EMPTY STATE
COMPARISON TOOL

Gildan Activewear 51/100

(TSE:GIL) 9 of 20 (2016)

Gildan Activewear Inc. (Gildan Activewear) ranks ninth in the benchmark, with an above-average overall score of 51 out of 100 points, which is driven by its performance on the themes of commitment and governance, monitoring, and remedy. Notably, Gildan Activewear is one of only two companies which achieve 100 out of 100 points on monitoring. The company has an opportunity to improve on the themes of commitment and governance, traceability and risk assessment, and recruitment.

DOWNLOAD SCORECARD

51 /100

2016 Ranking: 9 of 20

HOW DO THEY COMPARE?

The comparison tool allows companies’ results to be easily compared. Up to three companies can be selected and compared against each other as shown below.

You have selected a maximum of 3 data points to compare. Remove one data point to add a new one.

loading...

51

Gildan Activewear was evaluated both in 2016, when it ranked ninth out of 20 companies, and in 2018, when it ranked 16th out 43 companies. Since 2016, the company has taken some additional steps to strengthen its performance and disclosure, such as introducing mandatory onboarding training for its employees on its code of conduct, joining meetings of the Fair Labor Association and the Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment on the topic of forced labor, remediating an instance of subcontracting, and disclosing the number of workers interviewed during audits.

METHODOLOGY

47

The average score for the sector was 37/100 compared to 49/100 in 2016. The number of companies assessed in 2018 increased from 20 to 43. Since 2016, the methodology has been strengthened, making it more difficult for companies to achieve the same score. The 19 companies benchmarked in both 2016 and 2018 saw their average score increase from 49/100 to 56/100, which is significant given the changes to the methodology.

2018 BENCHMARK

2016

51

Gildan Activewear was evaluated both in 2016, when it ranked ninth out of 20 companies, and in 2018, when it ranked 16th out 43 companies. Since 2016, the company has taken some additional steps to strengthen its performance and disclosure, such as introducing mandatory onboarding training for its employees on its code of conduct, joining meetings of the Fair Labor Association and the Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment on the topic of forced labor, remediating an instance of subcontracting, and disclosing the number of workers interviewed during audits.

METHODOLOGY

2018

47

The average score for the sector was 37/100 compared to 49/100 in 2016. The number of companies assessed in 2018 increased from 20 to 43. Since 2016, the methodology has been strengthened, making it more difficult for companies to achieve the same score. The 19 companies benchmarked in both 2016 and 2018 saw their average score increase from 49/100 to 56/100, which is significant given the changes to the methodology.

2018BENCHMARK

THEME AND INDICATOR SCORE

The benchmark methodology has seven themes, selected to capture the key areas where companies need to take action to eradicate forced labor from their supply chains. There are a total of 22 indicators across the seven themes. For each theme, a company can score a total of 100 points.

Commitment and Governance

The company's top-level commitments on forced labor, supply chain standards, management processes, training programs and stakeholder engagement

OVERALL 72
INDICATORS
Awareness and Commitment
100
Supply Chain Standards
60
Management and Accountability
50
Training
100
Stakeholder Engagement
50

Traceability and Risk Assessment

The extent to which the company traces its supply chain and conducts forced labor risk assessments, and discloses information about these processes.

OVERALL 25
Traceability
0
Risk Assessment
50

Purchasing Practices

The company's awareness and action on purchasing practices that can exacerbate forced labor risks, and its process for selecting suppliers, integrating standards into contracts and cascading them down the supply chain.

OVERALL 44
Purchasing Practices
25
Supplier Selection
50
Integration into Supplier Contracts
50
Cascading Standards through the Supply Chain
50

Recruitment

The company's approach to reducing exploitation by recruitment agencies and eliminating workers' payment of fees for their jobs.

OVERALL 17
Recruitment Approach
0
Recruitment Fees
50
Recruitment Audits
0

Worker Voice

The extent to which the company proactively communicates with workers through the supply chain, enables freedom of association and ensures access to effective and trusted grievance mechanisms.

OVERALL 35
INDICATORS
Communication of Policies
100
Worker Voice
0
Worker Empowerment
0
Grievance Mechanism
40

Monitoring

The company's process for auditing (including whether it includes non-scheduled visits, document review, worker interviews) and disclosure about the audit process and findings.

OVERALL 100
Auditing Process
100
Audit Disclosure
100

Remedy

The extent to which the company has corrective action plans for non-compliant factories, as well as processes for remedying workers who are victims of forced labor, and reports on remedies provided.

OVERALL 63
Corrective Action Plans
75
Remedy Programs
50

Access Benchmark Data

Access the underlying data and non-scored information in a spreadsheet for ease of comparison or download all the scorecards.

DOWNLOAD