Before accepting a supplier’s SMETA audit report, establish which production site it covers, obtain access to the shared record and read the corrective actions. A polished PDF alone cannot answer whether the factory making your order has addressed the findings.
NOVITA’s buyer-side recommendation is to separate document authenticity from sourcing approval. A genuine report can still describe unresolved risks, an unsuitable scope or a different site. The following checks explain what to ask the supplier, what to verify with the auditor and where the purchasing decision remains yours.
What the methodology is, and what it is not
According to Sedex, it created SMETA in 2004, growing it out of the Ethical Trading Initiative’s ETI Base Code. The methodology measures a site against the ETI Base Code, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions and local law. Sedex identifies the latest version as SMETA 7.
Sedex describes SMETA as “a continuous improvement methodology rather than a certification” and “not a pass-or-fail test” on its methodology page. A buyer therefore needs the findings and follow-up record, not a claim that an auditor issued a universal approval. Your purchasing requirements may be stricter than a supplier’s interpretation of an acceptable result.
Treat a SMETA audit as evidence for due diligence. Record what you reviewed, what remains open and who approved the sourcing decision. Request the full report and associated action record if the supplier sends only a cover sheet, membership evidence or a summary score. None of those substitutes lets you assess the underlying findings.
A supplier may also offer a different social-audit report. Read the BSCI report verification guide separately; do not assume the documents are interchangeable or that an auditor’s conclusion removes your own verification work.
Choose the pillar scope for the purchasing decision
Sedex calls Labour Standards and Health and Safety the “two founding pillars”. The fuller scope adds Environment and Business Ethics. Sedex says around 70% of its audits now use that expanded scope. That share describes usage; it does not decide which scope your supplier needs.
| Purchasing question | 2-pillar scope | 4-pillar scope |
|---|---|---|
| Labour Standards and Health and Safety | The two founding pillars, according to Sedex | The same founding pillars remain included |
| Environment and Business Ethics | Do not assume the full additional pillar assessment | Adds these pillars, according to Sedex |
| What the buyer should verify | Whether this scope meets customer requirements and site risks | Whether the additional scope covers the operations relevant to the order |
| What scope cannot establish | Product conformity or automatic sourcing approval | Product conformity or automatic sourcing approval |
The scope descriptions above follow Sedex; the purchasing checks are NOVITA recommendations. A SMETA 4 pillar audit gives broader coverage, but still needs a site match and a readable action record.
For cut-make-trim work, examine labor arrangements and safety risks at the sewing site. Where the order also relies on dyeing, washing or other wet processing, ask how those locations and environmental risks are assessed. A broader sewing-site report does not automatically cover an outside processor. Choose a SMETA audit scope against the actual supply chain and customer requirements, then put it in the manufacturing RFQ.
Verify the auditor and obtain platform access
Sedex states that only its named independent, third-party Affiliate Audit Companies, or AACs, carry out these audits. Sedex does not audit directly. Check the auditing company against Sedex’s current approved list and confirm any uncertainty through independently obtained contact details. A logo on a PDF does not establish authorization or provenance.
Ask the supplier to identify its company and site on the Sedex platform and arrange the relevant customer connection and report sharing. Have your account administrator confirm the connection and access. Verify that the shared report matches the PDF, including the site, audit date and follow-up record. Avoid relying on a screenshot of someone else’s dashboard.
Sedex explains that businesses commissioning this audit need membership and an active platform account. Its platform-sharing explanation says businesses can upload reports once and share them with multiple customers. Sharing therefore reduces duplicate requests; it does not mean any buyer can access any supplier’s report without an appropriate connection.
If access fails, ask the supplier and account administrator to resolve the permission or account issue. Do not infer what happened to the findings from an access error. For unresolved authenticity concerns, seek confirmation from the named AAC through a verified channel and keep sourcing approval pending. Establish that verification route early when choosing a manufacturer in China.
Match the report to the legal entity and production site
Read the site identity before reading the supplier’s summary. Compare the legal name and address with the proposed sewing location, supplier onboarding documents and purchase arrangements. If a trading company issues the invoice, ask it to explain its relationship to the audited factory. A matching group name is insufficient where the order runs at another unit.
Sedex describes the methodology as site-level assessment. NOVITA recommends mapping cutting, sewing, finishing and any outside processing to named locations. Record which activities the report covers and request separate evidence for operations elsewhere. The distinction between an OEM or ODM arrangement does not change this need to identify who performs the work.
Check the audit date, stated scope and methodology version together. Sedex identifies SMETA 7 as the latest version; an earlier report needs a currency decision, not an invented expiry date. Ask about relocation, ownership, management and workforce changes since the visit.
Look for inconsistencies between the report, CAPR and platform record. Missing pages or an unexplained change of site name warrant clarification, but typography alone cannot establish fraud. Verify a SMETA audit through its provenance and shared record, not through a guessed reference-number pattern.
Read the CAPR: findings, deadlines and verification
CAPR means Corrective Action Plan Report, as described by Sedex. Read it alongside the report, not as a replacement for the site description and audit evidence. Trace each finding through the proposed action, responsible owner, due date and verification record.
DQS describes CAPR remediation timeframes as immediate, 30, 60 or 90 days, with desktop review or an on-site follow-up audit as verification routes. These are the AAC’s explanation of the process, not a universal rule that every finding must close within the same period. DQS also notes that findings requiring coordinated action by several parties may take longer. Read the timeframe attached to the actual finding.
| Finding or record to read | Evidence the buyer can ask for | Verification question |
|---|---|---|
| Missing or obstructed escape provision | Corrective action and evidence showing the affected location | Does the stated verification route require a site visit, and has that occurred? |
| Working-time or wage-record inconsistency | Corrected calculations and an appropriate period of underlying records | Does the evidence address the period and workers in the finding? |
| Revised procedure submitted | Issued procedure plus evidence of implementation | Has the auditor accepted implementation, or has the supplier only uploaded a document? |
| Item shown as closed | Closure record, date and evidence linked to the finding | Who verified closure, by what route, and what exactly was verified? |
This table is NOVITA’s buyer-reading framework, informed by DQS’s CAPR explanation. It is not a prescribed template or a promise that any listed evidence is sufficient for closure.
Desktop verification concerns evidence reviewed remotely; a specified on-site follow-up calls for evidence from that visit. Do not substitute your own interpretation of a photo for the required auditor verification. “Closed” should be read against that finding’s accepted evidence and verification record. It does not establish that a problem can never recur or that unrelated findings are resolved.
For purchasing, decide whether an open item prevents order placement, requires a hold point or needs monitored remediation. Those are buyer decisions; a genuine SMETA audit does not make them automatically. Ask for escalation when evidence contradicts the action status.
Check the report before placing the order
Use this NOVITA checklist during supplier approval. It organizes the review without claiming an official scoring system.
| Check | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Provenance | The named AAC and a route to verify the record independently |
| Identity | The legal entity and physical production site |
| Scope | The pillar coverage and relevant activities at that site |
| Currency | Audit date and material changes since the visit |
| Completeness | Full report and linked CAPR, not just a cover page |
| Findings | The issue, affected area and supporting explanation |
| Actions | The corrective measure, owner and deadline |
| Verification | The required route and evidence accepted for closure |
| Shared access | Whether the platform record matches the supplied copy |
| Purchase decision | Outstanding conditions, decision owner and review trigger |
Record the result of each check in the supplier file. Where something is missing, specify the requested evidence rather than treating the missing field as proof of wrongdoing. A reformatted summary may be useful for discussion, but retain the original report for approval.
Ask the supplier to explain conflicting dates, altered page sequences or findings that appear in the CAPR but not in the copy provided. Seek confirmation through the AAC and platform record when necessary. Do not invent a standard report-reference format or approve a document solely because its identifier looks plausible.
Garment risks that need questions beyond the cover page
NOVITA suggests asking these garment-sourcing questions alongside the report review. They are buyer recommendations; the answers must come from the supplier and relevant assessment records.
For CMT orders, ask who actually cuts, sews and finishes the garments. Reconcile the production plan with declared subcontractors and ask whether homeworking occurs. Where work leaves the audited site, establish how the buyer will assess those workers and conditions. A site report cannot be stretched to cover an undisclosed sewing unit.
For piece-rate pay, ask how output records reconcile with payroll and the applicable working-time and wage requirements. Request an explanation of low-output periods and deductions. A payroll total by itself does not show how individual workers’ pay was calculated.
Peak-season overtime needs evidence from the period in which your order will run. Ask whether the audit’s records represent normal and peak production, then examine changes in staffing, shifts or delivery pressure. Include capacity planning in the sourcing discussion rather than asking compliance staff to explain an unrealistic delivery plan afterward.
If dormitories or canteens serve the workforce, establish whether they were included in the site’s assessment and follow-up. Ask about areas operated by another entity and who controls corrective action there. Do not assume that a sewing-floor visit resolves accommodation questions.
Needle control needs a separate question about worker safety and product contamination. Keep the safety concern with the appropriate site review, and verify broken-needle records and product-detection controls through technical/QC assessment. A social report should not be used as proof that finished garments satisfy your product-safety specification.
These questions are especially useful when selecting a manufacturer in China: the commercial supplier, sewing factory and outside processor may not be the same entity.
Decide whether an older report is sufficient
There is no fixed SMETA audit validity period. Sedex’s frequency explanation says: “Audit frequency is determined by buying and supplier companies” and considers previous findings, inherent risk, business information and priorities. On self-reported information, its wording is “which we recommend is updated every 12 months”. That recommendation concerns information updates; it is not an automatic annual expiry rule for every audit.
For a three-year-old report, NOVITA recommends checking the shared record, subsequent CAPR activity and material changes at the site. Ask whether the factory moved, added subcontractors, changed ownership or altered workforce arrangements. Request current evidence addressing the earlier findings and the planned order’s risks.
Do not reject it solely through an invented expiration date, or accept it solely because the document is authentic. Apply customer requirements and your risk assessment. A new on-site assessment may be needed where changes or evidence gaps leave the current conditions unclear. Record the decision and its reasons.
Budget for verification and include its timing in the order’s payment and approval terms.
Combine social and technical audits without duplicating scope
Commission technical/QC work against product and manufacturing requirements that remain untested by the social review. NOVITA recommends a shared site-identity record and coordinated document requests, followed by distinct evidence lists. This avoids requesting the same basic company information repeatedly while leaving each review accountable for its own conclusions.
The apparel QC checklist covers the product-facing discussion: fabric approval, construction, measurements, inspection and records. Social-audit review concerns the relevant working conditions and management practices. Where a control touches both areas, agree who checks which aspect and who verifies any corrective action.
Keep sample approval conditions and bulk inspection requirements in the plan. Neither a satisfactory sample nor a social report substitutes for production checks. Ask for a combined evidence plan when you contact NOVITA, while specifying which independent report your purchasing policy requires. Check any requested report against the named production site before purchasing approval.
FAQ
Q: Does Sedex issue a factory certificate after the audit?
Sedex says the methodology is not a certification and is not a pass-or-fail test. Request the report and CAPR rather than treating a purported certificate as the approval record. The buyer still needs to decide whether the site, scope, findings and follow-up meet its purchasing requirements.
Q: What should I do if the supplier only sends a PDF?
Ask the supplier to arrange access to the relevant shared record on Sedex and have your account administrator confirm access. Sedex describes reports being uploaded once and shared with multiple customers. Compare the shared record with the PDF and resolve discrepancies through the named AAC using independently verified contact details.
Q: Must every CAPR finding close within 90 days?
DQS lists immediate, 30-, 60- and 90-day timeframes, but also explains that findings requiring coordinated action may take longer. Read the specific deadline and verification route. Evidence submission alone should not be treated as accepted closure; ask for the recorded verification and any unresolved conditions relevant to your order.
Q: Can I request a report in Mandarin?
Sedex states that its reports are available in English, Spanish and Mandarin. Agree which available version the buying team will review and retain access to the original record. If the supplier supplies a translated summary, compare it with that record, especially for the findings, deadlines and closure status.
Q: Can I use a social report instead of a garment quality audit?
A SMETA audit assesses the relevant site conditions against its methodology; Sedex describes that scope here. NOVITA recommends a separate technical/QC scope for the order’s product requirements. Coordinate the visits and shared company documents, but retain the product evidence and social findings separately so each conclusion can be checked.
Sources and further reading
- https://www.sedex.com/solutions/smeta-audit/
- https://www.sedex.com/what-we-do-at-sedex/
- https://www.dqsglobal.com/en/explore/blog/capr-follow-up-sharing-sedex-smeta-audit-added-value-buyers-suppliers
