Map the audit scope
Map a proposed SMETA 2-Pillar or 4-Pillar scope to site activities, responsibilities and evidence needs, while distinguishing the course exercise from an independent audit.
What turns an audit request into responsible preparation?
This matrix separates scope decisions, evidence work and response discipline so a factory can prepare without treating a course exercise as an audit.
| Decision / evidence | Scope and site profileWhat is being assessed? | Evidence and worker voiceWhat can be shown safely? | Findings and improvementWhat happens next? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting question | Which pillars and locations are in scope? | Which records and voices cover the scope? | Which risks need action or clarification? |
| Core evidence | Site profile, processes, workforce and customer request | Policies, records, interviews and observations | Issue statement, owner, timing and verification evidence |
| Quality check | Confirm assumptions with customer or Sedex guidance | Trace source, period, owner and confidentiality | Test action against root cause and closure evidence |
| Boundary | Not a final audit determination | Not permission to share personal data | Not certification or guaranteed customer acceptance |
Course exercises can organise questions and evidence, but only an appropriately appointed audit process can issue a SMETA report; confirm current Sedex instructions and local legal duties with qualified sources. Course content is educational; verify current requirements against the linked official sources and the organisation's circumstances.
See the issue. Find the evidence.
This course teaches owners, HR, EHS, quality, procurement and operations teams how to prepare a factory for a SMETA social compliance audit and manage Sedex-related evidence responsibly. Participants map the selected audit scope, organise worker and management records, plan confidential interviews, identify gaps, draft proportionate corrective actions and build a review trail. It is for Malaysian manufacturing SMEs working with customer or supplier expectations; it does not perform an audit, issue certification or promise a customer result.
What participants can practise.
Index site evidence
Build an evidence index covering policies, payroll, working hours, safety, worker voice, environmental controls and ethics records, with source, period, owner and gap labels.
Prepare worker voice
Practise respectful worker-interview preparation and triangulation by comparing documents, observations and interview themes without exposing personal or confidential information or prejudging findings.
Plan corrective action
Draft a corrective-action register with issue statement, root-cause prompt, owner, due date, verification evidence and review status, avoiding unsupported closure or compliance claims.
Apply the concept to a manufacturing question.
Electronics site evidence walk-through
A fictional Malaysian electronics assembler receives a customer request for a four-pillar SMETA audit. The team maps production, agency labour, dormitory arrangements and chemical storage, then indexes payroll, attendance, safety, environmental and ethics records. They identify missing approval trails and draft questions for the customer rather than assuming scope or claiming readiness.
Worker voice preparation
A sanitised factory exercise compares worker interview themes with attendance records, grievance logs and supervisor observations. Participants design private interview logistics for direct and agency workers, record language and retaliation safeguards, and note where evidence needs follow-up. The exercise does not collect real personal data or predict an auditor's findings.
Corrective-action review board
Using fictional findings about overtime approval, incomplete fire-drill records and a recruitment-fee concern, a cross-functional group writes factual issue statements, considers root-cause prompts, assigns owners and defines evidence for follow-up. The board practices separating containment, corrective action and closure review without asserting legal compliance or a successful audit.
FICTIONAL LEARNING EXAMPLE / NOT CUSTOMER RESULTS
Evidence completeness review
This is a fictional learning example, not client results. It shows how a defined evidence list can be reviewed during SMETA preparation.
Stated basis: Same fictional SMETA preparation evidence list and review rules · 62 ÷ 100 and 80 ÷ 100.
Absolute difference: 18 percentage points. This is a comparison of the stated exercise values, not proof of improvement.
- The list contains 100 defined evidence items across the selected site scope.
- Only items with a traceable source, period and owner count as reviewed.
The simple comparison shows how a defined evidence list can be monitored as preparation work progresses; it does not demonstrate compliance or predict an auditor's conclusion.
This exercise is not a SMETA audit, certification, assurance conclusion, legal compliance determination or customer-acceptance result.
Educational source notes
- SMETA, the world's leading audit — Supports the educational descriptions of SMETA's pillars, site assessment, approved Affiliate Audit Companies, corrective action plans, continuous-improvement design and distinction from certification; it does not endorse this course.
- The Complete SMETA Audit Guide — Supports the educational description of SMETA fundamentals, buyer and manufacturing-site preparation, corrective action planning and continuous-improvement use; it does not endorse this course.
A clear learning route.
Final depth, exercises and delivery details are confirmed with AIGreen Plus before delivery.
On a small screen, scroll horizontally inside the course-outline table.
| Module | Focus | Key points | Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01Sedex, SMETA and Audit Boundaries | Clarify how Sedex, SMETA, site participation and customer requests relate, and separate methodology, platform activity, legal duties and independent audit decisions. |
| Classify a fictional buyer email into platform, audit-scope, evidence and legal questions, then assign an owner for each clarification. |
| 02Choose the Relevant Pillars | Translate a customer request into a proposed 2-Pillar or 4-Pillar learning scope across labour, health and safety, environment and business ethics. |
| Use a fictional electronics factory request to create a pillar map, listing included areas, exclusions, assumptions and questions for the customer. |
| 03Site Profile and Risk Map | Build a site profile linking processes, workforce groups, contractors, dormitories, recruitment channels and higher-risk activities to an audit preparation plan. |
| Plot a fictional garment factory's shifts, labour agencies, dormitory and chemical store, then rank evidence and interview priorities. |
| 04Evidence and Record Traceability | Organise policies, registers and records so an auditor can understand scope, period, ownership, version control and gaps without unsupported reconstruction. |
| Create an evidence index from sanitised payroll, attendance, training and grievance extracts, adding owners, periods, locations and follow-up questions. |
| 05Worker Voice and Interviews | Prepare safe, respectful worker engagement that protects confidentiality and helps teams compare interviews with records and observed site conditions. |
| Design a fictional interview plan for migrant and agency workers, including privacy controls, language support, sampling questions and escalation routes. |
| 06Conditions, Safety and Labour Practice | Review working hours, wages, recruitment, freedom of association, discrimination, forced-labour indicators and safety controls through a practical evidence lens. |
| Review a fictional overtime and recruitment packet, identify evidence conflicts and propose questions without deciding legal non-compliance. |
| 07Corrective Action and Follow-Up | Turn observations into proportionate corrective actions with root-cause prompts, owners, timeframes, evidence expectations and a disciplined follow-up review. |
| Convert three fictional findings into an action register with root-cause questions, owners, dates, evidence and review status. |
| 08Sedex Sharing and Continuous Improvement | Plan internal review and responsible sharing of audit-related information while recognising that SMETA supports improvement, not certification or a pass-fail label. |
| Draft a fictional management review note summarising open actions, evidence limits, approvals and customer questions without claiming certification. |
How AIGreen Plus's proposed approach fits this topic
This draft uses scope maps, sanitised evidence exercises and owner-led action reviews for this topic; it describes course design, not proven superiority or guaranteed results.
| Focus | Proposed approach | Factory relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Scope before checklist | Start with the customer request, site profile and proposed pillar selection before evidence collection. | Prevents teams from assembling an undirected document bundle or assuming every SMETA request has the same coverage. |
| Triangulated evidence practice | Compare records, interviews and observation notes using sanitised manufacturing scenarios. | Helps teams see why a single policy or spreadsheet does not tell the full site story. |
| Worker-respectful preparation | Include privacy, language, non-retaliation and agency-worker considerations in interview planning. | Supports safer evidence gathering and keeps participant exercises from exposing personal information. |
| Action register discipline | Use issue statements, root-cause prompts, owners and verification evidence for follow-up. | Makes improvement work reviewable without presenting course practice as certification, assurance or closure. |
Bring the relevant people and records.
Relevant roles
- Manufacturing SME owners and site leaders responding to a customer request for SMETA preparation
- HR, EHS, quality and operations managers responsible for labour, safety and site evidence
- Procurement and supplier-responsibility teams coordinating Sedex-related customer or supplier expectations
- Cross-functional staff ready to review anonymised records and involve worker-facing process owners
Before training
- Basic familiarity with the organisation's site policies, payroll, time records, worker files, safety controls and supplier records
- Access to organisation-approved, anonymised or sanitised sample evidence for classroom exercises
- Ability to involve HR, operations, EHS, procurement and worker-representative owners in evidence review
Questions before you enquire.
01What is SMETA and how does it relate to Sedex?+
SMETA means Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit. Sedex creates and stewards the methodology and provides the platform context, while an approved independent audit company conducts the site assessment. The course explains the relationship for preparation purposes and does not represent Sedex or perform an audit.
02What is the difference between a 2-Pillar and 4-Pillar SMETA audit?+
Sedex describes labour standards and health and safety as the two founding pillars. A 4-Pillar audit adds environment and business ethics. The actual scope should be confirmed from the current customer request, site circumstances and Sedex guidance rather than assumed from a generic checklist.
03Does a factory need to be a Sedex member for a SMETA audit?+
Sedex currently states that businesses need an active Sedex account and membership to have a SMETA audit conducted by an Affiliate Audit Company and uploaded to its platform. Confirm current platform and customer requirements directly with Sedex before making arrangements.
04Who conducts a SMETA audit?+
Sedex states that SMETA audits are conducted by auditors from its named, independent third-party Affiliate Audit Companies, not by Sedex itself. This course can help a site organise questions and evidence, but it cannot appoint an auditor or determine whether a provider is currently approved.
05What factory records are useful for SMETA preparation?+
Useful examples include policies, payroll, working-time and attendance records, recruitment files, training, safety registers, grievance evidence, environmental controls and ethics procedures. Bring only organisation-approved, anonymised or sanitised materials, and confirm the requested period, site scope and evidence list before sharing anything.
06How should we prepare workers for interviews?+
Plan private and respectful arrangements, explain the purpose without coaching, consider language and agency-worker needs, and protect workers from retaliation or identification in classroom materials. Participants practise comparing interview themes with records and observations without collecting real personal data or predicting findings.
07Is SMETA a certification or pass-fail approval?+
Sedex describes SMETA as a continuous-improvement methodology rather than a certification. A course exercise, evidence index or corrective-action register therefore cannot be presented as certification, assurance, a pass result or proof that a customer will accept the site.
08How are non-compliances and corrective actions handled?+
The course practises factual issue statements, immediate containment, root-cause prompts, accountable owners, timeframes and verification evidence. Participants learn to keep actions open until suitable evidence is reviewed; they do not declare legal compliance or close an official finding through classroom work.
09Will this course audit our factory or verify our Sedex status?+
No. It is proposed training using fictional, anonymised or sanitised exercises. It does not inspect your site, interview your workforce as an audit, verify Sedex membership, issue a SMETA report or provide legal, certification, assurance or customer-acceptance conclusions.
10How can we confirm the final scope, format, duration and fees?+
Scope, delivery format, duration, dates and fees are not fixed in this draft. Enquire with the exact course title, site context, participant roles and customer request, then confirm the current syllabus, materials, preparation needs and quotation before planning delivery.
Photo by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas · CC BY-SA 3.0