Sedex and SMETA Audits

Sedex is a paid membership platform where suppliers complete a tailored self-assessment questionnaire and share audits with linked customers supplier membership supplier process.

SMETA is Sedex’s on-site social audit methodology, and Sedex describes it as an improvement process rather than certification methodology and certification FAQ.

This guide follows the original fictional manufacturer Ravensbeck Textiles, which needs to answer a buyer’s site-audit request without confusing membership, a completed questionnaire and closed corrective actions.

Sedex distinguishes membership information from recognised third-party audit verification, so a completed SAQ should not be presented as an independently audited result self-assessment and verification.

Ravensbeck rejects an internal proposal to share its sister factory’s report because the buyer’s request concerns the finishing plant and its own workforce conditions.

The accepted request record names the plant, operating period, buyer contact and agreed sharing scope, preventing a later disagreement about what the audit was commissioned to cover.

Sedex says SMETA measures a site against the ETI Base Code, ILO conventions and local law, while its audit guide explains the greater-protection comparison assessment basis dual compliance approach.

The Ethical Trading Initiative owns the ETI Base Code, which is a code of labour practice founded on ILO conventions rather than legislation itself Base Code.

Ravensbeck’s preparation team indexes the actual rule, site procedure and relevant evidence separately instead of labelling every local procedure a SMETA legal requirement.

All SMETA audits cover Labour Standards and Health and Safety, while four-pillar audits add Environment and Business Ethics pillars.

The guide also identifies a basic environmental element within the two-pillar approach, so two pillars should not be described as wholly silent on environment pillar comparison.

Ravensbeck asks the audit company to confirm the scope in writing and allocates records to the responsible site managers, avoiding a generic evidence request that leaves the environmental or ethics owner unaware.

Only Sedex-approved Affiliate Audit Companies may deliver SMETA, and Sedex does not conduct the audits directly approved audit companies audit delivery FAQ.

The Audit Quality Programme describes the associated company and lead-auditor competency arrangements, which should not be confused with certification of the supplier’s workplace programme scope.

Ravensbeck checks the official list rather than accepting a preparation adviser’s claim to be able to issue a SMETA result, and commissions a clearly defined site engagement without implied endorsement of any provider.

The ETI Base Code includes working hours, wages and regular employment among its labour-practice subjects, and the SMETA guide describes the assessment of site management systems labour-practice clauses management systems.

Ravensbeck’s reviewer finds an attendance export with fewer workers than the payroll file and rejects the team’s plan to provide only the cleaner export.

The accepted preparation record explains the agency-worker difference, preserves the original sources and assigns the underlying record-control problem to an accountable manager before the audit.

Sedex identifies SMETA 7 as the current version, and its April 2026 consultation update describes work on Collaborative Action Required findings and issue titles current version consultation and piloting.

That update describes co-development and testing rather than a new SMETA 8 release, so Ravensbeck retains the actual agreed methodology version in the booking and report records.

The preparation team records the owner update as a watch item without rewriting the site’s findings categories from a consultation summary or assuming that a proposal has become the applicable audit basis.

SMETA produces an audit report and corrective-action information, while the owner describes the methodology as continuous improvement rather than a pass-or-fail certification outputs and purpose corrective action process.

Ravensbeck records its working-time system problem against the finding and retains the corrected worker population, revised control and manager’s review as separate action evidence.

The team does not mark a finding closed merely because a procedure was rewritten, and it records the actual follow-up or closure basis rather than assuming its own upload equals external acceptance.

Sedex’s customer FAQ says there is no official audit expiry period, while its consultation decision says findings older than 24 months are no longer accepted as a robust picture of current workplace conditions audit validity FAQ decision 2.

The same owner guidance retains risk-based re-audit recommendations, so the report should not be described as automatically valid for either one or two years risk-based frequency.

Ravensbeck checks whether a recent staffing change makes its old report less informative for the buyer, instead of relying only on the fact that the file remains downloadable.

Sedex publishes membership plans, while its customer FAQ says audit costs are determined by the audit company and vary with the engagement plans audit cost FAQ.

The AAC page separately identifies a platform fee charged to the audit company, which is not the total price of a SMETA audit fee treatment.

Ravensbeck’s purchase order distinguishes platform membership, the site audit and optional preparation support so a low quoted component cannot be mistaken for the complete cost.

The Home Office’s transparency-in-supply-chains guidance warns that audits can be deceived and should not be relied upon alone due diligence and audits.

Ravensbeck therefore retains worker concerns, supplier information and corrective-action follow-up alongside the report, rather than claiming that an audit proves the absence of forced labour.

The modern slavery statement guide explains a different reporting task, and an audit should support an accurate account of due diligence without being presented as a substitute for that statement.

The platform supports sharing audit and corrective-action information through customer links, while membership documentation is a separate product from a SMETA audit outcome sharing and corrective actions membership features.

Ravensbeck rejects a cover note claiming the company is SMETA certified and sends a site-specific explanation of the audit, date and remaining actions instead.

For sustainability reporting, this handover preserves the evidence needed to describe the company’s work accurately rather than turn one factory report into a group-wide claim.

The SMETA guide describes management-system assessment as part of the methodology, giving the site a reason to maintain working controls beyond the audit visit management-system approach.

Ravensbeck’s operations manager inherits the agency-worker reconciliation and open-action register, while the commercial team receives a short approved explanation of what can be shared and claimed.