More than half of high-risk suppliers procuring to UK retail firms do not provide workers with a safe or formal way to report labour issues such as unpaid wages, excessive overtime, harassment or forced labour risks, according to new analysis.
The findings raise fresh concerns about the gap between corporate human rights commitments and the ability of workers to safely speak up when they are facing exploitation.
Produced by global ESG ratings agency EcoVadis, the analysis draws on assessment data of nearly 3,000 suppliers to UK retail and consumer goods companies between 2023 and 2025, of which 242 are located in countries classified as high risk for labour and human rights abuses. It found that, while 72% of those high-risk suppliers have a written human rights policy in place:
- 56% provide no formal channel for workers to safely report labour-related issues such as unpaid wages, harassment, or forced labour concerns.
- Only 61% have implemented concrete operational measures such as worker training, whistleblower channels or third-party audits to back up their policy commitments.
- Just one in five reach “advanced maturity” status – defined as having both a formal policy and at least four worker protection measures in place.
It also found that the share of UK retail and consumer goods procurement coming from high-risk countries has risen by 22% in two years, meaning more workers are being drawn into supply chains where the risk of exploitation is greatest.
The findings come amid growing scrutiny of labour exploitation and human rights issues, after new data showed modern slavery cases identified in the UK reached record levels last year.
They also come as the Department for Business and Trade reviews its approach to ensuring responsible business conduct, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.
Worker rights expert and Senior Vice President for Human Rights at EcoVadis, Antoine Heuty, said: “Having a grievance channel on paper is not enough. What matters is whether workers trust it, use it and see action taken when they do. That is the difference between a system that protects workers and one that simply ticks a box.”
He added: “A human rights policy is the starting point, not the destination. Our data shows the protections that workers need the most, such as accessible grievance channels, are the weakest precisely in the parts of the supply chain where the risk is the highest. That gap is where due diligence needs to be operational, not aspirational.”
The research was recently presented at an event hosted in association with the British Retail Consortium (BRC).
Commenting on the findings, BRC Policy Executive – Sustainability, Lou Sherry, said: “UK retailers are committed to identifying harms to workers in their direct operations and supply chains, and have made notable progress in collaboratively scaling up meaningful, worker-centred grievance mechanisms.
“However, the evidence clearly shows that systemic barriers remain to implementing effective due diligence processes across all supply chains.”
She added: “Robust legislation in the UK is essential to move beyond the limits of voluntary action and bring global suppliers in line with industry expectations. The BRC and our members have long campaigned for the introduction of Mandatory Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (mHREDD), and we urge the UK Government to commit to mHREDD legislation in its review of Responsible Business Conduct.”
Major retailers, including Carrefour, have deployed worker engagement mechanisms within their supply chains that have surfaced labour issues invisible to conventional audits. In documented cases, concerns raised through these channels – covering issues from unpaid wages to non-compliant working practices – led to investigations, remediation for affected workers and systemic corrective action.
EcoVadis say the findings of its analysis should serve as a wake-up call for retailers to strengthen visibility across their supply chains and ensure that effective, accessible grievance mechanisms are in place at supplier level. Without such systems, workers may lack safe routes to report exploitation, limiting early detection of serious labour rights violations.
