The Dindigul Agreement: Success in Worker Protection Faces Corporate Resistance
Binding labor contracts reduced violence in Indian factories, yet major global brands remain hesitant.
1The Dindigul Agreement Framework
The 2022 Dindigul Agreement emerged following the 2021 death of a garment worker in India. This legally binding contract involved manufacturers, unions, and major international brands. It established a formal grievance process, worker-elected shop floor monitors, and mandatory training to combat gender-based violence and harassment within the factory production environment.
2Measurable Improvements in Safety
Research by Simon Fraser University and Lead at Krea University confirms the model's efficacy. Surveying nearly 1,100 workers, findings show 80 percent reported increased workplace respect. Additionally, 87 percent of workers experienced wage growth. The agreement successfully reduced harassment cases and improved treatment from male colleagues and factory management significantly.
3Corporate Reluctance to Renew
Despite proven success, major brands are distancing themselves from Dindigul-style agreements. Since the initial term expired in October 2025, interest from global retailers has waned. Factory executives report that signing such binding contracts often leads to a loss of business, as brands prefer less restrictive, non-binding supply chain initiatives.
4Canadian Brands and Transparency
Canadian retailers like Lululemon and Aritzia were not signatories to the original Dindigul deal. Investigations reveal that only 10 of 25 reviewed Canadian brands publicly disclose their sourcing factories. This lack of transparency obscures the extent to which these companies support or reject worker protections within their global supply chains.
5The Cost of Compliance
Eastman Exports, the factory behind the Dindigul Agreement, struggled to retain clients after implementing the model. Despite achieving a gold standard in facility conditions, the company saw brands exit their supplier lists. Executives suggest that brands actively avoid factories with binding union agreements to maintain lower costs and avoid accountability.
6Industry-Wide Accountability Gaps
Global brands often rely on internal codes of conduct rather than enforceable union contracts. Companies like H&M, Disney, and Victoria’s Secret emphasize their commitment to human rights in statements but stop short of signing binding agreements. Critics argue this maintains a fiction that brands hold no employer responsibility for their suppliers.
7Preventable Tragedies in Supply Chains
The necessity for such agreements remains critical, as evidenced by the death of Paramasivam Pushpalatha at a Sri Lankan factory in 2025. While Brandix denied negligence, union advocates argue the incident was preventable. Victoria’s Secret, a major buyer from that facility, has not engaged directly with the local union regarding the incident.
8The Business Case for Ethics
Experts suggest that for the $2.5 trillion global apparel industry, the cost of implementing worker protections is relatively small. However, brands prioritize financial margins over the power of unions. By avoiding binding agreements, companies minimize their liability, even when such initiatives are proven to reduce violence and improve worker safety.
9Global Replication of the Model
The Dindigul model is gaining traction as a blueprint for other regions. In 2024, two factories in Central Java, Indonesia, adopted similar agreements following reports of widespread abuse. These initiatives demonstrate that worker-led, legally binding frameworks can function effectively across different cultural and geographic contexts to ensure basic human rights.
10The Future of Labor Standards
The expiration of the Dindigul Agreement highlights a critical crossroads for the fashion industry. While the model proves that gender-based violence can be mitigated through collective action, corporate participation remains the primary barrier. Future progress depends on whether brands shift their priorities from cost-cutting to genuine, enforceable accountability for workers.