In June 2024, a garment worker in Tamil Nadu reached out to the local trade union— Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU)—and reported that she was fired two days after she used the factory’s digital complaint mechanism to raise a complaint against the factory manager’s abusive behavior towards a colleague.
Brands Need to 'Put Money Where Their Mouth Is' in Bangladesh
The worker had filed the complaint using a speech-enabled digital grievance mechanism that had been introduced only a week earlier as part of the factory’s new digital grievance management system. When TTCU confronted the management regarding her dismissal, they cited missed production targets as the reason—a claim strongly disputed by both the worker and her colleagues in the same production line.
The incident raises critical questions about the unregulated rise of digital grievance mechanisms in manufacturing units like garment factories. Are these tools genuinely providing workers access to remedy, or are they covertly being used as instruments of surveillance and retaliation against workers who raise concerns about workplace conditions?
These concerns take on added importance as fashion brands, in response to rising human rights due diligence mechanisms like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), are mandating the use of digital grievance mechanisms by their suppliers. This is especially the case in factories without trade union representation, where these apps are often positioned as alternatives or substitutes.
Impact of techno-solutionism in the garment industry
What happened in Tamil Nadu adds to a growing pattern of incidents where the introduction of digital or technological tools by employers is associated with allegations of human rights violations. These incidents are also reflective of the larger trend of “techno-solutionism” that has become an increasingly popular management or governance approach across multiple sectors.
Techno-solutionism refers to the attitude that every problem, regardless of its nature, can and should be solved using technology and engineering, and by extension, that the mere availability of technology justifies its application as a solution to these problems. The implementation of digital grievance mechanisms in the garment sector demonstrates how techno-solutionism can undermine worker rights and existing legal protections.
Firstly, in countries like India, the introduction of digital tools as the primary means of accessing remedies in low-wage industries is inherently problematic, given the country’s significant digital divide. As of 2022, only 31 percent of women in India used mobile internet, and a mere 29 percent owned smartphones. Among the poorest 20 percent of households, just 8.9 percent had Internet access, with 70 percent of the population having poor or no connectivity to digital services.
There is also a wide gender gap in mobile phone ownership in India, with only 31 percent of women owning mobile phones in contrast to 60 percent of men, and with 19 percent of female mobile internet users relying on someone else’s device (usually a male relative). This dependency presents a significant barrier for women wanting to report grievances, especially complaints of gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH), which are common in women-dominated sectors like the garment industry.
Women often fear that discovery of their complaints could lead to retaliation or social ostracism at home, fueled by the pervasive victim-blaming attitude in their communities. As a result, many choose not to file complaints through these apps, undermining the intended purpose of the digital mechanisms and leaving critical issues unaddressed.
Adding to these concerns, most of these digital platforms, except for the complaint feature itself, are available only in English, a language spoken by a mere 6 percent of the Indian population and rarely used by garment workers. The language barrier creates a significant knowledge gap for the most vulnerable users of these technologies, which exacerbates the power imbalance these tools purportedly aim to address.
Secondly, a major concern about most such digital tools is their lack of transparency around how workers’ personal data is collected and processed. Such opacity raises significant questions about the accountability of these systems and the ethical handling of sensitive worker information such as the reporting of incidents of GBVH.
While examining the websites and apps for these digital tools, we found that it is unclear who can view the submitted information—be it factory management, global fashion brands, government agencies or third-party entities—and how this data might be used.
Levi's Uses In-Store App to Tailor the Customer Experience
Although some services claim to guarantee anonymity, the extent of anonymity is unclear, and the data collected and stored through the digital mechanism can frequently make it easy to identify the complainant. There are also numerous instances that reveal how flaws in implementation can lead to data breaches, which have surged by 180 percent between 2023 and 2024. In the garment industry, such breaches can have serious consequences for low-wage women workers, as retaliation for reporting grievances is swift and commonplace.
Other instances also show that these tools can create conditions that dissuade reporting, thereby hampering access to remedy for victims and survivors. For example, a factory manager in Tirupur anonymously revealed that grievance data collected through a third-party mechanism is shared directly with the brand, which then uses this data to decide on future orders for the supplier. This practice has led some garment suppliers to discourage workers from reporting issues honestly, which defeats the very purpose of the tool.
Thirdly, digital grievance mechanisms could be undermining established legal protection. Trade unions and factory managements in India have reported that complaints of GBVH submitted through digital platforms often bypass the Internal Committees (ICs) legally mandated under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act (POSH) of 2013.
This issue arises either from employers’ confusion about integrating these tools with existing legal requirements or because the apps exist outside of Indian jurisdiction and do not notify the cases to factory-based POSH committees. Either way, because of these tools, workers are deprived of timely protection and the due process granted by Indian laws.
Offline methods outperform tech-based solutions
The shift towards techno-solutions like digital grievance mechanisms in the Indian garment sector is driven by cost-effectiveness rather than their effectiveness in addressing challenges. The success of the Dindigul Agreement in addressing GBVH demonstrates that traditional offline methods, such as those involving trade unions and collective bargaining, are more effective in addressing worker grievances. These remediation methods are decentralized, support multilingual processes and address the underlying culture enabling GBVH rather than merely reducing costs. These solutions are also more compliant with national legal frameworks, are capable of guaranteeing genuine anonymity and offer a survivor-centric approach to grievance remediation.
While technological advances are inevitable, the hasty and ill-planned implementation of digital solutions can sabotage well-functioning offline solutions. This is a potentially harmful trend and must be thwarted.
Any effective solution that aims to increase access to remedy in the garment sector would require a deeper understanding of the real challenges at the factory floor. It would also require a conceptualization of systems that address these challenges without introducing additional problems.
The rigorous testing of digital solutions, establishment of standards that protect workers’ rights, assurance of secure and transparent data management, and protection for workers who raise grievances from retaliation would be pivotal. Importantly, these initiatives must actively involve, from design to implementation, worker representatives like local trade unions. Without such collaborative effort, we risk implementing impractical solutions that would further erode the labor rights of an already precarious workforce.
Nandita Shivakumar is a researcher specializing in gender justice and sustainability in global fashion supply chains. She works with multiple garment workers’ unions to develop their campaigns and communication strategies.
Pranav M.B. is a researcher at the Center for Internet and Society. His research focuses on artificial intelligence and issues surrounding privacy and cybersecurity.
All views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the organizations they work for.
Nike Shareholders Vote No on Labor Rights Proposal
Local News
Comments / 0