Benchmark Methodology

In 2020, our benchmarks will cover over 180 companies. This expanded list of companies will be  benchmarked using an updated methodology for each sector. 

2020 Benchmark Methodology

• • Information & Communications Technology (ICT) 

• • Food & Beverage
 
  • Apparel & Footwear  

2018 Benchmark Methodology

• • Information & Communications Technology (ICT) — (Simplified Chinese / Traditional Chinese / Japanese)

• • Food & Beverage
 — (Simplified Chinese / Traditional Chinese / Japanese)
  • Apparel & Footwear — (Simplified Chinese / Traditional Chinese / Japanese)

Should you be interested in translations of the KnowTheChain methodology in any additional language, please contact info@knowthechain.org.

2016 Benchmark Methodology

• • Information & Communications Technology (ICT) 

• • Food & Beverage
  • Apparel & Footwear

Each methodology takes into consideration sector-specific nuances that relate to forced labor and assesses how companies address forced labor risks in their supply chains.

CHANGES TO METHODOLOGY

Why was the methodology updated?

KnowTheChain updated its methodology in order to apply lessons learned from its 2016 and 2018 benchmarks and from stakeholder feedback, including input from investors, civil society partners, industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives, and the companies that were previously benchmarked. The updates are intended to ensure alignment with evolving frameworks, benchmarks, and guidance in each of the sectors. This review process was in part intended to strengthen the benchmarking and focus on performance, in addition to policies and processes.

What changed?

• • There is a greater focus on corporate action below the first tier, as worker abuse occurs at all tiers and workers may be more vulnerable deeper down supply chains.

• • There is a greater emphasis on actual implementation and a shift away from awareness and policies.

• • There is more flexibility in assessing how and who implements a particular practice, so that the focus is on ensuring that a credible system exists, rather than being overly prescriptive as to who implements it. For example, at times it may make sense for an individual brand to implement a practice while at other times it may be sufficient for a supplier or initiative to do so.

• • Third-party data, including allegations from reputable news agencies and relevant industry information, is incorporated.
  • Supplementary information, such as compliance with relevant regulations and forward-looking commitments, has been added to provide a more holistic picture of companies’ efforts. This additional information is not used in the scoring.