Gabriel Amouyal has spent nearly 20 years auditing supply chains. As audit services director at Qima, a global supply chain compliance firm, he has seen it all, auditing hundreds of facilities across Asia’s textile industry, including fabric mills and garment factories in China, India, Bangladesh, and South Korea. Audits, he says, are fashion’s best defense against allegations of wrongdoing, from environmental damage to human rights abuses. “Audits have a key role to play because that’s firsthand information,” he explains. “You go on site, you get access to the people in the supply chain. It’s a tool for assessing risks and adverse impacts, and it’s a tool that will support mitigation and prevention afterward.” But pressure is mounting on the multi-billion-dollar auditing industry. A new wave of EU legislation—covering everything from due diligence and forced labor to greenwashing—means fashion brands are increasingly reliant on audits to prove compliance in their supply chains. At the same time, audited and certified supply chains have been hit with a slew of scandals in recent years, calling into question whether audits are enough and raising questions about what a better system could look like. Auditors say the system is crucial because it provides firsthand information from those who work in the supply chain. Pictured is a Qima auditor with factory workers. Photo: Courtesy of Qima The recent controversies span social and environmental claims, exposing gaps in the industry’s general approach to auditing and certifications, as much as in specific standards or programs. In 2024, an investigation by NGO Earthsight alleged links between Better Cotton Initiative-certified farms and illegal deforestation, land grabbing, and violence toward local communities. In response, the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) said an independent audit into the allegations found no breach of standards, but recommended improvements to the certification’s criteria and assessment guidance. Then, an ongoing probe into Made in Italy supply chains revealed evidence of worker exploitation in luxury subcontractors. Meanwhile, recent Peta protests about the ethics of wool have raised doubts over the strength of the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) and Nativa certifications, after the animal rights group found violent handling of sheep at two farms in South Africa. Textile Exchange, the non-profit that develops and governs the RWS, said in a statement that both farms’ certifications have now been suspended following an investigation into the allegations. In hopes of finding a better path forward, Vogue Business reached out to leading auditors to understand their—often overlooked—perspective. What needs to change to move forward? And how can the industry help auditors live up to their promises? A lack of nuance One of the major challenges is that audits, rather than giving the whole picture, simply provide brands—and therefore consumers—with a snapshot of the situation on the ground at a given time. “It’s a very structured framework, which gives you insight into what’s happening on a given day, or over two or three days, depending on how much time you’re spending on the site,” explains Naurin Muzaffar, founder of US-based auditing and consultancy firm Innovatus. Typically, suppliers are given advance notice of an audit, whether that’s a specific date or a time frame in which the inspection will take place, allowing them time to prepare and perform at their best. “If I’ve booked an audit for 10 days’ time, the bosses in the factory will have everything clean and tidy for those 10 days before the auditor arrives,” says Ellias Mussa, a former auditor for fast fashion retailer I Saw It First, who is now a social advocacy worker for the Fashion Workers Advice Bureau Leicester (FAB-L). It’s whyMuzaffar prefers unannounced visits when possible: “You want to see the system running as naturally as possible.” A report by Labour Behind The Label found labor violations at garment factories in Pakistan that recent audits had missed.

Photo: Courtesy of Labour Behind The Label

The rigid structure of auditing frameworks also makes it hard to raise suspicions unless they can be backed by hard evidence. “Worker voices are systematically underrecorded through the auditing process, so [audits] end up being a document check,” says Anna Bryher, policy lead at the nonprofit campaigning group Labour Behind the Label. A recent report by the group uncovered labor violations in Pakistan, including garment workers not being paid the legal minimum wage, even though audits suggested otherwise. Issues like this can easily slip through the cracks, especially since standardized audits tend to offer only a “pass or fail” result rather than a more nuanced assessment, she adds.

Bryher argues that community-based monitoring—which would involve input from labor rights organizations and trade unions—should be used alongside traditional auditing to give a fuller picture of conditions on the ground. This could also help create pathways toward remediation, not just highlight problems. “We’re calling for a shift from compliance-centered due diligence toward remedy-centered due diligence that puts workers more at the center of the system,” Bryher explains. “Brands need to change who they’re listening to, rather than just listening to suppliers and what they tell them about their records. They need to actually ensure worker voice evidence is respected and included in how they audit a factory.”

Audit fatigue

Between rapidly shifting regulations, a growing emphasis on audits, and more bureaucracy related to digital product passports (DPPs), suppliers say they are spending more time verifying claims than doing the work they were hired for—especially when each brand has different requirements, systems, and auditors. One factory manager in Lahore, Pakistan, cited in the Labour Behind the Label report, said his facility had been audited for 220 days in the past year. Many major suppliers now have dedicated teams to work with auditors—a cost smaller suppliers struggle to bear.

There is arguably now an overreliance on auditing in the fashion industry. “What we tend to do is spend a lot of time trying to find out what the problem is, and not enough time addressing it,” says Muzaffar. “The question is, do we really need all of us to go in independently and do the same thing again and again? Obviously not.”

Campaigners argue that auditing needs to be used alongside other tools, such as community-based monitoring.

Photo: Courtesy of Labour Behind The Label

Instead of duplicating audit reports, Qima’s Amouyal says brands need to identify where the real risks are in their supply chain and redirect resources to those areas. “When there is a lower risk, [maybe brands] avoid re-auditing the same [factories] and reuse existing audit reports [commissioned by other brands or suppliers],” he says.

Organizations like Sedex (Supplier Ethical Data Exchange) allow suppliers to commission their own audits, which can then be shared with other brands. Meanwhile, member-led initiatives like Amfori BSCI (Business Social Compliance Initiative) and ICS (Initiative for Compliance and Sustainability) allow brands to request audits that are then shared with other companies sourcing from the same facility. Collective auditing means brands can focus their efforts further down the supply chain. “Tier 1 suppliers are audited the most; we need to make sure that we are going to sites that are the most risky,” he explains.

Audit fatigue is a symptom of a broader issue: fashion’s obsession withData collection has become an end in itself, straying from its original purpose. On the environmental front, brands now ask suppliers to provide vast amounts of information, from carbon emissions to water usage. Yet too little is done to help manufacturers, textile mills, and farmers improve based on that data. “We keep collecting that data; we ask suppliers to fill in those forms and online portals,” says Muzaffar of Innovatus. Unless brands show they are willing to act on audit findings and data collection, suppliers will continue to feel squeezed. “Suppliers keep on doing that, but nothing comes back to the supplier.”

The need for remediation

Much like traceability efforts and regenerative agriculture sourcing, the ideal scenario is for brands to shorten their supply chains and build direct relationships with suppliers based on mutual trust, rather than top-down extraction. “The way a manufacturer will respond to a brand directly — there is no comparison to how they would be with a third party,” says Muzaffar.

Audits are especially effective when suppliers feel safe showing auditors the whole truth. To create these conditions, brands need to demonstrate loyalty — that they won’t simply “move to another supplier” if this one falls short on compliance — and a willingness to support remediation efforts, says Amouyal.

Auditors say that more resources could be directed further down the supply chain.
Photo: Courtesy of Qima

With more entrenched problems, this often means supporting suppliers over the long term and recognizing that there isn’t always a quick fix. “If we find an issue of child labor, that means we need to make sure that there is a long-term plan which goes a bit further, as well as a corrective plan after an audit,” he explains, noting that collaboration — either with other brands or NGOs working on the ground — is essential. “It’s about engaging with the relevant stakeholders; not doing it by yourself, but sometimes at industry level.”

For Mussa, brands that employ in-house auditors working directly with factories can be more effective. “If [in-house auditors] find [an issue] in the factory, they will work with them to rectify everything,” he says. In the vast majority of cases, though, brands simply do not have the resources to directly audit their entire supply chain themselves, and if every brand did this, factories would be overrun. There is also a concern about companies turning a blind eye when “marking their own homework,” says Muzaffar. That’s why, in her view, brands need to adopt a combination of both in-house and external audits, ensuring there are “checks and balances” in place.

The main shift required is a matter of perspective, says Amouyal. Audits should not be seen as a silver bullet, or a solution in and of themselves, but as one part of a multi-pronged approach to supply chain management. “By itself, [audits are] not going to be a magic tool and resolve all [of the fashion industry’s] issues,” he concludes. “There are other tools that also need to be used.”

Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs Solving Audit Fatigue in the Fashion Industry

1 What is audit fatigue
Its when factories and suppliers get audited so oftenby so many different brands and organizationsthat they become exhausted overwhelmed and less responsive to the process

2 What causes audit fatigue in fashion
Too many audits too many overlapping standards duplicated questions different formats and little coordination between the brands and organizations doing the auditing

3 Why is audit fatigue a problem
It wastes time and money pulls factory staff away from real improvements and often leads to checking boxes instead of actually fixing labor or environmental issues

4 Who feels the effects of audit fatigue
Everyone Factories bear the heaviest burden but brands auditors workers and ultimately consumers feel the consequences too

5 What would it take to actually solve audit fatigue
A mix of things shared audit standards mutual recognition between brands better data systems fewer but higherquality audits and real collaboration across the industry

6 What does mutual recognition mean
It means one brand accepts an audit another brand or organization has already done instead of demanding its own separate audit

7 Cant brands just do fewer audits
They can but only if they trust each others results That trust requires common standards shared data and accountabilitywhich is why its harder than it sounds

8 What role does technology play
A big one Shared digital platforms can store audit results let brands access the same data and cut down on repeated paperwork and site visits

9 Are there real examples of this working
Yes Initiatives like the Social Labor Convergence Program and Amfori BSCI aim to create shared assessments that multiple brands can use reducing duplicate audits

10 Whats the biggest barrier to solving it
Competition and mistrust Brands worry that shared audits wont meet their own standards or legal requirements so they keep demanding their own

11 How can smaller brands help
By joining shared audit programs accepting common standards and resisting the urge to add their own extra requirements on top

12 What can factories do to push back on audit fatigue
They can speak up collectively through industry associations ask brands to recognize shared audits and invest in digital systems that make sharing results