In Bangladesh’s ready-made garment (RMG) industry, compliance has become a defining condition of doing business. Over the past decade, international pressure on sustainability has intensified, particularly after industrial disasters and rising climate concerns. Brands sourcing from Bangladesh now expect factories to demonstrate compliance in chemical management, wastewater treatment, energy use, labour rights, and traceability. In many cases, orders do not even reach the negotiation stage unless a factory can show valid certificates.
Alongside widely used systems such as the Higg Index, WRAP, GOTS, Textile Exchange, and SLCP, Bangladeshi factories are now expected to align with ZDHC’s Chemical Management System, OEKO-TEX, BSCI, SEDEX/SMETA, ISO 14001, ISO 45001, ISO 50001, FSC, RCS, GRS, Fair Trade, Better Cotton, and brand-specific codes of conduct.
In some cases, climate-focused initiatives such as Science Based Targets (SBTi), carbon footprint reporting, water stewardship tools, and ESG disclosures are also becoming part of buyer requirements. Each standard addresses a specific risk or sustainability theme, but together they form a complex and costly compliance ecosystem.
For global brands, these standards provide assurance. They reduce reputational risk, support regulatory compliance in destination markets, and respond to rising consumer expectations around sustainability. For Bangladeshi manufacturers, however, compliance has become both unavoidable and expensive. Many factories must undergo multiple audits every year, often covering similar ground but using different methodologies, formats, and scoring systems.
The financial burden is significant. Certification fees, audit costs, consultant charges, and laboratory testing represent recurring expenses. Certification fees alone can run into thousands of euros per year: OEKO-TEX certificates typically cost €1,500–€5,000, while GOTS compliance can demand €3,000–€8,000 annually per facility.
Independent audits such as BSCI or WRAP often cost €2,000–€4,000 every audit cycle, not to mention repeated testing for chemicals and materials per order. On top of these fixed costs, factories must upgrade wastewater treatment plants, implement chemical-management systems, and invest in environmental monitoring and documentation just to maintain these credentials.
Beyond these direct costs, factories must invest in infrastructure such as waste treatment plants, sludge management systems, chemical storage system upgrades, fire and electrical safety improvements, monitoring equipment, and digital data systems. Dedicated compliance teams are now standard in most export-oriented factories, which adds additional costs. For a medium-sized factory supplying multiple international brands, annual compliance costs can easily reach six-figure US dollars.
Compliance is often treated as a minimum requirement rather than a competitive advantage. Factories say that even when they perform better than required in environmental or social areas, they still face pressure on pricing. Many buyers continue to negotiate aggressively on FOB rates while expecting higher compliance standards. This creates a growing gap between what factories spend to meet standards and the financial benefit they receive.
The pressure is intensified by the risk of losing orders. Brands increasingly tie sourcing decisions to compliance status, making certifications essential for business. Delays in audits, minor non-conformances, or expired certifications can lead to order cancellations or reduced volumes. For factory owners, compliance is therefore not a strategic choice, it is a necessary risk management tool to maintain buyer relationships.
This environment also affects how compliance is implemented. While many factories have made real improvements, others focus more on paperwork than actual operational change. Policies, procedures, and records are often prepared mainly to satisfy auditors, without fully changing day-to-day practices. Quick fixes may resolve audit issues, but lasting improvements require time, investment, and consistent support from buyers.
Industry observers note that this ‘certificate-centric’ approach is often driven by economic constraints rather than a deterrent to sustainability. When customers do not pay more for improved performance, factories face a difficult trade-off between long-term improvement and short-term survival. Small and medium-sized factories in particular may lack the financial capacity to exceed minimum compliance thresholds.
However, there are clear examples where real compliance delivers value. Factories that systematically implement energy management, water efficiency, and chemical controls often achieve long-term cost savings and operational stability. Improved working conditions can increase productivity and reduce workforce turnover. Bangladesh’s global leadership in green factory certification demonstrates that sustainable investments can strengthen competitiveness when aligned with supportive sourcing practices.
The demand for compliance is expected to intensify. New regulations in key markets, particularly in Europe, are placing greater responsibility on brands to demonstrate due diligence, traceability, and reduced environmental impact in their supply chains. This will inevitably increase data, reporting, and performance requirements for suppliers.
Also read: EU Parliament Rejects Simplified Sustainability and Due Diligence Mandate
For the Bangladeshi garment industry, the central challenge is not the absence of standards, but rather the lack of balance in how they are implemented and financed. Without fair procurement practices, cost-sharing mechanisms, or long-term sourcing commitments, compliance risks become a financial burden rather than a driver of true sustainability.
As the list of required standards grows, the future credibility of global sustainability efforts will depend on whether compliance is transformed from a box-ticking exercise into a shared value-chain responsibility that recognizes both the costs borne by suppliers and the benefits enjoyed by brands.
