What a factory audit does and does not tell you

A factory audit provides evidence about conditions at a named workplace, within the checks made on a particular visit; it does not establish how well your clothes will be made or cover every place the maker uses.

The word “passed” needs a second look. BSCI gives a rated result. Sedex SMETA gives a report without a pass or fail. WRAP issues a certificate after a factory passes its process. Each document supports a different conclusion. Start with the place it covers, then read what was checked and what was found.

01The factory address connects the audit to your clothes

Ask the maker for the full report or certificate and the exact address where the clothes will be made. Compare that address with the document. A company name can cover several factories, so a matching name on an invoice does not settle whether the workplace making your order was assessed.

Record the legal name and physical address shown in the report. Keep the visit date, the name of the organisation that carried out the audit and the report reference too. These details make it possible to connect a later explanation or follow-up visit to the original document.

An address mismatch needs an explanation before the report can support approval of that location. The maker may have moved, or the document may concern a separate workplace used for part of the work. Ask for a written record connecting the proposed location to the evidence that covers it.

Do this while discussing the order or arranging samples. If the mismatch emerges after production starts, resolving it can require further evidence or a change to the approved location. Keep the report beside the plan showing where the clothes will be made.

02BSCI gives a rating whose detail still needs reading

amfori BSCI is a programme for assessing working conditions and supporting improvements. Its main document is a report with an overall result from A to E, ratings for the areas examined and a plan for correcting problems. The result belongs to the factory and the checks described in that report.

Read below the letter. The overall result brings several assessed areas together, while the detailed pages show the findings behind it. Ask for those pages and the current record of corrections. A headline rating cannot explain which problems remain open or what has happened since the visit.

BSCI also has a defined process for arranging an audit. A responsible amfori member requests and approves it. An assessment commissioned separately does not become a BSCI result because it uses similar questions. The document should identify the programme under which the visit took place.

A and B results are valid for up to 24 months. C, D and E results are valid for up to 12 months and have a route for follow-up under the programme. Record the applicable period alongside the audit date. Where a later report is supplied, compare it with the earlier findings to establish what was reviewed and what was resolved.

03Sedex membership and a SMETA audit establish different things

Sedex membership provides access to Sedex tools and its platform. It does not prove that a factory has had a SMETA audit. Sedex states that neither membership nor SMETA is certification, and SMETA has no pass or fail result. A document described as a “Sedex certificate” therefore needs clarification.

Request the SMETA report and its accompanying record of problems and proposed corrections. Those documents show what the assessment found at the workplace. Read who is responsible for each correction, when it was due and what remains unresolved. Membership alone supplies none of that evidence.

SMETA reports use what the scheme calls a two-pillar or four-pillar scope. This describes the breadth of subjects examined. The number is not a quality grade. Read the report's account of the checks included before comparing it with another report, and establish whether those checks answer the questions being asked about the factory.

The date needs context as well. Businesses involved in the order set the frequency of review, taking previous findings and risk into account. Read the visit date together with the status of the problems found and the agreed next review. A recent date on the cover cannot resolve an open finding.

04WRAP certifies the individual factory for a stated period

WRAP issues a Certification of Compliance after a factory passes its audit process. Its handbook describes assessment against 12 Principles, using accredited independent monitoring firms and WRAP's own review. The certificate records that decision for the individual factory named on it.

Match the certificate's name and address to the place proposed for the order. Record the issue and expiry dates, then compare them with the planned production period. Certification does not extend automatically to a parent company, a brand or another factory belonging to the maker.

WRAP's current programme issues annual certificates. From 1 March 2026, it stopped issuing certificates with Gold or Platinum levels; existing Platinum certificates remain valid until their printed expiry dates. Read the dates and format together when checking a document. An older level name needs to be considered against that programme change.

Certified factories may receive unannounced assessments during the certificate period. If particular findings matter to the decision about the order, ask for the relevant audit and correction records as well. The certificate establishes WRAP's certification decision. The supporting records provide detail about problems and the work done to address them.

05What the audit examined sets the boundary of its findings

The part of a report describing what was examined is called its scope. Read it before drawing conclusions from the result. It should identify the activities included and the workers covered, as well as the records reviewed. A report may include shared spaces such as a canteen or accommodation. Check what it says.

Look for the periods covered by pay and working-hours records. The visit date tells you when the auditor attended; the dates of the records tell you what period those checks examined. Also read any notes about areas the auditor could not enter or records that were unavailable.

Worker interviews provide another part of the evidence. Sedex's SMETA process summary includes group and individual interviews alongside a workplace tour and document review. Compare the accounts in the interview section with records and observations. Where the report gives details, note which groups were represented and how the interviews took place.

Positive interview answers alone do not establish that no problems existed. Interviews can be affected by language, timing and the conditions in which workers felt able to speak. Where accounts conflict with pay or attendance records, keep the difference open for follow-up instead of choosing whichever account gives the more reassuring result.

06A plan to fix a problem is not evidence of completion

Read the most serious findings first. Immediate safety concerns, coercion or indications of child labour need attention alongside serious concerns about wages and working hours. Keep the report's original description of severity, then examine the condition it describes and the evidence needed to resolve it.

The plan for corrections should connect each problem to a proposed change, a responsible person and a completion date. Look at the wording. “Planned” and “in progress” describe unfinished work. A statement that work is complete needs supporting evidence and a clear account of who checked it.

Match that evidence to the problem. A dated photograph of a cleared exit can show its condition at that moment; it cannot show that the exit stays clear every day. One corrected payslip may not establish that a pay problem has been resolved across different shifts and pay periods.

Keep earlier reports. When the same finding returns, compare the previous correction with the new account and ask why the change did not hold. Record whether completion was reported by the maker or checked independently. For an immediate safety concern, establish whether independent confirmation is needed before approving production.

07Other workplaces and the clothes themselves need separate checks

An order can involve several locations. Sewing may happen at the factory named in the report while printing or washing happens elsewhere. Ask the maker to identify where each relevant step will take place, then check which locations the report covers. An outside workplace needs its own review when it falls beyond that boundary.

Keep a record of the places approved for the order and how a proposed change will be reviewed. The audit does not prove that the clothes stayed at the assessed factory. That connection needs records from the order itself. If work moves, update the production plan and check the evidence for the new location.

Quality is another question. An audit file alone does not confirm the quality of the clothes, where materials came from or whether the maker has capacity for the order. It also does not establish how the maker will perform against the business agreement. Keep those checks within the wider decision about the maker.

The useful result of reading an audit is a decision supported by a complete file: the relevant report, evidence of corrections and a record connecting it to the planned workplace. Name the person responsible for the next review and record its date. Keep unresolved points visible until the evidence answers them.