This case study examines how gender considerations intersect with responsible business conduct (RBC). Operations and supply chains that promote gender inclusivity can contribute to improved working conditions, enhanced productivity, supply chain resilience and long-term value creation. Gender-responsive due diligence can help enterprises better identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts while also helping to realise these opportunities. This case study highlights key drivers that shape gendered risk patterns – as business impacts are not gender-neutral – and their implications for due diligence processes. It explores how companies can integrate a gender-responsive approach into risk-based due diligence systems in line with international standards. It is intended for companies seeking to better identify, understand and address gender-related risks in their operations and supply chains, as well as for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to support more inclusive and effective due diligence practices.
Due diligence essentials for gender in global supply chains
Abstract
Integrating gender considerations into business operations and supply chains can contribute to improved working conditions, enhanced productivity, supply chain resilience and long-term value creation. Realising these benefits requires understanding how gender dynamics shape experiences, opportunities, risks and impacts. Gender-responsive due diligence can help enterprises better identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts while also helping to realise these opportunities.
This case study focusses primarily on women, reflecting evidence of their disproportionate exposure to risks in global supply chains. It is not a comprehensive analysis of gender, nor does it address all gender identities or dimensions. A more comprehensive list of references is available in the Background Note on Gender-responsive due diligence in global supply chains (OECD, 2026[1]).
The extent, nature, severity and likelihood of adverse impacts resulting from business conduct often differ for women and men. Gendered risks are shaped by structural and systemic factors embedded in both company operations and the broader environment. These factors influence not only who is most affected by adverse impacts and how so, but also how effectively individuals can raise concerns or obtain remedy.
Many gendered impacts are systemic, informal or invisible, requiring targeted interventions to identify and address them effectively. Preventive measures based on assessments that do not consider gender differences can inadvertently fail to capture invisible or under-reported risks and reinforce existing inequalities. Responsible business conduct (RBC) due diligence efforts frequently treat risks as gender-neutral, overlooking how systemic inequalities shape exposure to and experience of harm. Women represent 41.9% (WEF, 2023[2]) of the global workforce, and in some labour intensive and export-oriented sectors such as garment, agriculture and electronics, up to 80-90% (ILO, 2022[3]). However, women are often concentrated in lower-paid, informal or precarious roles, with limited access to representation or remedy (ILO, 2021[4]). Risks to surrounding communities from company operations are also not gender neutral – women may be marginalised from decision making in relation to new operations in their community and more exposed to risks. Integrating a gender perspective across the due diligence process is key to enable companies to identify differential risks, design context-appropriate measures and address root causes (see Box 1).
Efforts to identify, monitor and address gendered risks and impacts across company operations and supply chains remain limited. Evidence from the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) indicates that very few companies systematically collect or analyse gender‑disaggregated data, assess differentiated impacts on women and men, or monitor grievances and remediation outcomes by sex (UNGC, 2024[5]; WBA, 2023[6]). While many companies report policies or commitments on gender equality and zero tolerance of violence and harassment, implementation, monitoring and accountability mechanisms remain weak. Company approaches to promoting gender equality in supply chains are relatively nascent, with limited integration of gender‑specific criteria in supplier self‑assessments, audits and scorecards. Companies continue to rely heavily on social audits to manage labour and gender risks; however, audit methodologies typically lack gender‑disaggregated data and are often implemented by audit teams with limited gender expertise or contextual understanding. As a result, audits tend to identify only a small number of gender‑specific non‑conformances, mainly related to observable issues, while failing to capture more nuanced or invisible forms of discrimination, violence or unequal access to opportunities. This contributes to a broader disconnect between company action on gender and underlying business model practices that may perpetuate or entrench gender inequalities, underscoring the need for more gender‑responsive approaches to due diligence.
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct highlights that: “Due diligence should also be adapted to the nature of the adverse impact on RBC issues, such as human rights, the environment and corruption. This involves tailoring approaches for specific risks and taking into account how these risks affect different groups, such as applying a gender perspective to due diligence”.
Applying a gender perspective to due diligence means thinking through how real or potential adverse impacts may differ for or may be specific to women. Additionally, it involves adjusting, as appropriate, the actions that enterprises take to identify, prevent, mitigate and address those impacts to ensure these are effective and appropriate.
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector provides guidance to companies on gender considerations when conducting due diligence (p. 32‑33) and includes sector risk modules that address risks that are particularly affect women, such as Module 2 Sexual Harassment and Sexual and Gender-based Violence in the Workplace (p.122) and Module 12 Responsible Sourcing from Homeworkers (p.184).
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector includes a section on Engaging with women (p.100), and in the minerals sector a 2 019 Stakeholder Statement on Implementing Gender-Responsive Due Diligence was developed with Women’s Rights and Mining.
The OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains contains provisions on gender equality and provides a model enterprise policy recognising the need to eliminate discrimination against women, enhance their meaningful participation in decision making and leadership roles, ensure their professional development and advancement, and facilitate their equal access and control over natural resources, inputs, productive tools, advisory and financial services, training, markets and information. The brochure “Integrating a Gender Perspective into Supply Chain Due Diligence” based on the Agricultural Guidance provides examples of how companies along agricultural supply chains can integrate a gender perspective into their due diligence actions.
Source: OECD (2018[7]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en; (2017[8]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264290587-en; (2017[9]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252462-en; (2019[10]) Stakeholder Statement on Implementing Gender-Responsive Due Diligence and ensuring the human rights of women in Mineral Supply Chains, https://web-archive.oecd.org/pdfViewer?path=/site/mneguidelines/Stakeholder-Statement-Implementing-Gender-Responsive-Due-Diligence-and-ensuring-human-rights-of-women-in-Mineral-Supply-Chains.pdf; (2016[11]), OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251052-en; (2019[12]), Integrating a gender perspective into supply chain due diligence, https://web-archive-storage.oecd.org/aemint-web-archive-prod/web-archive/5c/5c5d24d1c2ad022c784ed3146fc68732aa7047a587ed71003948f7063e6d5ef3.pdf.
Structural inequalities continue to shape how gendered risks manifest across global supply chains. These structural and systemic issues are shaped by social norms, including around women’s caring responsibilities, perceptions of acceptable or adequate work, mobility, participation in decision making, access to and control over assets and prevention and response to gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH). While companies cannot unilaterally remedy these systemic constraints, a better understanding of the social, political, legal and industry context in which companies operate can help them adapt their due diligence accordingly.
Globally, women remain overrepresented in low-paid, insecure and informal roles; they are more likely to be employed in lower-paid occupations and less likely to progress in their careers (OECD, 2012[13]). Vertical segregation is evident: despite representing nearly 40% of the global labour force, women account for 25% of managers (OECD, 2023[14]), and lead 15% of firms worldwide. In manufacturing and agriculture, women occupy 60‑70% of assembly, packaging, and seasonal positions, while men dominate technical and supervisory roles. They account for the majority of low-paid, low-skilled workers in the global value chains of multinational companies, especially in export-orientated manufacturing and food production (ILO, 2021[4]). Informality is pronounced in low- and middle‑income countries where around 70% of employed women work without formal contracts or social protection, compared with 60% of men (World Bank, n.d.[15]; ILO, 2023[16]).
These patterns are driven by intertwined social, legal and economic factors. For example, legal frameworks that impede women accessing certain professions exist in 88 countries, and in 51 countries they cannot work the same night hours as men (OECD, 2019[17]; 2021[18]). Where such frameworks exist but are poorly enforced, bias in recruitment and promotion can persist. Unequal care responsibilities further limit women (see section on Unequal and unpaid care responsibilities). Buyer-driven cost competition and subcontracting incentivise suppliers to rely on flexible, low-cost labour, typically feminised, as women’s wages remain systematically lower and their employment more often part-time or seasonal (see section on Pay and value gap). Weak legal protections for subcontracted, home‑based or temporary workers further exclude women from formal rights. All these factors may in turn create cumulative operational effects increasing vulnerability to other risks such as low wages and unsafe working conditions. Occupational segregation in turn reduces bargaining power, limits union representation and diminishes access to grievance mechanisms (OECD, 2024[19]).
Women globally spend on average 3.2 times more hours on unpaid care and domestic work than men (ILO, 2025[20]), and in some regions up to 10 times more, limiting their availability for paid employment. This imbalance contributes to lower labour-force participation and a higher likelihood of part-time, temporary, or flexible work arrangements. In some regions, up to 50% of women workers in supply chains report that caregiving responsibilities restrict their ability to accept overtime or travel for work (OECD, 2025[21]).
Gendered caring expectations interact with social, policy and economic environments that disadvantage women in the labour market, including a lack of access to childcare, long-term care for relatives; the unequal distributions of family leave; and gendered tax-benefit systems that disadvantage second earners (OECD, 2025[22]). Legal and institutional frameworks often do not support care responsibilities: maternity protections exist in many countries, but paternity leave and flexible work arrangements are rare. As a result, women may rely on shiftwork, seasonal or flexible assignments to manage care responsibilities, which can increase workforce fragmentation and turnover.
Limited access to formal employment and the need for flexible work often push women into paid informal activities (ILO, n.d.[23]; World Bank, 2019[24]; OECD, 2019[25]) (see section on Occupational segregation and informality). Women often face hiring discrimination or informal penalties linked to maternity or caregiving status. Economic structures, including low wages and informal employment, exacerbate reliance on unpaid family labour and constrain access to formal support systems (UN Women, 2024[26]; ILO, 2024[27]). At the community level, the arrival of large‑scale business operations can further exacerbate women’s caring responsibilities, by disrupting access to water and placing strain on local resources. Operationally this may constrain women’s participation and flexibility within supply chains, limiting their capacity to meaningfully engage in due diligence processes and often positioning them in lower-paid, informal, or part-time roles with increased exposure to labour and human rights violations.
Women are consistently paid less than men for comparable work. Globally, the gender pay gap averages around 20% for the same amount and nature of work (ILO, 2019[28]), with larger disparities in manufacturing, agriculture and care‑related industries where women dominate the workforce.
Legal frameworks in some regions fail to mandate equal pay or enforce wage transparency. As of 2023, 52 countries lacked legal provisions ensuring equal remuneration, and 13 countries still did not prohibit discrimination in employment based on sex, affecting nearly half of all women globally (OECD, 2023[14]). In 2023, in 11 countries, women are required to obtain their husband’s or guardian’s permission to take a paid job (OECD, 2023[14]). Women’s concentration in subcontracted, temporary or informal roles that fall outside standardised wage regulations, reinforces systemic pay disparities. Evidence also shows that discriminatory bias affects promotion, compensation decisions and recognition of contributions, sustaining wage inequality (ILO, 2022[29]). In summary, persistent pay and value gaps lead to increased vulnerability to wage, working time and forced labour risks, as well as discrimination and limited upward mobility.
Women often have less access than men to economic and human capital assets across global supply chains. Globally, women account for less than 20% of landowners (World Bank, n.d.[30]). Access to training, education and skill-building opportunities is also limited.
Legal frameworks and social norms often restrict women’s control over land, property, or financial decision making as well as their access to education or training. Although 164 countries legally recognise a woman’s right to access, own and control land, only 52 countries guarantee these rights in practice. In 28 countries, laws formally designate husbands as heads of households with control over assets, while inheritance regimes and land tenure systems continue to restrict women’s ownership and management rights (OECD, 2019[17]). Market structures and buyer requirements often favour suppliers with established assets, credit or networks, resources disproportionately held by men due to historical inequalities, reinforcing women’s structural exclusion from higher-value supply chain opportunities.
These same dynamics limit women’s ability to invest in skills, training or business development opportunities (FAO/UN, 2018[31]). Where large scale business operations lead to community resettlement, women’s lack of formal land ownership means they may not benefit from resettlement compensation mechanisms (World Bank, 2019[24]). Women producers and small suppliers may be excluded from procurement opportunities that require formal registration, financial documentation, noting for instance women-owned businesses receive on average only around one percentage of public procurement contracts globally. Even when women are engaged in production networks, they are often positioned at the lowest tiers, where profit margins are slim and working conditions precarious. At the operational level, these inequalities manifest in differential access to inputs, training and markets within supply chains, exclusion from training or upskilling programmes, and less ability to adopt digital or technical tools required for higher-value tasks or due diligence engagement. As a result, gender-blind due diligence activities may be ineffective or inaccessible for women, leading to unidentified and unaddressed risks and impacts.
Women remain underrepresented in worker committees and unions, even in sectors with high female employment. Globally, women constitute about 42% of trade‑union membership, but hold only around 7% of union leadership positions, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (ITUC, 2018[32]). In supplier factories, women frequently report that their perspectives are not sought in workplace consultations or operational decisions, resulting in policies and procedures that fail to reflect their specific needs and constraints.
Legal and governance frameworks can compound these barriers. In several countries, restrictions on freedom of association, limitations on union registration, or anti‑union practices affect all workers, but disproportionately impact women (Global Labor Justice, 2025[33]), who are often concentrated in informal, temporary, or home‑based work. In extreme cases, women activists have faced targeted retaliation, intimidation, or GBVH when attempting to organise.
Women are also often underrepresented in engagement with large business operations. For example, in the context of large‑scale mining operations research has found that community engagement processes around mining do not always adequately consult women, sometimes failing to consult women. This is despite women and men often prioritising different needs (Eftimie, Heller and Strongman, 2009[34]). Large‑scale projects can displace communities, and women are often excluded from resettlement and compensation decisions, leading to planning and compensation arrangements that do not account for their needs. In practice, limited voice and representation manifests as systemic underreporting of women’s concerns, weak participation in grievance mechanisms, and policies or practices that fail to address gender-specific risks. Women may be excluded from consultations on working hours, safety protocols, or community benefit sharing decisions, resulting in operational decisions that overlook their realities. This lack of representation perpetuates structural barriers, leaving women vulnerable to exploitation and limiting the effectiveness of interventions aimed at addressing gendered risks.
GBVH disproportionately affects women and girls, and this extends to supply chain contexts. Forms of GBVH include physical and sexual violence, psychological harm and verbal and sexual harassment. Women are exposed to GBVH in the workplace, in workplace accommodation, in transit and in the community. Whilst GBVH is routinely underreported, data from certain sectors indicates it is a widespread issue: in garment factories in countries like India and Bangladesh, surveys indicate that at least 60% of female workers experience harassment at work (UN Women/ILO, 2019[35]; IFC, 2020[36]). In the mining sector, between 22 – 46% of women employed by a large mining company reported experiencing sexual harassment across Australia, Canada, Mongolia, the United States, South Africa and New Zealand (Elizabeth Broderick & Co, 2022[37]). GBVH has also been widely documented in food and agriculture – for example in the tea sector in Kenya (Kiio and Kanja, 2025[38]).
In many regions, laws protecting women from workplace harassment are either inadequate or poorly enforced (ILO, 2011[39]). Ill-adapted risk assessment and monitoring mechanisms, and dependence on precarious employment makes women less likely to report abuse. Women, particularly migrant and informal workers, may fear losing their livelihoods if they report incidents, leading to underreporting and continued abuse. In sectors reliant on employer-provided housing or transport, proximity and lack of oversight increase exposure to harassment, especially for migrant or young female workers. In certain sectors, for instance mining, unions may be reluctant to prioritise GBVH as an issue or may not perceive it as work related. Purchasing practices, pay and incentive structures and workplace power dynamics can reinforce conditions that enable violence and harassment. In the garment sector, research has found that practices like short lead times place stress on managers and supervisors with a correlation between increased violence and harassment and high production periods (Morris and Rickard, 2019[40]; Oxfam, 2025[41]). Hierarchical structures in workplaces can empower perpetrators and discourage raising complaints or seeking redress. The arrival of a large business operations has also been associated with violence and harassment in the community. In the mining sector, for example, sexual violence from mine personnel has been reported in multiple countries and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights has characterised sexual violence by security personnel in the extractive industries as an “endemic problem” (UNDP Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2019[42]). At the operational level, fear of reprisals or job loss deters reporting, leading to systematic underrepresentation of GBVH cases in risk assessments, monitoring and grievances.
Most companies still fail to collect or disclose gender-disaggregated data across operations and supply tiers, especially beyond basic pay information. For instance, as of 2022, 22% of publicly listed companies worldwide disclose gender pay gap data (Equileap, 2024[43]), and only 17% report gender-disaggregated data on promotions and only 14% report sex-disaggregated data on workforce turnover (WBA, 2023[6]).
Women’s participation in data collection activities may be constrained through cultural, political or logistical barriers. Informal or precarious work arrangements can fall outside formal reporting systems, making them invisible. Digital transformation can sometimes reinforce existing gender gaps, as algorithms, equipment, and software are often developed using largely male or male biased datasets (UNIDO, 2023[44]), overlooking women’s roles, needs and constraints (Focus 2030, 2023[45]). A 2025 study found that recruitment algorithms used by companies may disadvantage women by recommending them for lower-paying roles despite similar qualifications (Chaturvedi and Chaturvedi, 2025[46]).
Women’s work in subcontracted or informal tiers is rarely captured in audit reports or workforce databases, leaving significant gendered risks undetected, while digital traceability systems may exclude them due to limited access or skills, or increase their risk exposure. Biased data collection may lead to increased exposure to OSH risks, for example male‑centric design of equipment, uniforms, or workplace facilities, especially in manufacturing or agricultural sectors, where ill-fitting gear increases exposure to accidents (UNECE, 2019[47]).
Understanding how systemic and structural drivers of inequality shape gendered risks in global value chains can help companies develop a better understanding of their operating context and how to adapt the extent and nature of due diligence steps accordingly. This section highlights key considerations for companies seeking to effectively embed gender in due diligence systems. It aims to support business to identify how risks affect men and women differently, and ensure responses consider underlying systemic issues. An initial assessment may focus on whether gender considerations are incorporated into existing policies and management systems, rather than treated as a standalone element (OECD, 2018[7]; 2017[8]).
Exposure to and experience of risk are not uniform across individuals, and are shaped by intersecting factors, such as gender, race, sexuality, income, disability and indigeneity. When these dimensions are not taken into account, risk assessments can fail to capture differentiated or cumulative vulnerabilities. As a result, prevention and mitigation measures may overlook affected stakeholders or underestimate the severity and nature of risks.
Conducting a high-level risk scoping, identifying factors driving gendered risks linked to the sector, location, business and sourcing model or employment and type of workforce, can help companies understand where gendered risks and affected stakeholders may be prevalent, and prioritise action accordingly. Including factors shaping gendered risks in existing risk-mapping tools and data systems and combining data with gender-specific sources may support in assessing how intersecting factors increase exposure or alter the nature of risks, influencing the severity, likelihood and irremediability, with particular attention to severity in human rights contexts, where it takes precedence over likelihood in prioritisation decisions (OECD, 2018[7]).
Due to fear of retaliation, social norms, power imbalances or limited awareness or access to available reporting channels, many risks remain hidden or underreported through standard assessment approaches. For example, low grievance rates may signal barriers to reporting rather than the absence of harm, while aggregated workforce data can obscure the experiences of women, migrant workers or other groups facing heightened risks. Adapting on-site risk assessments to ensure accessibility and safety for women to flag and report risks, ensuring women form part of assessment teams and adapting engagement format, location and techniques according to their needs may help remove potential power and accessibility imbalances associated with gender.
To increase information reliability, practices may focus on:
Complementing sex-disaggregated quantitative data (e.g. wages, hours, contract type, OSH incidents, training participation, gendered turnover) with qualitative data (e.g. maternity exits and unexplained low grievance rates to uncover hidden risks). Qualitative data may be collected through interviews and focus group discussions, including through consultation sessions designated exclusively for women.
Contextualising data to detect biased, incomplete or non-representative data. Examples of this include comparing sample profiles (gender, age, contract type, migrant status) to the full workforce, applying statistical weights, conduct targeted interviews with under-represented groups or using sector or regional benchmarks.
Assessing the level of awareness among women and men workers and/or community members regarding their rights.
Validating findings through data triangulation, including consulting unions, NGOs, and labour inspectors to verify data and capture missing data. Grievance mechanisms and other monitoring platforms (e.g. national monitoring committees) can alert companies to real or potential adverse impacts they may not have identified themselves (OECD, 2025[48]).
In contexts where certain risks are known to be prevalent, companies may complement assessment efforts with preventive measures, recognising that a lack of reported incidents does not necessarily indicate a lack of risk (OECD, 2017, p. 109[8]). For instance, for GBVH risk, the company may choose not to assess suppliers first but rather to immediately partner with its suppliers to prevent the prevalent risk through trainings and establishing an effective operational-level grievance mechanism (OECD, 2017, p. 59[8]).
Prevention and mitigation measures that are not informed by an analysis of structural inequalities, workplace realities, and the operational context shaping access to resources, representation, safety and decision making power may be insufficiently adapted to the nature and extent of the risk itself and its underlying root causes, and therefore less effective in addressing gender-differentiated impacts.
Effective approaches involve adapting a company’s operations, products, services and facilities to reflect differentiated exposure and constraints. This may include upgrading workplace infrastructure to improve safety, privacy and accessibility, such as sanitation facilities, lighting, protective equipment, and accommodation arrangements. Training and capacity-building measures are also more effective when delivery methods are adapted to participants’ needs, including language, format, literacy levels, and working conditions (OECD, 2018, p. 75[7]). Another area of practice focusses on assessing to what extent purchasing practices may create pressure for low costs and short lead times leading to exploitative working conditions for women. Poor practices can exacerbate gender pay gaps, limit access to training and promotion, increase exposure to GBVH or unsafe working conditions. Improved effectiveness of the action plan also depends on strengthening participation and representation in engagement processes (OECD, 2017[9]; 2025[48]). Reducing barriers to women’s participation in decision making and benefit sharing, as well as supporting women’s inclusion in workplace committees, collective bargaining structures, and governance mechanisms will be key to prevent and mitigate gendered risks.
A key challenge in addressing gendered risks is that many drivers are structural and extend beyond individual company control, as a result, firm-level interventions alone may be insufficient, and risks may be displaced across suppliers, sectors, or regions rather than meaningfully reduced. More systemic approaches may rely on collective action to address systemic drivers and root causes. This can include:
Co‑ordinating and collaborating with peers and across sectors to scale up effective, gender-responsive prevention and mitigation measures so that gender harms are not shifted between sectors or suppliers and efforts and cost can be reduced through harmonisation.
Drawing on existing initiatives can contribute to more standardised tools and co‑ordinated supplier engagement. These can facilitate integration of gender safeguards into grievance mechanisms, standardised risk assessments, and supplier support tools, as well as jointly developed guidance to strengthen workplace grievance and remediation systems.
Engaging with local and national authorities to promote enforcement of labour and gender-equality laws. This includes open letters to the government, participation in policy dialogues on women’s labour rights, or advocacy through multi-stakeholder initiatives for the ratification and enforcement of gender-relevant international conventions (e.g. ILO C100 and C190) and participating in dialogues or initiatives that strengthen women’s rights and protections in the workplace (OECD, 2018[7]).
In some instances, suppliers face resource, capacity and incentive constraints that limit their ability to implement gender-responsive practices. There are avenues for companies to support supplier progress, including through the following inter-related approaches:
Establishing business incentives by integrating gender-responsive expectations into commercial practices. Embedding gender-related criteria into supplier contracts, codes of conduct, and purchasing decisions can create incentives. Companies may consider supporting direct suppliers in assessing and engaging with their own subcontractors on these issues.
Support by providing trainings, guidelines, sample assessments, templates, tools that can help raise suppliers’ capacity. Encourage the use of gender-sensitive indicators in supplier self-assessments and monitoring.
Facilitating participation in gender specific sectoral or regional initiatives to identify systemic risks related to gender and enable co‑ordinated action at shared factories. These initiatives often provide tools such as standardised assessment frameworks, worker surveys and collaboration with local facilitators to support prevention and mitigation of gendered risks (OECD, 2018, p. 80[7]).
In some cases, broader supplier engagement strategies have been linked to efforts to strengthen women’s economic participation through the inclusion of women-owned enterprises in supply chains and supplier development initiatives.
Tracking the effectiveness of due diligence measures related to gendered risks may be challenging in instances where monitoring systems focus on activities completed or incidents recorded rather than examine whether risk drivers are being reduced over time (OECD, 2017[8]). This can result in an incomplete understanding of effectiveness, particularly where gendered risks are rooted in structural inequalities, workplace norms, or barriers to participation that are not readily visible.
Activities to validate effectiveness include multidimensional approaches to measurement. These may combine direct indicators, such as percentage of women accessing grievance mechanisms, gender pay gaps, female worker injury rates, proportion of women in health and safety training, with indirect indicators capturing less visible dynamics, including workers’ perceptions of workplace safety, awareness of rights, access to leadership roles. This reflects ways triangulating quantitative and qualitative evidence can support address reporting gaps and improve the reliability of assessments.
It may be challenging to gather accurate information, validate findings, or ensure that grievance mechanisms function effectively in contexts where workers may fear retaliation for reporting gender-based risks or participating in due diligence processes. This can undermine both the reliability of information and the functioning of remediation systems.
A focus on strengthening trust, accessibility and independence in reporting systems may include involving women workers in the design of reporting and grievance mechanisms. Also, ensuring access points for grievance and monitoring mechanisms are trained, trustworthy, and sensitive to gender, migration status, and power imbalances and supporting women’s access to representation and reporting in workplace‑based monitoring and peer networks. In parallel, safeguards against retaliation can be reinforced by ensuring confidentiality and anonymous reporting channels; providing multiple and culturally appropriate access points (avoiding company representatives as the sole point of contact) and having at least one independent point of contact; ensuring that workers can access independent advice and information (e.g. through referral to women’s rights organisation) and that remediation processes account for different experiences, needs and barriers faced by affected groups. This may include consulting with a range of stakeholders to ensure remedies are appropriate; ensuring provision of remedy is aligned with national laws and, where absent, international standards on gender and best practices.
References
[46] Chaturvedi, S. and R. Chaturvedi (2025), Who Gets the Callback? Generative AI and Gender Bias, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21400.
[34] Eftimie, Heller and Strongman (2009), Gender Dimensions of the Extractive Industries : Mining for Equity, https://doi.org/10.1596/18236.
[37] Elizabeth Broderick & Co (2022), Report into workplace culture at Rio Tinto, https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Sustainability/People/RT-Everyday-respect-report.pdf.
[43] Equileap (2024), Gender Equality Report & Ranking – Developed Markets Edition, https://equileap.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Equileap_2024_Gender_Equality_Report_Developed_Markets.pdf.
[31] FAO/UN (2018), The gender gap in land rights, https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/4966d50c-233b-43a9-8fa7-8d43263dd082/content.
[45] Focus 2030 (2023), Overview of data resources on gender equality across the world,, https://focus2030.org/Overview-of-data-resources-on-gender-equality-across-the-world.
[33] Global Labor Justice (2025), Freedom of Association and Gender, https://globallaborjustice.org/resources/freedom-of-association-and-gender/.
[36] IFC (2020), Addressing gender‑based violence and harassment in the manufacturing sector, https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt/sectorbrief-addressinggbvh-manufacturing-july2020.pdf.
[20] ILO (2025), Promoting gender equality through responsible business conduct: The role of governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, https://www.ilo.org/publications/promoting-gender-equality-through-responsible-business-conduct-role.
[27] ILO (2024), The impact of care responsibilities on women’s labour force participation: Statistical Brief, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/GEDI-STAT%20brief_formatted_28.10.24_final.pdf.
[16] ILO (2023), Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical update, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_protect/%40protrav/%40travail/documents/publication/wcms_869188.pdf.
[3] ILO (2022), The state of the apparel and footwear industry: Employment, automation and their gender dimensions, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_835423.pdf.
[29] ILO (2022), Global Wage Report 2022‑23: The impact of inflation and COVID‑19 on wages and purchasing power, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40ed_protect/%40protrav/%40travail/documents/publication/wcms_862569.pdf.
[4] ILO (2021), Gender equality in global supply chains, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@europe/@ro-geneva/@ilo-rome/documents/genericdocument/wcms_824714.pdf.
[28] ILO (2019), Understanding the gender pay gap: Women in business and management, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@act_emp/documents/publication/wcms_735949.pdf.
[39] ILO (2011), Gender-based violence in the world of work: overview and selected annotated bibliography, https://researchrepository.ilo.org/esploro/outputs/995328407302676.
[23] ILO (n.d.), Care economy, https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/care-economy (accessed on 30 June 2026).
[32] ITUC (2018), Special report: Count Us In !, Equal Times and the ITUC Equality department, https://www.equaltimes.org/IMG/pdf/women_in_leadership_en_final.pdf.
[38] Kiio, G. and W. Kanja (2025), Tea Leaves a Mark: The Voice of Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Kenya’s Tea Estates, Oxfam GB, https://doi.org/10.21201/2025.000055.
[40] Morris, J. and S. Rickard (2019), Violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, in garment factories and supply chains, WOW Helpdesk, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e7ccd0286650c7446207792/Query-22-Sexual-Harassment-Garment-Factories.pdf.
[1] OECD (2026), Background Note on Gender-responsive due diligence in global supply chains, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct/background-note-gender-responsive-due-diligence-in-global-supply-chain.pdf.
[48] OECD (2025), Background note for the OECD Company-Union Roundtable on meaningful engagement in due diligence, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct/Background-Note-Company-Union-Roundtable.pdf.
[22] OECD (2025), Gender equality in a changing world: Taking stock and moving forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e808086f-en.
[21] OECD (2025), Gender gaps in paid and unpaid work persist, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/25a6c5dc-en.
[19] OECD (2024), Breaking the vicious circles of informal employment and low‑paying work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f95c5a74-en.
[14] OECD (2023), SIGI 2023 Global Report: Gender Equality in Times of Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4607b7c7-en.
[18] OECD (2021), Man Enough? Measuring Masculine Norms to Promote Women’s Empowerment: Social Institutions and Gender Index, https://doi.org/10.1787/6ffd1936-en.
[25] OECD (2019), Enabling Women’s Economic Empowerement - New approaches to unpaid care work in developing countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec90d1b1-en.
[12] OECD (2019), Integrating a gender perspective into supply chain due diligence, https://web-archive-storage.oecd.org/aemint-web-archive-prod/web-archive/5c/5c5d24d1c2ad022c784ed3146fc68732aa7047a587ed71003948f7063e6d5ef3.pdf.
[17] OECD (2019), SIGI 2019 Global Report: Transforming Challenges into Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc56d212-en.
[10] OECD (2019), Stakeholder Statement on Implementing Gender-Responsive Due Diligence and ensuring the human rights of women in Mineral Supply Chains, https://web-archive.oecd.org/pdfViewer?path=/site/mneguidelines/Stakeholder-Statement-Implementing-Gender-Responsive-Due-Diligence-and-ensuring-human-rights-of-women-in-Mineral-Supply-Chains.pdf.
[7] OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en.
[9] OECD (2017), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252462-en.
[8] OECD (2017), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264290587-en.
[11] OECD (2016), OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251052-en.
[13] OECD (2012), Closing the gender gap: Act now, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-en.
[41] Oxfam (2025), Change the way you do business: Leading with women workers voices, https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/Change_the_Way_You_Do_Business_Leading_with_women_workers_voices_Briefing_paper.pdf.
[26] UN Women (2024), Facts and figures: Economic empowerment, https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-economic-empowerment.
[35] UN Women/ILO (2019), Handbook: Addressing violence and harassment against women in the world of work, https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2019/03/handbook-addressing-violence-and-harassment-against-women-in-the-world-of-work.
[42] UNDP Working Group on Business and Human Rights (2019), Gender Dimensions of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, https://www.undp.org/publications/gender-dimensions-guiding-principles-business-and-human-rights.
[47] UNECE (2019), Promoting Gender Diversity and Inclusion in the Oil, Gas and Mining Extractive Industries, https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/energy/images/CMM/CMM_CE/AHR_gender_diversity_report_FINAL.pdf.
[5] UNGC (2024), WEPs Tool 2024 Trends Report: Advancing Gender Equality Amidst Polycrisis, https://info.unglobalcompact.org/l/591891/2024-03-12/58zhx2/591891/1714426407StAnYE4I/2024_WEPs___FINAL.pdf.
[44] UNIDO (2023), Gender, Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence, https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/unido-publications/2023-11/Gender%2C%20Digital%20Transformation%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Report_0.pdf.
[6] WBA (2023), Gender Insights Report, https://assets.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2024/05/2023-Gender-Insights-Report-3-May-2024.pdf.
[2] WEF (2023), Global Gender Gap Report 2023, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf.
[24] World Bank (2019), Gender Equality, Infrastructure and PPPs: A Primer, https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt/gender-and-ppps-primer.pdf.
[15] World Bank (n.d.), Labor force participation rate, total, https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/sl-isv-ifrm-zs.
[30] World Bank (n.d.), Share of women owning land (% of women ages 15‑49), https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/sg-own-ld.
This work is issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD and does not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD Member countries.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Photo credits: © JackF / Getty Images
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
This case study was drafted by Julia del Valle and Sophie Rickard (OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct), under the direction of Hannah Koep-Andrieu and Barbara Bijelic (OECD Centre for Responsible Business Conduct). The authors would like to acknowledge gratefully those who participated in meetings, provided feedback or reviewed the study. This case study was prepared with the financial support from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
