We support two approaches: The worker list model: 1) The workplace uploads a list of workers to our system. We expect this to be all the workers including sub-contractors on site, temporary, casual and agency workers. This is typically quite easy to audit - but see the "open access model" below, if this is not feasible. 2) We do not know any names, emails or phone numbers. For each worker we request their ID number (eg: payroll or security pass) and their date of birth via the worker list provided by the workplace (or sometimes the stakeholder or sometimes the agencies and sub-contractors involved). 3) When a worker downloads our app, he picks his workplace and then enters the correct ID number and date of birth and he is registered. He only has to do this once. 4) In this way, we ensure that workers can only report on the workplaces where they actually work. Periodically, based on turnover, the workplace will upload new lists of workers to our system representing the worker population at that moment. This will automaticlaly add new workers, and remove workers who leave (who will find that they can no longer use our app to rate their former workplace). We do not ask for worker names, email addresses, telephone numbers or other very personal information (except date of birth). The open access model: There are situations where workplaces (or stakeholders) do not have easy access to a worker list. This can be where the worker population on site is changing frequently because of the use of casual, agency or sub-contracted labour. In these situations, there is no easy way to establish and maintain a worker list. In this situation, we offer "location code" based access: 1) We generate, for each location within each workplace, a unique location code and this is put on a noticeboard or other location in the workplace which workers have access to (but the general public does not). 2) Workers download our app. We still take zero permissions on the mobile phone in order workers can be confident that their privacy is protected and that they are not being spied on. 3) Workers enter the location code on first use, tying them to a location. Workers enter basic demographic information about themselves that we need to support reporting (eg: age range, nationality, gender, employment type etc). and then they are good to go. 4) We still do not ask for worker names, email addresses, telephone numbers or other personal information. There is zero invasion of privacy. 5) Workers report on conditions using the app in the usual way. Periodically the location code will expire and workers will need to get an updated code from their location to continue. This helps to ensure that workers who leave the location are no longer able to report on it. The open access model has a lower level of authenticity when compared to the worker list model, but it is still a strong approach.

Continuous operation The Ask the workers platform runs all the time for all the workers - and for stakeholders, can run for all the suppliers (1,000s of suppliers, 1,000,000s of workers). As we all recognise, little in life or business is constant; conditions today may change tomorrow and due diligence should ideally track any changing conditions for workers day to day, week to week, month to month. Workers report issues as they arise, allowing swift remediation and limiting the risk to workers and stakeholder reputation. Workers report on changing conditions, allowing tracking and verification of remedy direct from workers themselves and removing the need for workplaces to send stakeholders evidence of remedy – substantially reducing the administrative burden and expert resources involved in tracking whether remedy has been delivered when surveys and social audits are used. This enables: - The platform to be set up once, and then to run continuously thereafter. - Trends to be established, showing issues as they arise and the impact of remedies. - Workplaces see the data themselves via their dashboard providing the opportunity and incentive for them to self-remediate without requiring stakeholder intervention (and we have evidence from case studies that this works). - Issues with sampling and potential opportunities to skew results via sample selection and coaching to be avoided. - Coaching to be detected by comparing how responses from workers are changing over time and how responses from individual workers compare to the population as a whole. - Turnover in the workforce is monitored, for example, if there are arrivals and departures or the use of migrant workers, casual workers or agency workers. Survey model Ask the workers can be used like a survey with periods of intensive monitoring followed by checkpoints and formal reporting. Our clients get the best of both worlds - the discipline of a survey approach combined with the much lower cost and greater authenticity of continuous monitoring.

The Ask the workers platform connects workers anonymously, collectively and continuously to their workplace management team and to stakeholders. This is to enable the workplace management team and its stakeholders to hear directly from workers about how they are treated. The platform covers all the workers, all the time, and provides real-time results. It is continuous. It is not a survey and it is not based on a sample of the workers. With continuous real-time transparency direct from the workers, the Ask the workers platform discourages deliberate poor practices and encourages workplaces to self-remediate matters which are being raised. Workplace C-suite management has real-time visibility on the effectiveness of their ethical policies and their implementation, Ask the workers measures discrimination and harassment, abuses that are only reported by workers who are confident of their anonymity and safety from retailiation. Ask the workers provides analysis by different worker demographics (gender, nationality, employment type, job role) although results are monitored and can be suppressed in order to ensure that anonymity of workers is not compromised. The platform: discourages deliberate poor practices due to the real-time transparency provided by workers to workplace management and stakeholders. provides workplace C-suite management real-time visibility on how effectively their ethical policies are being delivered in the workplace. measures discrimination and harassment, abuses that are only reported when workers are confident of anonymity/ safety from retaliation and remedy. identifies when worker demographics have a bearing on their treatment, as long as reporting numbers are large enough to provide anonymity and responsible reporting. Many unethical practices only affect cohorts of workers and are hidden when reporting is based on average results or is infrequently carried out (eg: 6 monthly or annual surveys or audits). is cheaper to set up and run because it is continuous, when compared to the start-stop-start process of a survey.

These responses are aggregated and analysed against standard pillars (we use the ETI base codes) to create a score for the workplace as a whole, for each base code, and ultimately for each individual question. Stakeholders can see the aggregated results (but not the answers of an individual worker). This "sound-bite" level is useful to track trends and to rank workplaces, but we recommend that other methodologies are applied to detect whether systemic harms are occuring in the workplace, especially if there are minority groups of workers or a mix of migrant and local workers involved. This is discussed further below (dangers of using averages). Stakeholders (and workplaces) are able to drill through the data to isolate specific demographic cohorts of workers and see their responses over selected time periods - enabling trends to be seen. Moreover, this picks up immediately when workers raise an issue (lines dip) and when there is an appropriate remedy applied (lines recover). We can show you live examples of this from our datasets: - Workers reporting issues with sick pay, over time, harassment, safety - Remedies being applied by the workplace (without interference from stakeholders) and responses reverting to expected norms Cohorts can be created across gender, nationality, employment type (employed, agency, migrant worker) and job role. NOTE: we automatically suppress the data if the number of responses in a given cohort becomes too small so as to avoid individual workers being identified. We call this "gating". The danger of using averages A common question from clients is how we manage the data if some workers report more frequently than others, because this skews the average result that is obtained. The key point here is that averages are dangerous. We do provide "average results" but these are based on the average response of each worker, not the average of all the responses (ie: it is an average of the responding workers). So this deals with the potential for results to be skewed towards overly-active workers. But there is another important point. Averages are dangerous. If 95% of workers are reporting that they are not being harassed - this sounds good. Especially if it was 90% last month. Yes, we support that, it is a move in the right direction. But if there are 1000 workers, it means 50 workers are still reporting harassment. This is not a comfortable result. The idea that a certain average level of response is a "pass" or a result that implies no remedial action is required is usually wrong. Our dashboards also offer a number of tools that enable the edges of the response distribution to be investigated properly - because usually, if worker rights are abused, it occurs in marginal populations (small cohorts) not systemically across entire businesses.

Using the app Every day, workers have the opportunity to provide answers to questions via the Ask the workers app about how they are treated. Questions are in the language of the phone that the worker is using. It takes maybe one minute to cycle through the app giving answers. Workers can do this any time they wish and from anywhere, as long as they have internet access. The total question set is approaching 80 questions (and can be increased). Since workers can visit the app multiple times and every day, a worker only sees 10 questions each time pulled randomly from the library of available questions. Since all the workers are included all the time, it means all the questions are answered every day and individual workers see all the questions over time (typically across a calendar month). The app covers all the workers, all the time. It is not a survey. It is continuous. Workers can use the app as often as they like but not more than once per day. Continuous operation is cheaper to set up and run than a survey - reflected in the pricing of the Ask the workers plaform.

There are four parts to the Ask the workers platform: - the Ask the workers app which is used by workers to provide feedback - the Ask the workers dashboards which are used by workplaces and stakeholders to review results, identify good practices and monitor the impact of any improvements or remediation steps taken - the Ask the workers advisor which can be used by stakeholders to get automated, in-context specific advice on potential root cause and improvement steps given worker response patterns - the Ask the workers analysis tool which is used by stakeholders to dig into the data in order to recognise developing risks and trends

Key definitions: - Worker: someone who is working at the workplace (see other answers for how this is checked) - Anonymously: means that it is not possible to find out what any one individual worker might be saying, feedback is confidential - Collectively: means that feedback is collective and not individual - it comes from the workforce as a whole built up from individual responses - Workplace: the place where a worker works that is responsible for the day-to-day activities of the worker - Stakeholders: a third party such as a customer, NGO, consulting firm, trade union that has an interest in making sure workers are treated fairly.

Prize draws We believe that workers should be compensated for providing information that is valuable to sustaining ethical supply chains. Direct payments being commercially and administratively challenging, we believe that prize draws are a feasible step in the right direction and provide workers with a further incentive to cooperate in reporting. Stakeholders can (and should) set up a compensation program for workers in the form of a prize draw that provides small monetary prizes to workers in return for workers using the app. This is typically a low cost (from US$0.01 to US$0.10 per worker per month). The prize draw budget can be changed from month to month depending on usage rates of the app or to drive periods of intensive reporting (like a survey) followed by periods of monitoring in between. During an intensive period, prize draws are increased, reduced during periods of pure monitoring. Each time the worker runs the app and answers the questions (taking one minute or so), the worker has a chance to win a prize - with the award being notified on the next occasion the worker uses the app. The prize draw is automatically managed by the Ask the workers platform.

Our Ask the workers app is available from online mobile app stores (eg: google play store). Roll out across all major operating systems is underway, including feature phones as well as smart phones [check with us for the status on this]. Go to our Ask the workers website for a "how to" video on how to log in and register. This is available in multiple languages (it will default to the language of the mobile phone). Search for "ask the workers" and the app will appear in the list. Download the app. The app is very small so this takes a few seconds. Our app is designed to use a minimum amount of memory, requires no permissions and captures no information about the user or the mobile. We have made the app as light as possible as we understand that many workers may have older mobile phones. The app is backwardly-compatible to older versions of operating systems on the mobile phones and uses very little data (if workers are not on wifi).

Our standard approach is that workers should be told their responses are confidential and then we will deliver our platform to deliver that. So if workers are told their responses are confidential, we will make sure that they are. Workers use our app to answer questions about how they are treated by their workplaces. The data that is provided to us. We do not know worker names, emails or phone numbers. We cannot identify individual workers without more information (that we do not have and do not require). Our dashboards, reports and analysis are always provided to workplaces and stakeholders at a portfolio level based on aggregations of the responses. It is possible to dig into our data to obtain sectoral analysis across gender, nationality, job role and employment type - but if the number of responding workers in a given cohort is too low, our platform automatically suppresses the results in order to avoid compromising the confidentiality (which we call "gating"). We collect this demographic data to assist in root cause diagnoses and remedy design - especially if there is the potential for vulnerable cohorts of workers to be exploited. But, notwithstanding that mission, confidentiality is important to build trust and is a real commitment to workers. Moreover, breaching confidentiality of responses can give rise to safeguarding issues and threats to workers or reprisals. This is a potentially serious matter. What if you (stakeholder, workplace) want to see individual worker responses? We can, of course, provide individual worker response data. Whilst we don't know individual worker names or details, it may be possible for you (stakeholder, workplace) to map individual responses to individual workers. We will only share individual worker response data if workers are clearly told upfront, and before they provide any responses, that their responses may be shared, and with whom that sharing may take place. This would not be the normal approach as if workers understand that their responses may be shared and so are not confidential, they are less likely to be comfortable giving un-biased feedback.

Yes we do. We have built an advisory system into our dashboards that enables stakeholders to access built-in support. This is provided automatically for a given base code by: - analysing what workers have said about that base code - determining from those responses what the likely issues may be - proposing a series of comments that cover: - what workers are likely saying - who should be contacted to find out more and what questions could be asked to dig into this - what might actually be going on (potential root causes) - what good should look like - next steps that might be taken This is an automated system and is intended to guide stakeholders towards appropriate responses.

Workers should obtain remedies for the rights issues that they raise (as in the issues that are related to workplace risks, breaches of worker's basic rights, illegal acts such as paying less than minimum wage, wage theft, or forced labour situations and others). This should be over-riding motivation for workers to use the app. No matter what else we might all do, if workers raise rights issues and they are not listened to, then they will stop using the app. It takes time for issues to be identified reliably and for remedies to be provided. As a result, our app also includes a simple prize draw system to compensate workers additionally for their time and to support an "incubation" period of participation before remedies can be seen to be delivered (if they are required). The amount of the prize draw can be varied each month depending on worker response levels. Prize draws can be set up at workplace level or scheme level (covering multiple workplaces) and funded by workplaces or by stakeholder or by combinations of all of them. It is possible for us to administer the prize draw centrally. The budget for a prize draw depends on the country and the number of workers. In South Asia, for example, we suggest a budget of between US$0.005 and US$0.10 per worker per month. So 500 workers might mean a budget of US$50, but 5,000 workers might only need a budget of US$250. The prize draw is important as it keeps workers motivated to return to the app and to provide their views to us - so that we can provide results to the workplace that can be shared with its stakeholders like customers and shareholders.

Our app is simple to use and it takes around 1 minute to answer 10 questions on a workplace. On loading the app, the worker is automatically taken to the first question. He / she answers the question by moving a slider from left (low score) to right (high score). As the slider moves, the face changes between happy and sad. After answering 10 questions, the worker exits the app. The 10 questions are pulled randomly from our larger panel of about 75 questions. Different questions appear each time the app is run. Workers can share phones or use other people's phones. They do not have to be at work to use the app - they can answer at any time of day or night. We recommend that workers are encouraged to respond when they are not at work so that they are more confident in responding and less likely to be influenced by coaching. The app can only be run once per day by an individual worker. This limits the amount of influence that one worker can have on the results, and also ensures that the app is not a distraction. See more on our Ask the workers website for how to videos on how to use the app.

Our Ask the workers app includes text messaging - sometimes called "grievance reporting". The app provides workers with the ability to create and send a message in free format text which we call “Feedback Messaging” - it can be positive or negative.. The message is sent via the app to an address that is determined by the stakeholder and workplace involved (jointly). We typically do not monitor the actual messages although we can. This is because messages can be in different languages, but monitoring can be provided at a cost. The destination for messages could be a central HR address or an address at a sub-contractor, sent to us, or sent to an agent. Messages: - Can be linked to a specific question from the platform question set - so that the worker can provide feedback on a question in free format text without needing to wait for the question to be served up as part of the daily app operation. - Are given a "type" by the worker by selecting from a drop down list of different message types. Not all messages negative – messages can include recommendations for improvement as well as grievance. - By default, are sent anonymously but workers are given the option to tick a box in order to include their ID number in the message if they wish. There are no restrictions or controls on what a worker might say or how often they might send a message from the app. This is the mechanism that we recommend is used to counterbalance the impact of gating (used to protect confidentiality of responses). If there are matters affecting single workers or small groups of workers, they should be encouraged to use the messaging system to send an appropriate message. How and when to use messaging should be part of the worker communication process that is set up when the app is introduced. One of the features of a continuous monitoring technology is that Feedback Messaging via the app becomes an effective capability because the app is likely always to be on the workers’ phones.

Workplaces get significant benefits from using Ask the workers - not just in terms of having better and more transparent relationships with their stakeholders and the potential to earn more revenues as a result. Using Ask the workers sustains and protects access to markets by helping suppliers connect their workforce with stakeholders and buyers in order to prove that they comply with international labour standards and emerging global legislation relating to modern slavery and forced labour risks. Note that European CSDDD legislation requires buyers to connect directly with supply chain workers in order to provide a more 360 degree compliance picture, rather than only relying on social audit. The costs of our Ask the workers platform are significantly lower than alternatives (social audit, surveys): 1) Our app is typically used by workers when they are not at work - there is no disruption to production. 2) The app is continuous so set up is once - and then it just runs. This is not a survey where, each time, there is a set up process, result cycle, remediation cycle and then stop - starting again from scratch each time. 3) Workplaces can share our results with any and all stakeholders - and therefore reduce independent and standalone surveys that otherwise are going on with stakeholders. Workplaces have "survey fatigue". Our technology enables them to meet stakeholder requirements and stop all the surveys because our platform delivers data directly from workers 365 days per year. So there will be data available for any reporting cycle that any stakeholder might have. 4) Our platform allows workplace c-suite and senior management to monitor day-to-day how their, or their customers', ethical policies are delivered by all tiers of their management structure. This worker-driven transparency provides a strong incentive to the management pyramid to maintain ethical standards, comply with policies, maintain a respectful culture, and avoid exploitative practices. Ask the workers provides ‘prevention through transparency’ - which is much cheaper than finding issues in arrears and then having to pay to fix them.

We ask workers using our Ask the workers app to tell us how they are treated. Of course, sometimes workers can be put under pressure by management to give positive answers - we call this "coaching". But our system is "all-the-workers", "all-the-time" and "real-time". It is not a survey and it is not based on a sample. We normally expect to see between 10% and 40% of workers regularly responding to us. We apply statistical modelling to these large datasets, and this enables us to detect random or artificial response patterns. Moreover, the extent to which we see such patterns in the data also informs us as to how workers are treated (ie: workplaces that show high levels of artificial response patterns are concerning immediately). So we can tell if workers are put under pressure to give false answers - and this is reflected in the analysis that our system automatically generates. We also do ask workers directly if they are being coached.

Here is an example where workers flagged that sick pay was being not being paid, a position that the workplace then corrected itself (it could see the data and knew that one of its key customers could also see the data). This dip in the graph was caused by a cohort of workers reporting sick as a result of an "outbreak" and who were then not being paid (which is why it happened at one time): Here is another example where the base code (working hours are not excessive) shows a significant dip, which, on investigation, can be traced back to forced overtime in the factory to meet a pressing work order: It is interesting in the above chart that there is also feedback emerging suddenly on worker representation - suggesting that this topic has been raised with push back from the workplace, perhaps triggered alongside the longer working hours that were required. Here is a serious example within a workplace that has a substantial number of foreign migrant workers ("FMWs"). The app was rolled out initially to local workers, with FMWs only being added recently - and here are three specific issues that immediately become apparent, including that workers face penalties if they leave and that there is a material level of "coaching" in relation to the usage of the AsktheWorkers app. These are matters that will require some detailed discussion between the stakeholder and workplace - and this lies ahead of the time period reported here:

Major UK retailers have deployed the Ask the workers platform into their food and non-food supply chains. This includes implementations across factories ranging in size from 250 workers to 5000 workers and across many countries. 1000s of workers are using the app daily to report on their treatment, using the app in around 15 languages. Around 50,000 workers are already covered by the app (November 2024). Our dashboards and analytical environments are being used on a daily basis to monitor worker treatment with regular issues being surfaced and addressed, typically by workplaces spotting the feedback and self-remedying. Specific real-world examples can be provided on request.

No system is foolproof. All we can do is make it difficult for data to be influenced without detection. So, if workers are being coached, we have tools that can detect this. And we do that. Our statistical models are used to categorise workers based on the behaviour with the Ask the workers technology into six worker "types". We look at how workers are using the app to detect random patterns, artificially high or low patterns, and response patterns that are unnatural. These are easy to see in the data and it is very difficult for outside influences to get involved in responses without causing statistical anomalies to appear in the data. Moreover, with all-the-workers, all-the-time on the app, we usually still have a statistically significant portion of the workforce answering authentically. We make it very challenging for workplaces to influence the results without detection.

Yes Social audits are widely understood to have issues and to play only a limited role in assessing how workers are treated. Audits happen infrequently and, as any auditor might say, "factories always smell of fresh paint". Moreover, many audits are arranged and paid for by the workplace itself - a clear conflict of interest. Implementing Ask the workers will not guarantee that workers are treated better and there are a number of issues about which workers are not qualified to comment - for example, whether buildings themselves are safe. A worker might feel safe, but that's not the same as the worker actually being safe. The good news is that scope and frequency of social audits can be reduced when AsktheWorkers is used.

This is a good question and very relevant to the validity of the Ask the workers platform and the data that it collects. Not all workers will have smart phones, and workers (today) need a smart phone to access the Ask the workers app in order to give their personal feedback. Shortly we will add support for "feature phones" (feature phones are a cheaper and lower-powered version of the kind of smart phone that is the standard in the US and Europe). But, the penetration of smart phones into worker populations is increasing dramatically. Whereas 3 years' ago, we might find that only 40% of a workforce has a smart phone personally, today this percentage can easily be 80%+. Moreover, one of the main groups that requires protection are migrant workers - and here adoption rates are much higher simply because the smart phone is an important, local language link back to home. Ask the workers can run on tablets, and workers can access any smartphone (logging in, and then logging out). Many workplaces provide cheap communal tablets (low powered Android tablets - costing $50 for example). And these are available in food halls and meeting places so that all workers have the opportunity to provide feedback. Using communal devices, whether phones or tablets, can impact the confidence that workers have in giving unbiased feedback, but this is also something that is monitored by the Ask the workers platform.

It is always important to review the findings of the Ask the workers platform in context. There will be statistical bias in the data and what that might be will vary from one implementation to another. For example, only workers with access to the app can provide feedback. This means that workers without acces to smart phones or without access to a communal tablet cannot participate. And whilst this might be a relatively small cohort of workers, they might also be a vulnerable group. There are also cultural issues at work - ultimately this goes to trust in the platform and whether or not a worker is comfortable using the app, and comfortable answering truthfully. This can vary across worker populations that encompass different nationalities and employment modes (eg: migrant workers versus domestic workers). All this means that interpreting the results of the technology does require attention and focus in order to question the data appropriately before drawing conclusions.

Technology, by itself, is not enough. Ask the workers has to be part of a bigger strategy and wider set of due diligence tools that includes communication with workers, workplaces, stakeholders and consumers about what good looks like and what is not acceptable. It is one thing to find out about what is going on, it is another matter to use that information wisely to achieve positive results. Workers also often need educating in understanding their rights. Often the more vulnerable the worker the less informed they are of their rights, especially foreign migrant workers who have travlled to work in an unfamiliar country, with low host country language understanding, and where there may be different labour rights than they experienced at home. But implementing technology like Ask the workers in order to deliver "authentic transparency" is a necessary condition for change.

Ultimately there is a simple principle: "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it". - AsktheWorkers measures how workers are treated, all-the-workers, all-the-time. - With the platform in place and running continuously, management of how workers are treated becomes possible. There are two key drivers of change. The Ask the workers platform elevates the effectiveness of these two drivers (when compared to existing approaches based on a combination of surveys and social audits). 1) Delivering transparency - with high levels of authenticity Existing approaches (social audit, surveys) can often fail to capture what is actually going on because, especially in areas that are hard to document (like harassment, coaching, discrimination or exploitation of vulnerable demographics): - Supplier management can influence results through coaching when due diligence tools only include small samples of workers and only for a short period of time (or just once!). It is quite easy for management to get involved behind the scenes with surveys and audits to make sure that positive findings are delivered. - A large proportion of the findings are delivered by management itself - "marking its own homework". In other words, the findings are not independent as there is a high reliance on self-assessment by the supplier itself. - Workers are rightly worried about confidentiality - with only small numbers of workers being surveyed, it becomes much easier for supplier management to detect who is saying what, which means workers can be reluctant to tell the truth. - It is hard to detect coaching. When workers are asked only once about a matter, and management knows that the questions are coming, it is easy to coach and coordinate responses to hide issues that might be present. Continuous monitoring makes that much harder, and Ask the workers also applies statistical models to the responses that can detect when coaching is likely to be happening. This is only possible because the app is available to all the workers, all the time - so datasets are large and questions are repeated multiple times across the population and with individuals. Ask the workers breaks this cycle by engaging with all-the-workers, all-the-time. With large amounts of data coming through, individual workers can be much more confident in their answers. Moreover, they can use the AsktheWorkers app when they are not at work. Privacy and confidentiality are important to obtain authenticity. And then, with continuous access to all the workers, it becomes much more difficult for management to influence results - we do truly hear what workers are saying. 2) Stakeholder leverage It is one thing to hear truthfully what is going on - it is another thing then for something to change. Here is where external leverage is important, including customers of the workplace who have leverage because of their buying power. And this is what the Ask the workers platform achieves. By aggregating the data from the workers and making it directly available to stakeholders, pressure is brought on workplaces to live by the policies that they sign up to. The evidence shows that Ask the workers protects worker rights and prevents harm due to stakeholder access to continuous and real-time reporting direct from supply chain workers. For the same reason, (transparency), it also encourages workplaces to independently self-remedy poor practices and provides workplace c-suite with transparency on management performance, behaviour and policy implementation. Since they also see the data – workplaces know that their stakeholders are connected to worker reporting. This shared real-time transparency encourages workplaces to step in and resolve issues as soon as they appear without stakeholders having to leverage improvements. Similarly, workers are reporting in real-time on whether remedy is being delivered and their level of satisfaction with that remedy. As a buyer/stakeholder consider the resource and administration release of not having to progress, review, visit and confirm ‘proof of remedy’. Workers are voluntarily providing this service.

ES3G Limited is our company name, Ask the workers is the name of our platform. ES3G was founded by a team of technology and finance people in the UK who specialise in cross-border supply chains and cross-border trade. Having worked with 100s of factories and suppliers in emerging markets, we realised that a great amount of investment was going into social and human capital but also that little return was being generated. This is principally because the existing due diligence tools are not effective. Ask the workers is a technology platform that has three components: - An app which workers use to tell us how they are being treated - A operational dashboard which workplaces and stakeholders use to manage the data flowing and review results. It also includes our "advisory panel" for stakeholders which provides guidance on what to do if workers are reporting issues. - An analytical environment (beta) which enables the massive data sets that we generate to be properly assessed over time.

Surveys have a start-stop-start-stop process. This means that there is a continual cycle operating: - survey - checkpoint - review - discuss - document - diagnose root cause - design remedy - deliver remedy - check if remedy is delivered Most organisations work to a periodic global reporting timetable - eg: an ethical sourcing or human rights report that they have to deliver once a year. Collecting up data and making sure that it is timely, coherent, relevant and useful is very difficult if there is a perpetual cycle running across suppliers around the world. Most workplaces are being tortured by a continual cycle of surveys and audits - interrupting production and distracting management. We call this "survey fatigue". It is a real and very expensive issue. There are SEVEN big cost savings that flow from continuous operation: 1) Set up is only once Once the platform is implemented at a workplace, it becomes self-sustaining with no interventions required by stakeholders (eg: buyers) and minimal maintenance for the workplace level. So there is no "repeat set up" to initiate a new survey. 2) Tracking remedy is inherently built in Workers provide feedback all the time, so there is no need to follow up on remedy. Workers do this for you, automatically. 3) Coordination and collation of data for a reporting cycle Creating a report once a year or on any reporting cycle is easy - the data is always up to date across all suppliers all the time and in real time. So this means that, for a given stakeholder, it can easily pull all the data from all its suppliers when it wants it. There is no need to coordinate or update or track who has said what when - everything is real-time and updated on the day when the data is needed. 4) Audit / survey fatigue is over for suppliers Most workplaces are struggling with the demands of many different stakeholders for specific audit (and even survey) processes; they are all running on different timetables - each of which has the potential to interrupt production, requires specific discussions with workers, has to be collated and processes via different channels and methodologies with buyers etc. This handmade process can be replaced with a single flow of transparent data from workers direct to stakeholders that runs continually. 5) Conflicts of interest are resolved Many workplaces would like to have one social audit and then share it with their buyer stakeholders - but this is difficult because, often the workplace itself pays for the audit and sometimes even organises it. This conflict of interest means that results may not be trusted and individual buyers end up commissioning their own audits on top. This is solved with Ask the workers, because the workplace does not provide the data, pay for the process or commission the platform. It is truly independent and is free for workplaces (today). 6) Ability to share with multiple stakeholders, support all reporting timetables Workplaces are specifically encouraged by Ask the workers to share data with all their buyer stakeholders. So the platform is implemented once, reports continuously and buyer stakeholders will always have the data they are looking for when they want it. This copes with the fact that many companies have different reporting cycles - it doesn't matter when the platform operates continuously. 7) All worker languages are catered for all the time Many workplaces are using migrant workers, and the mix of workers varies over time. This is not just in terms of who the workers are, but also what languages they speak. Audits (and surveys) are hard to organise if they are going to reach vulnerable demographics that might not speak well (if at all) the native language of the workplace or the country that it is in. Ask the workers is already multi-language and it accommodates changes in the workforce easily, with all its available languages automatically available all the time; adding new languages is also a quick process. So this is powerful way to maximise the effectiveness of monitoring vulnerable demographics without requiring expensive translators or having to amend/translate a static process (audit questions, survey questions) each time the cycle has to be repeated.

We all know that we get what we pay for. Ask the workers is a very low cost solution compared to alternative technologies that connect directly with workers. So does that mean it is somehow "bad" or "not fit for purpose"? No. Our platform is low cost in multiple ways - we don't like the word "cheap" but sometimes it might be right to use it: - It is cheap to buy - because there are not lots of decisions to take. Yes we will tailor the platform for you if you wish, but you will find that the standard platform is what you need. So just buy it and use it. There is no need for complicating consulting, expensive advice or a long discussion. - It is cheap to operate - because it is designed for minimal human interaction with us. We can provide services to you if you wish - but you should not need our input and support. There is a huge amount of guidance built into the platform and the platform is simple to use. - It is cheap given the impact and value you get because it is real-time, all-the-time. So you no longer need to track remedy delivery, and you can also test out whether remedy is working via pilots and trials before incurring the costs of a full roll out AND it is always cheaper to detect issues as they are happening and correct them early, then let the consequences build up and fix them in arrears. And what about us? We have priced Ask the workers to hit the price points needed for market adoption. This reflects the budgets that companies typically have for human rights due diligence at scale. The pricing works for us, and it should work for you.

Today our platform is free for workplaces. Depending on arrangements with stakeholders, workplaces may contribute to prize draws. This does make sense because workplaces get a significant benefit from using the AsktheWorkers platform: 1) Our app is typically used by workers when they are not at work - there is no disruption to production. 2) The app is continuous so set up is once - and then it just runs. This is not a survey where, each time, there is a set up process, result cycle, remediation cycle and then stop - starting again from scratch each time. 3) Workplaces can share our results with any and all stakeholders - and therefore reduce independent and standalone surveys that otherwise are going on with stakeholders. Workplaces have "survey fatigue". Our technology enables them to meet stakeholder requirements and stop all the surveys because our platform delivers data 365 days per year. So there will be data available for any reporting cycle that any stakeholder might have.

Data protection laws are almost universal now, and can generally be expected to apply to the data that we collect from workers via the worker list model. These laws likely do not apply to the open access model. It is important to note that we never know a worker's name, email address or mobile phone number, and we have no means to identify a worker as an individual. Notwithstanding that, data protection laws are widely drafted and we generally operate on the assumption that they apply to the data that we collect. So this means that we have a duty of care to the workers to ensure that their data is protected and is not used for inappropriate or un-consented activities. And we give those guarantees in our legal agreements and we accept and adopt those responsibilities as a formal matter. Under the European and UK implementations of the GDPR, we also subscribe to all of the required "rights" that data subjects have in relation to data that they might provide to third parties. Whilst this is a technical subject and there are important details that need to be checked and considered, we are confident that we observe all the required data protection laws that might apply to the data that we collect, analyse and hold - and any questions in this regard can be addressed to legal@es3g.com.

As with any software product, there are terms and conditions that you accept for the licence to use the platform when you use it. These are standard and are published here and you can also get to them via the link in the footer named "Licence Agreement". Using the platform (as a corporate, a corporate user or a worker) means you accept the terms and conditions. There is nothing specific to sign in order to access and use the platform. We reserve the right to terminate access to the platform or not to allow access to the platform. This is to comply with privacy laws, local laws, compliance requirements and other regulations amongst other reasons. If access to the platform is denied or not provided, we do not have to give any reason. We have the right to update the terms and conditions on at least 30 days' notice by publishing a new version (with a new effective date) on this website. We will tell users who have registered with this website whenever there is an update (register using the "subscribe" link), but it happens very infrequently. Workplaces and workers do not pay to access the platform. Corporate users, who would like to use the platform to monitor worker human rights in locations and supply chains, do pay for access to the data collected by the platform. This is handled in a separate agreement that is signed with ES3G Limited. Please get in touch with us to organise this here. Such an additional agreement can also set out service levels, support processes and so on.

We aim to be transparent with our pricing and for there to be no surprises. Every customer of ours (stakeholder, workplace, worker) wants to be very clear on what things cost. Our technology is free for workers. We plan for this always to be the case (forever). Today our technology is free for workplaces. We expect that this will always be the case, but there may come a day in the future when we might charge workplaces something to use our platform. This would reflect the benefits that they are getting from our dashboards, reports and transparency with workers - and potentially additional services that we might add to our platform specifically for workplaces in the future (that they could opt out of). We charge stakeholders to access our platform in order to view what workers are saying about their treatment in workplaces. We expect that stakeholders (such as companies at the top of the supply chain or with many locations to manage) are the organisations initiating the use of our platform. There are two costs for stakeholders: - Set up - Ongoing licence fees to access the data provided by workers via our software Set up The cost of set up depends on how many workplaces are involved and whether our standard product (and standard support materials) are going to be used. We are always ready to tailor the questions, materials and way that the app / platforms work, and there can be additional languages that need to be added (all existing languages are always available. In these cases there are costs inevitably involved. Our recommendation is that you call us to talk through what is needed and to get samples of our standard materials (leaflets, charter, training materials and so on). We can then provide a quote for set up. You can reach us easily via either of the two buttons at the top of this page: https://www.es3g.com/plans-pricing. We would be happy to hear from you. Ongoing licence fees These are set out on the same page as above: https://www.es3g.com/plans-pricing. There are four plans: - A single workplace (cost per workplace) - Up to 20+ workplaces - Up to 100+ workplaces - Up to 250+ workplaces The plans work as follows: - The base cost is the amount to be paid for up to the number of workplaces indicated (ie: 20, 100, 250) - If more workplaces are needed, then they can be added at a cost per workplace which is set out in the plan. - If the number of workplaces goes over the number included in the base plan by a lot, it can make economic sense to move from one plan up to the next one. For example: - up to 20 workplace costs, say, £600 per month - adding a workplace costs, say, £28 per month So 70 workplaces on this 20+ plan would cost £600 + £28*50 = £2,000 per month. It would actually be cheaper to move up to the next plan which gives up to 100 workplaces for £1,800 per month. We are fine with that - you can change plans any time. If you were to have 400 workplaces, you would take the top plan for 250+ workplaces, and then pay £9 per month for each extra workplace over 250 (so for 150 of them). What about monthly support and consulting? We usually do not charge for on-going support; this cost is including in the licence fee. We do reserve the right, with prior agreement, to make a charge if there are significant calls on our time happening or expected. We have strong relationships with global specialists (for profit, not for profit) who can also provide support if you need. Just ask us whom we know and with whom we work!

Workers own the data that they provide to the platform. ES3G, as the owner and operator of the platform, takes a licence from workers to use the data provided on terms which are set out in the Licence Agreement (see the Licence Agreement link in the footer). In the future, ES3G intends to pay workers itself for the right to use the data that workers provide, although this is not possible in the short term whilst the platform is still being rolled out (for economic reasons).

Yes, completely free.

Low cost (cheap) does not mean poor quality or ineffective. Continous monitoring is simply much easier, more effective, more authentic and costs less to deliver than social audits and survey-based approaches. There is increasing regulatory, legal and stakeholder pressure on companies to do better with their own workers, and to take responsibility for workers in their supply chains. This is a serious topic. A few years' ago, it was probably not high on the agenda. Today it is a top three item in board rooms around the world - and it should be. Our point is simple: buy another coffee - or find out what's really going on with workers in your enterprise or your supply chain? But, we understand that businesses do not like to spend money unless there is a clear return. Whilst lawmakers and regulators are starting to force companies to spend money on human rights due diligence, it is much better if we can find a way to make this happen voluntarily. And the way to do that is to devise a low cost, simple and massively scalable product that uses technology to deliver the results. So that's what we have done. We have identified that most companies are willing to spend US$10 per month per workplace in order to find out how workers are being treated and we have designed our platform to deliver authentic and comprehensive results at this price point. This is all-the-workers, all-the-time and all-the-suppliers. This means the whole supply chain not just workplaces that are causing a concern. Our system is very simple to install in a workplace or across the whole of a global supply chain. There is no consulting work, no implementation charge, no decisions to make. This is a product. Simply sign up, switch on, data flows, computers crunch the numbers and results appear.