A report by UK-based advocacy group Labour Behind the Label has alleged widespread wage violations, forced overtime and ineffective compliance systems across Pakistan's garment sector, putting the country's largest export industry under renewed international scrutiny at a moment when it is positioning itself as a competitive sourcing destination.

The report questions whether social audits and corporate compliance mechanisms genuinely protect workers or mainly generate paperwork for international buyers. Industry representatives reject the characterisation of the sector as systematically exploitative and argue that export-oriented manufacturers have reformed substantially over the past decade, driven partly by the European Union's GSP+ trade framework and rising buyer demand for responsible sourcing.

The counter-evidence cited by the industry comes from the ILO's Better Work Pakistan Synthesis Report (2022–2025), which found high compliance levels at export-oriented factories. Only 4.6 percent of factories were non-compliant on minimum wages in 2025, and 2.3 percent on overtime payments. Industry spokespersons read those figures as evidence that violations exist but are isolated rather than systemic.

Buyer signals point in a positive direction, according to the industry. Nearly a third of surveyed international buyers reportedly plan to increase sourcing from Pakistan over the next two to three years. That figure, reported by industry representatives, stands as a market confidence indicator against the advocacy group's allegations — but it remains a supplier-side reading of buyer sentiment rather than a confirmed order commitment.

Named suppliers and their compliance positions

Several of Pakistan's largest exporters have detailed their compliance systems in response to the debate.

Interloop Limited, one of the country's largest exporters, reports 44 percent female representation on its board and 25 percent women in executive leadership. It has funded more than 650 scholarships, runs mobile health clinics for women and children in cotton-growing communities, and participates in international labour standards and traceability initiatives.

Gul Ahmed states it has adopted comprehensive labour governance policies, including zero tolerance for child labour, forced labour, discrimination and workplace harassment. The company has established grievance mechanisms, whistleblower systems and supply-chain due diligence aligned with evolving European human rights expectations. It also aims to increase female workforce participation and expand vocational training for young workers.

Soorty Enterprises has partnered with disability rights organisations to promote inclusive employment and invested in healthcare programmes ranging from psychiatric treatment to paediatric care. Nishat Mills emphasises equal employment opportunities and occupational safety. Liberty Mills combines workplace policies with community investments in education, healthcare and rehabilitation for persons with disabilities.

Beyond the factory gate, Crescent Bahuman provides housing, childcare, scholarships, financial literacy programmes and healthcare for workers and their families. Kamal Limited collaborates with government institutions on employee welfare, emergency preparedness and vocational training. Sapphire Finishing Mills and Masood Textile Mills have integrated international sustainability frameworks such as Higg FEM, human rights due diligence systems and structured supplier assessments.

On occupational health and safety, Utopia Industries reports mandatory safety training, hazard identification programmes, emergency preparedness initiatives and wellness campaigns covering physical and mental health.

The audit-limitation debate

These commitments matter commercially. International brands increasingly require suppliers to demonstrate adherence to labour standards, environmental safeguards and governance practices before placing orders. Non-compliance can cost contracts and market access.

Yet advocacy groups argue that periodic audits have structural limits. Workers may hesitate to report violations for fear of retaliation, and inspections may not capture everyday workplace realities. These concerns explain why independent monitoring and effective grievance mechanisms continue to draw attention from global buyers and labour rights organisations.

For sourcing teams, the unresolved question is whether documented corporate policies translate into workers' lived experience on the factory floor. Suppliers can point to ILO-verified compliance rates, board-level gender metrics and Higg FEM integration. What they cannot yet demonstrate — and what Labour Behind the Label's allegations target — is verification of conditions through channels independent of the audited compliance cycle.

Textiles remain Pakistan's largest export sector and employ millions of workers directly and indirectly. Competitiveness now depends on credibility in meeting labour and sustainability expectations as much as on price and capacity, particularly under GSP+ conditionalities tied to international conventions.

The decision this forces on buyers sourcing from Pakistan: continue to treat supplier-reported compliance data as sufficient order qualification, or require independent verification and worker-voice grievance channels before committing volume. Suppliers, for their part, face the choice of treating transparency and independent monitoring as costs — or as the mechanism that converts market-access risk into retained contracts.