OCDE - Due diligence essentials for gender in global supply chains

 1

DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

This case study examines how gender considerations intersect with responsible business conduct (RBC). Operations and supply chains that promote gender inclusivity can contribute to improved working conditions, enhanced productivity, supply chain resilience and long-term value creation. Gender-responsive due diligence can help enterprises better identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts while also helping to realise these opportunities. This case study highlights key drivers that shape gendered risk patterns – as business impacts are not gender-neutral – and their implications for due diligence processes. It explores how companies can integrate a gender-responsive approach into risk-based due diligence systems in line with international standards. It is intended for companies seeking to better identify, understand and address gender-related risks in their operations and supply chains, as well as for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to support more inclusive and effective due diligence practices. Due diligence essentials for gender in global supply chains2  DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

Key characteristics of gender in global supply chains Integrating gender considerations into business operations and supply chains can contribute to improved working conditions, enhanced productivity, supply chain resilience and long-term value creation. Realising these benefits requires understanding how gender dynamics shape experiences, opportuni ties, risks and impacts. Gender-responsive due diligence can help enterprises better identify, preven t and mitigate adverse impacts while also helping to realise these opportunities. This case study focusses primarily on women, reflecting evidence of their disproportion ate exposure to risks in global supply chains. It is not a comprehensive analysis of gender, nor does it address all gender identities or dimensions. A more comprehensive list of references is avail able in the Background Note on Gender-responsive due diligence in global supply chains (OECD, 2026 [1]). The extent, nature, severity and likelihood of adverse impacts resulting from business conduct often differ for women and men. Gendered risks are shaped by structural and systemic factors embedded in both

Gender-responsive due diligence in global supply chains (OECD, 2026 [1]). The extent, nature, severity and likelihood of adverse impacts resulting from business conduct often differ for women and men. Gendered risks are shaped by structural and systemic factors embedded in both company operations and the broader environment. These factors influence not only who is most affected by adverse impacts and how so, but also how effectively individuals can raise concerns or obtain remedy. Many gendered impacts are systemic, informal or invisible, requiring targeted interventions to identify and address them effectively. Preventive measures based on assessments that do not con sider gender differences can inadvertently fail to capture invisible or under-reported risks and reinforce existing inequalities. Responsible business conduct (RBC) due diligence efforts frequentl y treat risks as genderneutral, overlooking how systemic inequalities shape exposure to and experience of harm. Women represent 41.9% (WEF, 2023[2]) of the global workforce, and in some labour intensive and export-oriented sectors such as garment, agriculture and electronics, up to 80-90 % (ILO, 2022[3]). However, women are often concentrated in lower-paid, informal or precarious roles, with limited access to representation or remedy (ILO, 2021 [4]). Risks to surrounding communities from company operations are also not gender neutral – women may be marginalised from decision making in relation to new operatio ns in their community and more exposed to risks. Integrating a gender perspective across the due diligence process 3

DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

is key to enable companies to identify differential risks, design context-appropriate measures and address root causes (see Box 1). Efforts to identify, monitor and address gendered risks and impacts across company operations and supply chains remain limited. Evidence from the World Benchmarking Alliance (WB A) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) indicates that very few companies systematically collec t or analyse gender-disaggregated data, assess differentiated impacts on women and men, or monitor grievances and

chains remain limited. Evidence from the World Benchmarking Alliance (WB A) and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) indicates that very few companies systematically collec t or analyse gender-disaggregated data, assess differentiated impacts on women and men, or monitor grievances and remediation outcomes by sex (UNGC, 2024 [5]; WBA, 2023 [6]). While many companies report policies or commitments on gender equality and zero tolerance of violence and harassment, i mplementation, monitoring and accountability mechanisms remain weak . Company approaches to promoting gender equality in supply chains are relatively nascent, with limited integration of gender-specific criteria in supplier self-assessments, audits and scorecards. Companies continue to rely heavily on social audits to manage labour and gender risks; however, audit methodologies typically lack ge nder-disaggregated data and are often implemented by audit teams with limited gender expertise or contextual understan ding. As a result, audits tend to identify only a small number of gender-specific non-confor mances, mainly related to observable issues, while failing to capture more nuanced or invisible forms of discrimination, violence or unequal access to opportunities. This contributes to a broader disconnect between c ompany action on gender and underlying business model practices that may perpetuate or entrench gender inequalities, underscoring the need for more gender-responsive approaches to due diligence.

Box 1. What do OECD Responsible Business Conduct standards say about gender? The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct highlights that: “Due diligence should also be adapted to the nature of the adverse impact on RBC issues , such as human rights, the environment and corruption. This involves tailoring approaches for specific risks and taking into account how these risks affect different groups, such as applying a gender perspective to due diligence”. Applying a gender perspective to due diligence means thinking through how real or potential adverse impacts may differ for or may be specific to women. Additionally, it involv es adjusting, as appropriate, the actions that enterprises take to identify, prevent, mitigate and address those impacts to ensure these are effective and appropriate.

Applying a gender perspective to due diligence means thinking through how real or potential adverse impacts may differ for or may be specific to women. Additionally, it involv es adjusting, as appropriate, the actions that enterprises take to identify, prevent, mitigate and address those impacts to ensure these are effective and appropriate. • The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector provides guidance to companies on gender considerations when conducting due diligence (p. 32-33) and includes sector risk modules that address risks that are particularly affect women, such as Module 2 Sexual Harassment and Sexual and Gender-based Vio lence in the Workplace (p.122) and Module 12 Responsible Sourcing from Homeworkers (p.184). • The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector includes a section on Engaging with women (p.100), and in the minerals sector a 2 019 Stakeholder Statement on Implementing Gender-Responsive Due Diligence was developed with Women’s Rights and Mining. • The OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains contains provisions on gender equality and provides a model enterprise policy recognising the need to eliminate discrimination against women, enhance their meaningful participation in decisio n making and leadership roles, ensure their professional development and advancement, and fac ilitate their equal access and control over natural resources, inputs, productive tools, advisory and financial services, training, markets and information. The brochure “Integrating a Gender Perspective into Supply Chain Due Diligence” based on the Agricultural Guidance provides examples of4  DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

how companies along agricultural supply chains can integrate a gender persp ective into their due diligence actions.

Source: OECD (2018[7]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en; (2017[8]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Se ctor,

Source: OECD (2018[7]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, https://doi.org/10.1787/15f5f4b3-en; (2017[8]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Se ctor,

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264290587-en; (2017[9]), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252462-en; (2019[10]) Stakeholder Statement on Implementing Gender-Responsive Due Diligence and ensuring the human rights of women in Mineral Supply Chains, https://webarchive.oecd.org/pdfViewer?path=/site/mneguidelines/Stakeholder-Statement-Implementing-Gender-Responsive-Due-Diligence-andensuring-human-rights-of-women-in-Mineral-Supply-Chains.pdf; (2016[11]), OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251052-en; (2019[12]), Integrating a gender perspective into supply chain due diligence, https://webarchive-storage.oecd.org/aemint-web-archive-prod/webarchive/5c/5c5d24d1c2ad022c784ed3146fc68732aa7047a587ed71003948f7063e6d5ef3.pdf. Salient issues shaping gendered risks in global supply chains Structural inequalities continue to shape how gendered risks manifest across global supply chains. These structural and systemic issues are shaped by social norms, including around women’ s caring responsibilities, perceptions of acceptable or adequate work, mobility, participati on in decision making, access to and control over assets and prevention and response to gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH). While companies cannot unilaterally remedy these systemic cons traints, a better understanding of the social, political, legal and industry context in which companies operate c an help them adapt their due diligence accordingly. Occupational segregation and informality

(GBVH). While companies cannot unilaterally remedy these systemic cons traints, a better understanding of the social, political, legal and industry context in which companies operate c an help them adapt their due diligence accordingly. Occupational segregation and informality Globally, women remain overrepresented in low-paid, insecure and informal r oles; they are more likely to be employed in lower-paid occupations and less likely to progress in their c areers (OECD, 2012 [13]).

Vertical segregation is evident: despite representing nearly 40% of the global labour force, women account for 25% of managers (OECD, 2023[14]), and lead 15% of firms worldwide. In manufacturing and agriculture, women occupy 60-70% of assembly, packaging, and seasonal positions, while men d ominate technical and supervisory roles . They account for the majority of low-paid, low-skilled workers in the global va lue chains of multinational companies, especially in export-orientated manufacturing and food production (ILO, 2021[4]). Informality is pronounced in lowand middle-income countries where ar ound 70% of employed women work without formal contracts or social protection, compared with 60% of men (World Bank, n.d.[15];

ILO, 2023[16]). These patterns are driven by intertwined social, legal and economic factors. For example, legal frameworks that impede women accessing certain professions exist in 88 countries, and in 51 countries they cannot work the same night hours as men (OECD, 2019[17]; 2021[18]). Where such frameworks exist but are poorly enforced, bias in recruitment and promotion can persist. Unequal care responsibilities further limit wo men (see section on Unequal and unpaid care responsibilities). Buyer-driven cost competition and subcontracting incentivise suppliers to rely on flexible, lowcost labour, typically feminised, as women’s wages remain systematically lower and their employment more often part-time or seasonal (see section on Pay and value gap). Weak legal protections for subcontracted, home-based or temporary workers

subcontracting incentivise suppliers to rely on flexible, lowcost labour, typically feminised, as women’s wages remain systematically lower and their employment more often part-time or seasonal (see section on Pay and value gap). Weak legal protections for subcontracted, home-based or temporary workers further exclude women from formal rights. All these factors may in turn create cumulat ive operational effects increasing vulnerability to other risks such as low wages and unsafe wor king conditions. Occupational segregation in turn reduces bargaining power, limits union representati on and diminishes access to grievance mechanisms (OECD, 2024[19]). 5

DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

Unequal and unpaid care responsibilities Women globally spend on average 3.2 times more hours on unpaid care and domestic work than men (ILO, 2025 [20]), and in some regions up to 10 times more, limiting their availability for paid employment . This imbalance contributes to lower labour-force participation and a higher like lihood of part-time, temporary, or flexible work arrangements. In some regions, up to 50% of women workers in supply chains report that caregiving responsibilities restrict their ability to accept overtime or travel for work (OECD, 2025[21]). Gendered caring expectations interact with social, policy and economic environme nts that disadvantage women in the labour market, including a lack of access to childcare, long-term care for r elatives; the unequal distributions of family leave; and gendered tax-benefit systems that disadvantage second earners (OECD, 2025[22]). Legal and institutional frameworks often do not support care responsibilities: m aternity protections exist in many countries, but paternity leave and flexible work arrangements are rare. A s a result, women may rely on shiftwork, seasonal or flexible assignments to manage care responsibilities, which can increase workforce fragmentation and turnover. Limited access to formal employment and the need for flexible work often push women i nto paid informal

protections exist in many countries, but paternity leave and flexible work arrangements are rare. A s a result, women may rely on shiftwork, seasonal or flexible assignments to manage care responsibilities, which can increase workforce fragmentation and turnover. Limited access to formal employment and the need for flexible work often push women i nto paid informal activities (ILO, n.d. [23]; World Bank, 2019 [24]; OECD, 2019 [25]) (see section on Occupational segregation and informality) . Women often face hiring discrimination or informal penalties linked to mater nity or caregiving status. Economic structures, including low wages and informal employmen t, exacerbate reliance on unpaid family labour and constrain access to formal support sys tems (UN Women, 2024 [26]; ILO, 2024[27]). At the community level, the arrival of large-scale business operations can further exacerbate women’s caring responsibilities, by disrupting access to water and placing strain on local resources. Operationally this may constrain women’s participation and flexibility wi thin supply chains, limiting the ir capacity to meaningfully engage in due diligence processes and often positi oning them in lower-paid, informal, or part-time roles with increased exposure to labour and human rights violatio ns. Pay and value gap Women are consistently paid less than men for comparable work. Globally, the gender pay gap averages around 20% for the same amount and nature of work (ILO, 2019 [28]), with larger disparities in manufacturing, agriculture and care-related industries where women dominate the workforce. Legal frameworks in some regions fail to mandate equal pay or enforce wage transparency. As of 2023, 52 countries lacked legal provisions ensuring equal remuneration, and 13 countries still did not prohibit discrimination in employment based on sex, affecting nearly half of all women glob ally (OECD, 2023 [14]). In 2023, in 11 countries, women are required to obtain their husband’s or guardian’s permission to take a paid job (OECD, 2023 [14]). Women’s concentration in subcontracted, temporary or informal roles that fall

In 2023, in 11 countries, women are required to obtain their husband’s or guardian’s permission to take a paid job (OECD, 2023 [14]). Women’s concentration in subcontracted, temporary or informal roles that fall outside standardised wage regulations, reinforces systemic pay disparities. Ev idence also shows that discriminatory bias affects promotion, compensation decisions and recognition of contributions, sustaining wage inequality (ILO, 2022[29]). In summary, persistent pay and value gaps lead to increased vulnerability to wage, working time and forced labour risks, as well as discrimination and limited upward mobility. Limited access to assets, resources and skill building opportunities Women often have less access than men to economic and human capital assets across global supply chains. Globally, women account for less than 20% of landowners (World Bank, n.d.[30]). Access to training, education and skill-building opportunities is also limited. Legal frameworks and social norms often restrict women’s control over land, property, or financial decision making as well as their access to education or training. Although 164 countries legally recognise a woman’s right to access, own and control land, only 52 countries guarantee these rights in practice. In 28 countries,6  DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

laws formally designate husbands as heads of households with control over assets , while inheritance regimes and land tenure systems continue to restrict women’s ownership and management rights (OECD, 2019[17]). Market structures and buyer requirements often favour suppliers with established as sets, credit or networks, resources disproportionately held by men due to historical inequaliti es, reinforcing women’s structural exclusion from higher-value supply chain opportunities. These same dynamics limit women’s ability to invest in skills, training or business development opportunities (FAO/UN, 2018[31]). Where large scale business operations lead to community resettlement, women’s lack of formal land ownership means they may not benefit from resettlement compensation mechanisms (World Bank, 2019 [24]). Women producers and small suppliers may be excluded from

temporary, or home-based work. In extreme cases, women activists have faced targeted retaliation , intimidation, or GBVH when attempting to organise. Women are also often underrepresented in engagement with large business operations. For example, in the context of large-scale mining operations research has found that community enga gement processes around mining do not always adequately consult women, sometimes failing to cons ult women. This is despite women and men often prioritising different needs (Eftimie, Heller and Stro ngman, 2009 [34]). Large-scale projects can displace communities, and women are often excluded from resettl ement and compensation decisions, leading to planning and compensation arrangements that do not account for their needs. In practice, limited voice and representation manifests as systemic underreporti ng of women’s concerns, weak participation in grievance mechanisms, and policies or practices that fai l to addres s gender-specific risks. Women may be excluded from consultations on working hours, safety protocols, or community benefit sharing decisions, resulting in operational decisions th at overlook their realities. This lack of representation perpetuates structural barriers, leaving women vulnerable to exploitation and limiting the effectiveness of interventions aimed at addressing gendered risks. Violence, harassment and fear of reprisals GBVH disproportionately affects women and girls, and this extends to suppl y chain contexts. Forms of GBVH include physical and sexual violence, psychological harm and verb al and sexual harassment. Women are exposed to GBVH in the workplace, in workplace accommodation, in trans it and in the 7

DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

community. Whilst GBVH is routinely underreported, data from certain sectors indicates it is a widespread issue: in garment factories in countries like India and Bangladesh, surveys indicate th at at least 60% of female workers experience harassment at work (UN Women/ILO, 2019 [35]; IFC, 2020 [36]). In the mining sector, between 22 – 46% of women employed by a large mining company reported experiencing sexual

opportunities (FAO/UN, 2018[31]). Where large scale business operations lead to community resettlement, women’s lack of formal land ownership means they may not benefit from resettlement compensation mechanisms (World Bank, 2019 [24]). Women producers and small suppliers may be excluded from procurement opportunities that require formal registration, financial documentation, noting for instance women-owned businesses receive on average only around one  percentage of public procurement contracts globally. Even when women are engaged in production networks, they are often posi tioned at the lowest tiers, where profit margins are slim and working conditions precarious. At the operational level, these inequalities manifest in differential access to inputs, training and m arkets within supply chains, exclusion from training or upskilling programmes, and less ability to adopt digital or technical tools required for higher-value tasks or due diligence engagement. As a result, gender-blind due diligence activities may be ineffective or inaccessible for women, leading to unidentified and unaddressed risks and impacts. Limited access to representation Women remain underrepresented in worker committees and unions, even in sectors with hi gh female employment. Globally, women constitute about 42% of trade-union membership, but hold only around 7% of union leadership positions, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) (ITUC, 2018[32]). In supplier factories, women frequently report that their perspectives are not sought in workplace consultations or operational decisions, resulting in policies and procedures that fai l to reflect their specific needs and constraints. Legal and governance frameworks can compound these barriers. In several countries, res trictions on freedom of association, limitations on union registration, or anti-union practice s affect all workers, but disproportionately impact women (Global Labor Justice, 2025 [33]), who are often concentrated in informal, temporary, or home-based work. In extreme cases, women activists have faced targeted retaliation , intimidation, or GBVH when attempting to organise. Women are also often underrepresented in engagement with large business operations. For example, in the context of large-scale mining operations research has found that community enga gement processes

female workers experience harassment at work (UN Women/ILO, 2019 [35]; IFC, 2020 [36]). In the mining sector, between 22 – 46% of women employed by a large mining company reported experiencing sexual harassment across Australia, Canada, Mongolia, the United States , South Africa and New Zealand (Elizabeth Broderick & Co, 2022[37]). GBVH has also been widely documented in food and agriculture – for example in the tea sector in Kenya (Kiio and Kanja, 2025 [38]). In many regions, laws protecting women from workplace harassment are either inadequate or poorly enforced (ILO, 2011 [39]). Ill-adapted risk assessment and monitoring mechanisms, and dependence on precarious employment makes women less likely to report abuse. Women, particularly migrant an d informal workers, may fear losing their livelihoods if they report incidents, l eading to underreporting and continued abuse. In sectors reliant on employer-provided housing or transport, proxim ity and lack of oversight increase exposure to harassment, especially for migrant or young female workers. In certain sectors, for instance mining, unions may be reluctant to prioritise GBVH as an i ssue or may not perceive it as work related. Purchasing practices, pay and incentive structures and workplace power dynamics can reinforce conditions that enable violence and harassment. In the garment sector, research has found that practices like short lead times place stress on managers and supervisors wi th a correlation between increased violence and harassment and high production periods (Morris an d Rickard, 2019 [40]; Oxfam, 2025[41]). Hierarchical structures in workplaces can empower perpetrators and discourage raising complaints or seeking redress. The arrival of a large business operations has also be en associated with violence and harassment in the community. In the mining sector, for example, sexual violence from mine personnel has been reported in multiple countries and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights has characterised sexual violence by security personnel in the extractive indus tries as an “endemic

violence and harassment in the community. In the mining sector, for example, sexual violence from mine personnel has been reported in multiple countries and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights has characterised sexual violence by security personnel in the extractive indus tries as an “endemic problem” (UNDP Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2019 [42]). At the operational level, fear of reprisals or job loss deters reporting, leading to systematic underrepr esentation of GBVH cases in risk assessments, monitoring and grievances. Visibility and data gaps Most companies still fail to collect or disclose gender-disaggregated data across operations and supply tiers, especially beyond basic pay information. For instance, as of 2022, 22% of publicl y listed companies worldwide disclose gender pay gap data (Equileap, 2024 [43]), and only 17% report gender-disaggregated data on promotions and only 14% report sex-disaggregated data on workforce turnover (WBA, 2023 [6]). Women’s participation in data collection activities may be constrained through cultural, political or logistical barriers. Informal or precarious work arrangements can fall outside formal reporting systems, making them invisible. Digital transformation can sometimes reinforce existing gender gaps, as algorithms, equipment, and software are often developed using largely male or male biased datasets (UNIDO, 20 23[44]), overlooking women’s roles, needs and constraints (Focus 2030, 2023 [45]). A 2025 study found that recruitment algorithms used by companies may disadvantage women by recommendin g them for lowerpaying roles despite similar qualifications (Chaturvedi and Chaturvedi, 2025 [46]). Women’s work in subcontracted or informal tiers is rarely captured in audit reports or workforce databases, leaving significant gendered risks undetected, while digital traceability systems may exclude them due to limited access or skills, or increase their risk exposure. Biased data c ollection may lead to increased exposure to OSH risks, for example male-centric design of equipment, uniforms, or workplace facilities,

leaving significant gendered risks undetected, while digital traceability systems may exclude them due to limited access or skills, or increase their risk exposure. Biased data c ollection may lead to increased exposure to OSH risks, for example male-centric design of equipment, uniforms, or workplace facilities, especially in manufacturing or agricultural sectors, where ill-fitting gear increases exposure to accidents

(UNECE, 2019[47]).8  DUE DILIGENCE ESSENTIALS FOR GENDER IN GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS © OECD 2026

Key considerations for due diligence Understanding how systemic and structural drivers of inequality shape gendered risks i n global value chains can help companies develop a better understanding of their operating context and how to adapt the extent and nature of due diligence steps according ly. This section highlights key considerations for companies seeking to effectively embed gender in due diligence systems. It aims to s upport business to identify how risks affect men and women differently, and ensure responses consider un derlying systemic issues. An initial assessment may focus on whether gender considerations are incorporated into existing policies and management systems, rather than treated as a standalone element (OECD, 2018 [7]; 2017[8]). Understanding overlapping vulnerabilities Exposure to and experience of risk are not uniform across individuals, and are shaped by intersecting factors, such as gender, race, sexuality, income , disability and indigeneity. When these dimensions are not taken into account, risk assessments can fail to capture differentiated or cumulative vulnerabilities. As a result, prevention and mitigation measures may overlook affected stakeholders or underest imate the severity and nature of risks. Conducting a high-level risk scoping, identifying facto