Skip to main content

Report exposes human rights gaps in India's $36 billion garment export industry

 
A new report sheds light on the urgent human rights challenges within India’s vast textile and garment industry, as global regulations increasingly demand corporate accountability in supply chains. Titled “Beneath the Seams,” the study reveals that despite the sector employing over 45 million people, systemic issues of poverty wagesunfair purchasing practices, and the exclusion of workers from decision-making persist, leaving millions vulnerable.
The report, published by Change Alliance and the Fair Trade Advocacy Office, consolidates findings from multi-stakeholder workshops held in Delhi, Bengaluru, and Tiruppur. It comes at a critical time as laws like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) begin to mandate human rights and environmental due diligence for companies operating in the EU market, directly impacting major exporting nations like India.
A central finding is the widespread confusion and failure to ensure living wages and incomes. The report highlights a critical gap between the legally mandated minimum wage and a living wage that covers basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare. Workers, suppliers, and even factory management often conflate the two concepts.
Suppliers stated they cannot raise wages unless brands pay fairer prices, while brands’ public commitments to living wages frequently fail to be integrated into binding contracts or costing models. The result is that many workers, a majority of whom are women and migrants, remain trapped in poverty despite full-time employment.
Exploitative purchasing practices by international brands were identified as a root cause of poor working conditions. Practices such as demanding rapid deliveries at low costs, last-minute order changes, and order cancellations—exemplified during the COVID-19 pandemic—transfer all financial risk to suppliers. This pressure leads to wage suppression, forced overtime, and widespread subcontracting to informal units where worker protections vanish. Furthermore, when brands face compliance issues, they often resort to abrupt “cut-and-run” disengagement, leaving workers jobless without compensation, as there is no binding framework for responsible exit.
The report also underscores a profound lack of meaningful engagement with the workers and communities at the heart of the supply chain. Existing grievance mechanisms, like Internal Complaints Committees, are widely distrusted, with workers fearing retaliation. Social audits are costly yet have limited impact, often conducted without genuine worker involvement. Women and migrant workers are systematically excluded from decision-making processes, and trade unions face shrinking space in dialogues, sometimes being stigmatised as “anti-business.”
The report calls for decisive action from multiple stakeholders. It urges the Indian and other South Asian governments to strengthen laws, enforce living wages, protect informal workers, and restart comprehensive labour data collection. For the European Union, it recommends ensuring the CSDDD mandates full supply chain coverage, bans unfair purchasing practices, and requires meaningful stakeholder consultation and responsible disengagement. International institutions are called upon to promote living wage standards, support worker participation, and improve grievance mechanisms.
The document concludes that without binding legislation, shared financial responsibility, and a fundamental shift to include workers’ voices, new due diligence laws risk becoming another compliance exercise that fails to improve lives on the ground. As one workshop participant noted, the disconnect is stark: “The government talks about ‘ease of doing business’ but ignores ‘ease of living’ for workers.” The report positions the current moment as a pivotal opportunity to reshape the industry into one that is equitable, sustainable, and respectful of the rights of the millions who fuel its global success.

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.