---
id: KB-NO-021
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/regulation/your-suppliers-working-conditions
idioma: en
categoria: normativa
subcategoria: cadena
audiencia: usuario
nivel: avanzado
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-NO-004, KB-NO-008]
citadoPor: [KB-NO-014]
---

# Your supplier's working conditions

_A client asks how your supplier works. It is not a survey: it is a duty that has been passed down to you._

**Responde a:** asked for social data on my suppliers · supply chain due diligence · how do i know how my supplier works · human rights questionnaire for suppliers

A questionnaire arrives from a large client and, among the usual questions, there are three new ones: whether your suppliers have collective agreements, whether minors work there, whether you know where their factory is. The typical reaction is to answer «nothing untoward has come to our attention» and move on. That sentence is exactly the one that does not work.

**Due diligence** — The duty to LOOK, not the duty to guarantee. Nobody asks you to answer for another company's conduct: they ask you to show what you did to find out, and what you did when something surfaced.

## The three tiers, and where the problem sits

| Tier | What you usually know | What you will be asked |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Your own company | Everything | You have it; it is familiar paperwork |
| Your direct supplier | What they told you | How you verified it |
| Your supplier's supplier | Almost nothing | This is where everyone falls down |
| A middleman who only resells | Not even who manufactures | The most uncomfortable of the four |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The answer that sinks a questionnaire is not «we have a problem» but **«I don't know»** said with nothing behind it. A client who hears «I don't know» cannot tell whether they are facing someone honest or someone who never looked. What makes the same sentence acceptable is what follows it: **«I don't know; this is what we asked, this is what they answered, and this is what we will do»**. That is an answer; the other is a silence.

## What to ask for, in order of how hard it is to get

1. **Who they are and where they actually produce** — Name, country and plant. A middleman who will not say is itself the finding.
2. **Their signed statement on labour conditions** — It proves nothing alone, but it turns a chat into a commitment.
3. **Certifications or audits, if any** — With dates: a five-year-old audit describes a factory that no longer exists.
4. **And what they do with THEIR suppliers** — The only way to reach the third tier without going yourself.

> [!WARNING]
> The expensive mistake is treating it as one-off paperwork: **the statement gets signed, filed, and never looked at again**. These questions are not asked once; they are asked every year and whenever something changes — a change of plant, a new subcontractor, a production peak covered by another factory. If your file holds the 2023 statement and the supplier moved plant in 2025, what you have is not evidence: it is a document asserting something that is no longer true.

## When the answer you get is a bad one

**En corto**

- Write down what they told you, verbatim and dated: what is recorded can be explained later.
- Separate «will not» from «cannot»: two different problems, and only one is fixed by helping.
- Set a deadline and a consequence, even if the consequence is only reviewing the contract.
- And tell your client before they find out elsewhere: what wrecks a relationship is not the problem, it is hearing about it late.

> [!NOTE]
> Which companies are required to carry out due diligence, over what part of their chain and to what depth depends on size, sector and the applicable rules, and it is changing. **What applies to you is for your adviser to settle**; here we explain what you will be asked and what you need to hold in order to answer.

**Do I have to audit my suppliers?**

It depends on your case; what you must be able to show is what you asked and what you did with the answer.

**What if my supplier refuses to answer?**

The refusal is information. Record it: it forms part of the answer you give your client.

**Is a statement signed by them enough?**

As a starting point yes; as sole evidence no. What holds it up is having asked, dated and reviewed it.

## Ejemplos

**A large client asks about labour conditions at the factory producing for you and all you know is the middleman's name.**

- Asks the middleman for the plant's name and country, in writing
- Records the answer and the date

→ The reply to the client moves from «nothing has come to our attention» to «this is what we asked and this is what we were told».

**The signed statement on file is three years old and the supplier has changed plant since.**

- Gives the statement an annual expiry with an alert before it lapses

→ The file stops holding a paper that asserts something no longer true.

**A supplier flatly refuses to answer the social questionnaire.**

- Records the refusal with a date and escalates it to purchasing before renewal

→ The refusal becomes a fact on file and a conscious decision, not a gap.

**The client asks and the answer depends on the supplier.**

- Passes the question on in writing and keeps the reply

→ You answer with what the supplier declares.

**The supplier does not reply and the deadline runs.**

- Records the request and its date

→ The gap is documented.

**You answer for the supplier without asking them.**

- Distinguishes your own statements from third-party ones

→ Every claim has an author.