safer, teams become more stable, and performance becomes more predictable. Every other investment, training, productivity tools, HRDD reforms, work better when culture comes first. 

RESTART demonstrates that treating people with dignity isn’t just ethical, it is operationally transformative. 

Watch the full webinar here.

Download the full report here.

The post Why Workplace Reforms Fail, and How RESTART Gets it Right appeared first on Impactt.

These situations are commonly triggered by whistle-blowers, media investigations, NGOs, or critical audit findings. For many organisations, this may be the first time they are required to respond under intense scrutiny, while balancing legal risk, operational disruption, and the urgent need to protect workers. 

In moments like these, companies need more than an assessment or a checklist. They need calm, experienced support that helps them understand what has happened, respond responsibly, and move forward with confidence. 

The spectrum of labour and human rights crises 

Labour and human rights crises exist along a broad spectrum, varying in both severity and impact. At one end are issues that, while serious, may initially surface through audit findings, worker complaints, or NGO engagement. These can include recruitment fees, unpaid wages, excessive working hours, child labour, worker protests, or gender-based violence and harassment. When identified early and addressed credibly, many of these issues can be resolved before they escalate. 

At the other end of the spectrum are situations of the highest severity and scrutiny. These include regulatory enforcement actions such as Withhold Release Orders, where authorities may detain goods on the basis that they have been produced using forced labour. These cases typically arise where risks are systemic, unresolved, or highly visible, and they represent the most demanding test of a company’s human rights due diligence and crisis response. 

How a company responds, at any point along this spectrum, can determine not only regulatory outcomes, but long-term trust with workers, regulators, and other stakeholders. 

Responding well in a crisis 

In any crisis situation, speed and rigour matter. The priorities are decisive action, credibility with regulators and stakeholders, and protection of workers. 

Effective response requires a clear sequence of steps: rapid mobilisation, a rigorous understanding of root causes, practical and credible remediation, and sustained follow-through to prevent recurrence. This is not simply about managing risk. It is about demonstrating accountability and ensuring that affected workers experience meaningful and lasting change. 

When scrutiny is at its highest 

At the most extreme end of the spectrum, Withhold Release Orders represent the highest level of regulatory scrutiny a company can face. Issued by US Customs and Border Protection, a WRO allows authorities to detain goods where there is reason to believe they have been produced using forced labour. 

While WROs remain relatively rare, their consequences can be severe. Companies may face detained shipments, significant financial losses, supply chain disruption, damaged relationships with regulators, and long-term reputational harm. Responding effectively in these circumstances requires highly specialised expertise, deep regulatory understanding, and the ability to deliver credible, worker-centred remediation under intense scrutiny. 

Impactt’s leadership in WRO response and remediation 

Impactt is widely recognised as a leader in supporting companies through Withhold Release Orders and other high-risk forced labour enforcement actions. 

We have worked with multiple organisations subject to WROs, supporting them through investigation, remediation, and engagement with regulators, including cases that have resulted in the modification or lifting of enforcement actions. Our approach is grounded in deep technical expertise, extensive on-the-ground experience, and a clear understanding of regulatory expectations. 

Importantly, Impactt’s work goes beyond compliance. We focus on credible, worker-centred remediation that stands up to scrutiny from regulators, governments, and civil society, while helping companies rebuild trust and strengthen their systems for the long term. 

Proof in practice: Top Glove 

Impactt’s work with Top Glove is featured by the United States Department of Labor as a best practice case example within its WRO information resources. 

Following allegations of forced labour and the issuance of a WRO, Impactt worked closely with Top Glove over a 13-month period to investigate root causes and support credible remediation. This resulted in more than USD 36 million in remediation payments to over 12,000 migrant workers, alongside systemic improvements to worker accommodation and grievance mechanisms. 

The US Department of Labor cited the transparency and effectiveness of this remediation as instrumental in addressing the identified forced labour risks. 

Facing a serious labour allegation or a WRO? 

Impactt has supported organisations across multiple sectors to respond to labour and human rights crises, including some of the most complex WRO cases globally. With more than 28 years of experience, we help companies move from crisis to credible, worker-centred remediation with confidence and care. 

The post Lessons from High-Stakes Labour and Human Rights Allegations  appeared first on Impactt.

The report found that productivity interventions like supervisor training or incentive pay can increase harassment — but RESTART prevents this effect entirely, identifying that it acts as a cultural “inoculation,” resetting norms and expectations before reforms take place. As a result, workers became calmer, less depressed and less sick, resulting in safer and more respectful workplaces.

Download the study to read more about the findings.

By submitting this form, you agree to receive communications related to this report. Your details will be used solely for this purpose and in accordance with our privacy policy.

The post RESTART: Strengthening Business by Protecting Workers appeared first on Impactt.

From retail and energy to food, travel, and manufacturing, participants described how global turbulence is filtering down through their supply chains, reshaping orders, costs, and the day-to-day reality for workers. Despite the differences across sectors, one message was consistent: this period of disruption is exposing weaknesses but rewarding companies that stay close to suppliers and keep listening to workers.

The pressure is macro. The impact is human.

Supply chain management teams across markets have told our regional leaders that they are facing smaller, and more volatile orders with shorter lead times. Workers feel it first, through excessive or lost overtime, delayed wages, unpredictable shifts, and rising stress.

At the same time, they reported that compliance expectations are climbing. New due-diligence rules, reporting demands, and audit layers are all adding cost. Yet, buyers still expect suppliers to cut prices. The result is a growing squeeze, with suppliers being asked to invest in better systems and standards while earning less per unit.

In response, many shared they are turning to flexible or temporary labour and cutting costs wherever they can just to stay afloat. A factory manager in South Asia said:

We met every new audit ask and were still asked to cut price 10–15%,”

One global apparel brand reflected that their teams are,

having to justify every pound spent on responsible sourcing when the wider message is all about cost control.”

Another added,

We’re choosing to hold steady with our core suppliers rather than chase cheaper options — the relationships we protect now will be the ones that carry us through.”

China: the human face of “supply-chain shift”

Two themes dominated the conversation when it came to China: supply-chain shift and uncertainty. For Chinese factories, “de-risking” isn’t a strategy on paper — it’s a lived reality, reshaping jobs, relationships, and livelihoods every day. As foreign investment slows (down nearly 27% in 2024) and brands move portions of production elsewhere, many export-focused sites face shorter, smaller, less predictable orders. As our China leader told participants, one factory worker summed up the feeling on the ground:

Every time a brand leaves, a piece of our future goes with it.”

Paycheques tell the same story. While official wages have inched up, real incomes now depend heavily on overtime, often 40–50% of total pay. When orders fall and overtime disappears, take-home earnings can drop 10–15% overnight, widening the gap to a living wage.

If I don’t get overtime, my income drops 30–40%,” a worker in a Chinese shipyard told one of our teams recently.

Across manufacturing hubs, overcapacity and falling prices have squeezed margins to breaking point. As one supplier put it,

We’re not competing for profit anymore, we’re competing to survive.”

Many are keeping operations quiet, waiting for the market to turn, but the stress is visible in shorter contracts, uncertain hours, and rising anxiety on factory floors.

Automation adds another layer. In Zhejiang and Guangdong, factories are upgrading fast, but reskilling has not kept pace. Skilled technicians are in short supply and increasingly valued, and lower-skilled production workers are anxious. One team leader put it simply:

I still have a job, but I don’t know for how long.”

The lesson for buyers is clear: automation should be managed as a transition, not an instant replacement. Investing in suppliers’ HR and skills capability now will safeguard quality and capacity and preserve the trust and workforce resilience that underpin sustainable change.

Bangladesh: squeezed by shrinking margins

If China’s story is one of uncertainty, Bangladesh’s is one of pressure without protection. For years, the country has been a model for responsible sourcing progress, but in 2024 that progress came under strain. Factories are facing overlapping global shocks: price inflation, election-related unrest, and tightening buyer demands, all against a backdrop of static order prices.

Minimum wages rose to BDT 12,500 (around USD 105), but living costs have soared to nearly four times that level. As one sewing operator told our team:

Yes, my salary went up  but my production target went up too.”

Workers are earning more on paper but often feeling poorer in practice. As our Bangladesh leader explained, by the time food, rent, and oil are paid for, many workers are skipping meals just to get by.

He also described how, for many factories, the gap between compliance and survival is widening. Buyers are asking for more disclosure, more reporting, more audits but prices haven’t moved

It’s an impossible equation. When compliance costs rise but prices fall, something has to give and it’s usually the worker. Protests over pay and layoffs are more frequent, and in some zones shipments have been delayed by political tension and road blockades. Workers say their biggest fear isn’t losing their job but unpredictability. One line supervisor put it simply:

Every year, it feels like our jobs are on the line.”

Automation and migration are reshaping the workforce in Bangladesh too. New cutting machines are arriving, but training lags behind. At the same time, thousands of migrant workers are returning from overseas with no jobs to come home to, adding further stress to households already stretched by inflation.

Yet resilience runs deep. Some suppliers are taking proactive steps, improving wage systems, piloting worker-welfare initiatives, and strengthening communication with worker representatives. These efforts need sustained support, not just more audits.

For buyers, the challenge is balancing ambition with affordability, finding ways to share compliance costs, invest in people, and keep worker voice alive without pushing factories past breaking point.

India: growth ambitions under strain

While global turbulence has created uncertainty, India still stands out as one of the fastest-growing major economies. Government reforms and production-linked incentives under the Make in India programme are generating investment and jobs. But beneath the macro success story lies a tougher reality for suppliers and workers: rising costs, shrinking orders, and growing informality.

In recent months, US tariffs of up to 50% on selected Indian goods have shaken major export sectors such as garments, leather, gems and jewellery, seafood, and chemicals. In hubs like Tirupur and Surat, export orders have fallen sharply. One cotton mill owner told our team:

I have five factories in Tirupur and Palladam, employing 2,000 people. We’re stuck with ₹60 crore of finished goods meant for the US. We’ve already shut down two factories and laid off 1,000 people.”

Small and medium suppliers are hardest hit. A footwear unit near Chennai now runs at half capacity; small foundries in eastern India have halted production. With orders volatile and margins squeezed, many suppliers are turning to contract and informal workers to stay afloat, eroding job security and social protections.

For workers, the impact is deeply personal. In Panipat, a textile hub in the north, one worker told us:

We used to have overtime every week, but now there are days when the machines are silent. Some of my friends have been sent home without pay, and we don’t know if they’ll be called back.”

In southern India’s seafood industry, wage cuts and unpaid days are becoming common. One shrimp farmer said his income had fallen from $350 to under $200 a month, leaving him unable to cover family expenses:

If I shut down my ponds, they’ll be ruined. But I can’t afford to sell any cheaper.”

Meanwhile, new labour codes, merging nearly 30 existing laws into four, promise simpler compliance and formalisation. Yet many observers fear they prioritise business growth over worker protection. Most of India’s 470 million workers remain informal, outside the reach of these reforms.

At the same time, India is working to diversify its trading partners, signing or negotiating free trade agreements with the UAE, Australia, the UK and the EU. These may open new markets, but the transition will take time — and workers in export-linked industries remain vulnerable in the interim.

Across sectors, the themes are the same:

• Job insecurity and layoffs as demand slows.
• Low earnings and delayed wages, driving indebtedness.
• Growing informality, heightening risks of forced labour and unsafe conditions.

Yet amid the disruption, there are also signs of adaptation. Larger suppliers are investing in skill development; some exporters are exploring domestic markets or regional diversification. The challenge is ensuring that progress doesn’t come at the expense of people.

For global brands, the signal is clear: long-term partnership, fair purchasing, and investment in skills are now strategic necessities, not CSR add-ons.

India’s growth story remains compelling, but resilience will depend on how fairly that growth is shared. As one factory manager in Delhi put it:

After September, we may have nothing left to do. What we need from brands now is partnership not pressure.”

Navigating turbulence: how businesses should respond to maintain momentum

During these turbulent times, many participants said that right now compliance asks are often the only ones gaining traction internally within European and North American headquarters. Budgets are tight and leadership attention is elsewhere, but teams are finding creative ways to use compliance momentum to keep responsible sourcing on the agenda and to build longer-term capability in the process.

Here’s what’s working:

• Tailor the message.  There’s no single narrative that is a magic bullet. What resonates with one team can fall flat with another. The key is knowing what matters to each audience and framing responsible sourcing in their language.
  
• Make trade-offs visible. As one participant put it, you need to be very explicit with leadership about what you are pausing and the risk that comes with it “If you choose A, you’re not doing B–H and that could mean X, Y and Z.”
  
• Turn compliance into capability. When audit-driven initiatives are the only ones getting airtime, the opportunity is to reframe them, using compliance delivery to strengthen HR functions, management systems, and supplier partnerships.

But participants also recognised that these internal realities sit within a much larger reset. Global turbulence is redrawing supply chains faster than people and systems can adapt and the companies that succeed will be those that stay grounded in human realities while navigating the macro shifts.

• Geopolitical churn is rewriting sourcing maps. Trade wars and new international trade agreements are accelerating production shifts but risk moves too. Re-routing orders without listening to local contexts risks repeating the same vulnerabilities elsewhere.
  
• Technology is redrawing the skills map. Automation is advancing unevenly. Factories upgrading machinery faster than people can reskill are seeing growing anxiety and turnover. The leading companies are co-financing training to turn automation from threat to transition.
  
• The informal economy is expanding. As smaller suppliers struggle to survive, more work is happening off-payroll and out of sight. Due-diligence systems must evolve to capture this reality.
  
• Audit fatigue is forcing a rethink. Suppliers are saturated with duplicative asks. The next phase will reward companies that help build management-system maturity and measure outcomes, not just compliance.

The signal beneath the noise: in a year of volatility, compliance may open the door, but capability, communication, and partnership are what keep it open. Real resilience still depends on relationships and investing in skills, systems, and the people who hold supply chains together when everything else shifts.

At Impactt, we’ll continue to bring business and human rights leaders together to share intelligence and practical strategies through times of disruption.

If you’d like to explore how to apply these insights in your own supply chain — from responsible purchasing to supplier capability-building, please get in touch at info@impacttlimited.com.pacttlimited.com.

The post The signal in the noise: what today’s turbulence really means for your supply chain appeared first on Impactt.

Rather than seeking to eliminate informality, which is often the result of family-run smallholder farms and an important cornerstone of local economies, it is essential to recognise the blind spots it can create when it comes to human rights risks and adapt HRDD strategies accordingly.  

To explore the solutions to these challenges, we spoke with Priyanka Kanani, Principal Consultant leading our Food and Agriculture work, who has extensive on-the-ground experience in South Asia and a background in sustainability and international development at PwC. 

When it comes to mapping human rights risks in supply chains, are there any challenges that food and agriculture businesses face which differ from other sectors? 

Informality and supply chain complexity are both challenges which can leave businesses overwhelmed and unsure where to start.  

In food and agriculture, it is really difficult to get a clear, initial picture of what’s going on in your supply chain because the supply chains are so complex. For example, a single supermarket’s peppers might come from hundreds of different farms. Many of those farms could be informal, run by smallholder farmers, potentially in remote locations.  

Within food and agriculture, there is also huge variance in what a supply chain can look like, dependent on many factors including sector, location and cultural context.  

Informality in seafood is particularly high, due to the sector’s mobile and seasonal business model, as well as the inclusion of smaller vessels further down the supply chain.  

On vessels, workers often lack formal work contracts, and recruitment for working on fishing vessels is often enabled by informal networks and recruitment agencies, making workers vulnerable to debt bondage.  

And what about the risks for child labour? What do companies need to know in relation to informality and child labour?  

Child labour in informal settings is complex and must be understood in its local and economic context but never accepted or ignored. It often occurs within families on small farms or in situations where migrant children work alongside their parents.  

Whether driven by poverty, or family reliance on children’s work, it remains a serious violation of children’s rights and a material business risk.  

Even if participation appears voluntary or culturally accepted, children may face significant risks: physically demanding tasks, exposure to hazardous tools and chemicals, and extreme weather conditions. Companies that fail to identify and address these practices responsibly may face significant legal, reputational, and operational consequences. 

To make lasting change, companies should engage with suppliers, communities, and local authorities to strengthen protections for children while supporting families to find safer, sustainable alternatives to child labour. 

What examples have you seen of food and agriculture businesses successfully remedying child labour?  

One of the key root causes of child labour is poverty. It is a tough issue to address and the crux of this is around paying farmers and farm workers a living wage. Many are not even paid a minimum wage, let alone a living wage. We’ve created guidance for clients around working collaboratively with their supply chain on this topic so that a fairer share of the profits are spread out lower down the supply chain.  

Another solution that has worked well is enabling better access to school or education. Some children have no option of going to school because there aren’t any local schools or those that do exist do not teach children over a certain age. We have found that improving transport links to school has helped to increase attendance.  

In terms of remediating child labour, Impactt has published guidelines on this which we have also implemented in the food and agriculture space. This includes paying the child’s family what they would have earned or minimum wage (whichever is higher), until they are at an age at which they could work. This is conditional upon the child’s attendance at school. 

What advice do you have for companies facing the challenge of informality?   

Firstly, I think it’s important for companies to understand their supply chain and where the things they source actually come from. We have worked in many different sectors with many different clients be it in cotton, tobacco, cocoa and leather. Each company and their subsequent suppliers source goods differently.  

For example, in cotton, some companies use traceability technology to identify the region in which their cotton was grown. In tobacco, some suppliers source directly from contracted smallholder farmers. We have worked with clients to enhance their human rights due diligence by conducting assessments of conditions on farms, as well as evaluating supplier management systems. We have supported them to build the capacity of local teams to conduct human rights assessments on farms. This has enabled them to gain a much clearer picture of the realities and risks of where they are sourcing from.  

To begin with, companies should first understand where they are sourcing from, conduct a risk assessment to better understand their high-risk sectors and geographies and then put in place appropriate human rights due diligence. This must go beyond simply conducting assessments. Companies need to identify actual and potential risks, prevent those risks where possible, mitigate risks that can’t be fully prevented and address any harm caused by them to workers in their own operations and supply chain.  

What, in your opinion, do companies really need to know about identifying and remediating blind spots?  

Due to complex multi-tiered global supply chains, it can be hard for companies to identify every issue. This can occur due to many reasons including: 

• Focus on audits or certifications: Standard social audits or certifications are a good start but can often miss harder to find issues such as forced labour or predominantly rely on self-reported data which is not verified. 
   

• Outsourced accountability: Companies relying on their suppliers to manage human rights risks further down their supply chain, whilst only having oversight of tier one suppliers.  
   

• Missing links in the supply chain: Key parts of supply chains can be left out of human rights due diligence, for example workers who transport goods or farm workers, with many suppliers only focusing on farmers.  

Thorough human rights due diligence that goes beyond checklists can help to identify these blind spots to enable companies to remediate. Rightsholder and stakeholder engagement across the supply chain is key to this.  

Impactt recently worked with leading sugarcane companies in the Dominican Republic on a remediation programme to strengthen worker empowerment, engagement and trust.  

A core part of this project was social dialogue between sugarcane companies, local NGOs, worker representatives, trade unions, and government entities. This inclusive social dialogue aimed to identify and address challenges impacting sugarcane workers.  

This was a prime example of co-creating solutions with the people on the ground who understand the local context and are directly affected by it. Social dialogue enables companies to understand what is possible to achieve, how to prioritise actions and how to sustainably implement them in a way that improves the lives of workers and supplier relationships.    

What practical steps can businesses take to strengthen human rights in agricultural supply chains? 

In summary, there are a few key practical steps to consider when it comes to strengthening human rights across agricultural supply chains:

• Map and understand your supply chain: Know exactly where products originate from. 

• Conduct targeted risk assessments: Identify high-risk sectors and geographies for focused action.  

• Invest in human rights due diligence: Embed it into everyday business practices like procurement and supplier engagement.  

• Collaborate with suppliers: Support them in improving worker conditions rather than merely passing down requirements. Ensure recommendations and support are context-specific, realistic and informed by workers.  

• Engage diverse stakeholders: Include rightsholders to understand root causes and co-create lasting solutions. 

Informality can create significant blind spots for human rights due diligence, but there are ways to adapt.  

The challenges lie in the complexity of food and agriculture supply chains: when a single product could have come from hundreds of smallholder farms, often in remote locations, standard audits often miss deeper issues like forced labour.  

The opportunity for lasting change comes from going beyond compliance checklists to conduct thorough, context-specific due diligence, that acknowledges the voices of rightsholders and supports suppliers collaboratively.   

Find out more about our diagnostics services  here, and contact  info@impacttlimited.com to discuss how Impactt can support your business to identify issues in your supply chain.   

The post What we’re not seeing: Informality, due diligence gaps and risk in agricultural supply chains appeared first on Impactt.