Schijvens: Full Disclosure on Sustainability Isn’t Just Policy - It’s Common Sense and Good Business

Schijvens has done significant work in the environmental sphere. What led you to also focus on Living Wages?

When we first started in 1863, all our production was in-house, right here in the Netherlands. We knew our workers, we saw the conditions firsthand, and we ensured they were treated fairly. But when we moved production abroad in 2005, we lost that direct oversight. Suddenly, we couldn’t see for ourselves whether workers were earning enough, if they were being pushed into excessive hours, or if their workplaces were safe. That didn’t sit right with us.

So, we dug deeper. We partnered with the Fair Wear Foundation and mapped out the biggest risks in our supply chain—10 critical areas, and one of the most pressing was wages. It became painfully clear that workers in many factories weren’t earning enough to live on. We couldn’t accept that. Paying people fairly shouldn’t be optional. In 2016, we took action and invested in our own factory in Turkey, making Living Wages a non-negotiable standard. That was just the start. We knew we had to push for change beyond one facility.

At first, our focus was purely on social issues, but soon something else became impossible to ignore: the environmental damage caused by the textile industry. The reports were shocking. We realised we couldn’t fight for fair wages while turning a blind eye to sustainability. The two go hand in hand—what’s the point of paying workers fairly if the industry is polluting the very communities they live in?

No one seemed to be taking full responsibility for both issues, so we did. What started as a commitment to fair wages became something bigger—a commitment to ethical production in every sense. Because to build a truly responsible supply chain, you can’t just choose one issue to care about. You have to care about it all.

Could you also share why you chose to work with WageIndicator?

Your extensive database, spanning multiple regions where we operate, provides invaluable insights. I particularly appreciate how you break down Living Wage estimates—whether for a typical family, a standard household, or a single-earner setup—making analysis and comparisons much easier.

What sets your data apart is its flexibility. Different companies have different priorities; some prefer a standard family structure, while others focus on local income earners or an average household model. For example, we use a model with 1.8 income earners. I also find it insightful that the concept of income earners isn’t rigid—it’s not always two working adults. In some households, instead of both parents working full-time, an older son might contribute part-time. This approach better reflects real-life family dynamics.

We’ve also compared your data with our most recent factory surveys in India, and the results were strikingly similar. That’s reassuring—it confirms that both our research and yours align with reality while also serving as a valuable benchmarking tool.

In which countries have you successfully implemented Living Wage and where does work remain?

Regarding our operations, we produce in China, India, Portugal, Pakistan, Morocco, Sharjah, North Macedonia and Türkiye, among other locations. In terms of implementing a Living Wage, we’ve started in Turkey, India, and Pakistan, while in other countries like China, Morocco, and Portugal, we are still working on it. We track average wages and wage gaps across all regions, and while European countries like Portugal have smaller gaps, we haven't yet conducted a formal Living Wage project there.

This is because implementing a Living Wage requires mutual trust between us and our suppliers, which isn’t built overnight. It typically takes at least a couple of years, depending on the supplier. Some suppliers worry that if they raise wages and we later move production elsewhere, they’ll be left with higher salary commitments that other brands may not be willing to cover. This is why we prioritise long-term partnerships.

For example, in North Macedonia, we recently consolidated production from three different factories into one facility. This not only gives us more leverage to improve conditions but also fosters trust and cooperation. However, it takes time to change the conversation—many suppliers operate on a transactional basis, focused solely on delivering at the lowest price. We want suppliers to feel they can openly share their challenges so we can work together towards fair wages and better conditions.

For our readers, could you walk us through the step-by-step process of bridging the Living Wage gap? Also, do you collaborate with other businesses to help close it?

Our process begins at our annual supplier meeting, where we introduce the concept of Living Wages and outline our approach for our suppliers. For instance, in Turkey where we own a factory, we directly implement Living Wages. However, in supplier factories, such as in Pakistan, we collaborate with other brands to share costs and ensure all workers benefit.

We use an open cost pricing model that clearly breaks down material costs, labour costs, and the gap between minimum and Living Wages. This helps our clients see exactly how pricing is affected. Many assume that paying a Living Wage will significantly increase costs, but when we break it down—showing that it might only add an extra $0.20 per item—they realise it’s much more manageable..

If a client feels the extra $0.20 per item is too much, we discuss cost-sharing options. For example, we might propose splitting the cost—each party covering $0.10. Then, the next year, we revisit the conversation when new orders are placed. Prices fluctuate annually due to changing wages and raw material costs, so we reassess as needed. If a client outright refuses to cover the cost, we reconsider our relationship with them. We might decide not to work with them, or, if we see potential for future collaboration, we may temporarily cover the cost ourselves. But one way or another, the Living Wage cost is accounted for—either entirely by us or shared with the client - but we never push the cost onto suppliers.

To guarantee workers receive the intended wages, we inform workers about the Living Wage, so they understand what it means and how much extra they’ll receive each month. We also conduct third-party audits to verify that the payments are being made correctly. Of course, we trust our suppliers, but external verification ensures full accountability.

What advice do you have for companies considering implementing Living Wages in their supply chains?

It is a relatively straightforward process because we work with B2B clients. When they place an order, they own the goods, meaning they are responsible for payment. This guarantees that we will be paid, unlike fashion retailers, who often purchase excess stock and face uncertainty about when and at what price they will sell it due to discounts and market fluctuations.

Because of this financial stability, we can confidently commit to paying our suppliers. We know that once an order is placed, it will be sold, and the invoice will be settled.

However, many companies hesitate, waiting for "perfect" data or the right timing. Our advice is to just start. Perfect data doesn’t exist—conditions change constantly, and wages can’t be adjusted weekly. Instead of delaying action, we adapt to existing systems. For example, in China, where a piece-rate system is standard, we work within that framework and aim to increase wages rather than waiting for structural changes. We acknowledge that we cannot change cultural and business norms overnight, but that shouldn’t prevent action.

Similarly, in Türkiye, where high inflation makes wage adjustments challenging, some companies hesitate, fearing unpredictable costs. But waiting doesn't help workers. Even if the situation is uncertain, we can at least ensure fair wages for the part of production we are responsible for, leverage partnerships with suppliers, or collaborate with other brands.

Ultimately, no approach is perfect, but doing nothing is not an option. Whether wages are precisely at the ideal level or slightly above or below, what matters is ensuring that workers earn a fair salary.

Schijvens has been a strong advocate of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) regulations. How are you viewing the current omnibus proposal?

Transparency, for us, is just common sense. Understanding our business means tracing our entire supply chain—from our operations in the Netherlands to the very first supplier of raw materials. Whether or not legislation mandates it, companies have a responsibility to know every step of their production process. While regulation is necessary, it’s unfortunate that some companies only embrace transparency because they are legally required to, rather than seeing it as an ethical obligation.

That said, full disclosure has benefited us immensely. It allows us to be upfront with our clients—we have nothing to hide. While we may be more expensive than some competitors, our clients recognise the added value of ethical and sustainable production. The cost difference varies by product and region; for example, ensuring a Living Wage might add 20 cents per item, while for labour-intensive products like winter jackets, the increase is higher. However, these differences are typically in cents rather than euros.

Despite this, our commitment to transparency and responsible practices has fuelled our growth. Since 2016, we've more than doubled in size—from around 40 employees, including warehouse staff, to nearly 100 today. This reinforces our belief that doing business responsibly is not just the right thing to do—it’s also a sustainable and successful model. 

March 2025

The interview was conducted by Paulien Osse, Global Lead for Living Wages and Co-founder of the WageIndicator Foundation, along with Pritha Bhattacharya, Global Lead for Newsletters, for the Living Wage Newsletter.