Company Ranking1 out of
Adidas AG (adidas) ranks first on the benchmark, demonstrating strong disclosure of its approach to managing forced labor risks in its supply chain, and discloses a high number of leading practices. Adidas achieves a higher score than any of its peers on the themes of recruitment and worker voice. Adidas provides quantitative data, thus providing clarity on the scope of implementation, and, in contrast to many of its peers, adidas provides examples of implementing its policies and processes in different countries and of working with different stakeholders. The company also discusses implementation challenges and, most notably, its efforts go beyond its first-tier suppliers. For example, the company provides modern slavery training to its second-tier suppliers. To improve its disclosure, the company is encouraged to improve in the areas of risk assessment, purchasing practices, and worker voice.
HOW DO THEY COMPARE?
The comparison tool allows companies' results to be easily compared. Up to two additional companies can be selected and compare against each other as shown below.
THEME & 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 accross the seven themes. For each themes, 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.
|Awareness and Commitment||100 / 100|
|Supply Chain Standards||80 / 100|
|Management and Accountability||100 / 100|
|Training||100 / 100|
|Stakeholder Engagement||100 / 100|
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.
|Traceability and Supply Chain Transparency||/ 100|
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.
|Purchasing Practices||25 / 100|
|Supplier Selection||50 / 100|
|Integration into Supplier Contracts||50 / 100|
|Cascading Standards Through the Supply Chain||50 / 100|
|Recruitment Approach||100 / 100|
|Recruitment Fees||100 / 100|
|Recruitment Audits||50 / 100|
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.
|Communication of Policies||100 / 100|
|Worker Voice||25 / 100|
|Worker Empowerment||100 / 100|
|Grievance Mechanism||80 / 100|
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.
|Auditing Process||100 / 100|
|Auditing Disclosure||80 / 100|
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.
|Corrective Action Plans||100 / 100|
|Remedy Programs||50 / 100|