We build a system that keeps the evidence your buyer's social compliance audit will demand continuously ready, instead of gathering it as the audit approaches. Findings, corrective actions and closure evidence run in one place; you walk into audit day knowing exactly what is missing.
For a factory producing for a European brand, audits are a permanent part of the commercial relationship. The buyer arrives either with a recognised protocol or with its own audit checklist. The evidence requested is largely similar: working hours and wage records, age verification, occupational safety records, training and leave documents, the subcontractor list, and hiring and contract arrangements. All of this evidence exists in the factory; the problem is that once the audit date is set, it turns into a collection exercise that takes weeks.
The cost of this scramble is not only time. An item missing from a hastily assembled file becomes a finding in the audit, and the time allowed to correct a finding is usually short. Worse still is the same findings repeating from audit to audit: because what was promised in the previous round and what was closed is not on record, the same gap surfaces again. In a buyer's eyes, a repeated finding weighs far more heavily than a one-off.
The system we build turns the audit from an event into a continuous state. Which protocol demands which evidence is defined item by item; every evidence item is tied to an owner and a refresh period. Evidence approaching expiry triggers an early warning, and a missing item shows red on the board. When the audit date arrives, the job is not to collect but to produce the ready file.
The second and steadily growing use case is supply chain questionnaires from buyers. Driven by their own obligations, European customers have started asking suppliers for data on a regular basis; these requests arrive in a different format every time, but the data set behind them is largely the same. The same pool feeds both audit readiness and these requests. Let us also state the limit plainly: this software does not make you pass an audit and does not replace the auditor; what it provides is evidence that is complete, current and findable.
Businesses where the buyer's audit is a condition of the order. Audit frequency is high in this sector and the commercial consequence of a finding is direct; institutionalising the preparation work is a matter of order continuity.
Sites producing for chain retailers and major brands. Social compliance audits usually run intertwined with quality and food-safety audits; keeping evidence management on a common footing reduces repeated work.
Companies that outsource part of the work. Audits now ask not only about your own site but also about the subcontract workshops you use. Having the subcontractor network on record is the first requirement for answering that question.
Businesses working with a corporate buyer for the first time. In a site that has never been through an audit regime, the first preparation is the hardest; building the evidence set from scratch and correctly makes every later round easier.
The audit protocols you work with and buyers' own checklists are defined in the system separately. If the same evidence is required by several protocols, it is kept once and serves them all. What is missing for which protocol is visible protocol by protocol.
Every evidence item has an owner and a validity period. A reminder goes to the owner before expiry; expired evidence counts as missing on the board. Preparation is thus spread across the year instead of being squeezed into the run-up to an audit.
This is the most closely examined topic in audits. The summaries and breakdowns the audit requires are produced from your timekeeping and payroll data; inconsistencies are reported before the audit. The data source is your existing systems — no new recording regime is imposed.
Every finding from an audit is recorded, with its owner, closure date and required evidence defined. Unclosed findings stay visible, and repeated findings are flagged separately. You enter the next audit knowing what was promised in the last round.
The subcontract workshops and subcontractors you work with are recorded together with the type and duration of the work; the documents required from them are tracked on the same calendar. When the buyer asks about the lower links of the chain, the answer is ready.
The file for a given protocol or buyer is compiled in a single step. Gaps are clearly marked in the file. Supply chain data requests from buyers are answered from the same pool; data is not gathered from scratch for each request.
We review which protocols you have been through, past findings and buyers' own checklists. Repeated findings are listed separately; the system's first goal is that they never appear again.
The required evidence is defined item by item, with owners and refresh periods assigned. This step also clarifies which evidence will come from which existing system; the number of manually collected items is reduced as far as possible.
Timekeeping, HR and occupational safety data are connected. Data is not kept in two places; evidence generation is fed from existing records. For items that cannot be connected, the least burdensome collection method is set up.
A rehearsal is run against a real protocol checklist: the file is compiled, gaps are seen and closed. The rehearsal is the only way to show, before audit day, whether the system genuinely works.
The finding log, responsibility assignment and closure evidence flow are handed over to the team. Who watches what, and which report runs when, is left in writing.
Your consultant knows what is required and prepares you; the software keeps the preparation from falling apart between audits. The most common picture in practice is a gap closed for one audit reopening by the next, because follow-up depends on individuals. The system cuts that repetition by tying evidence to an owner and a calendar. The way you work with your consultant does not change.
It does not. What determines the audit result is actual practice on the shop floor, and software does not change that. What it provides is evidence that is complete and current, gaps seen before the audit, and finding closures tracked. If records are in order but practice has problems, the system does not hide that — quite the opposite, it makes it visible.
No, and this is where the system earns its keep. Evidence is held in a single pool; each protocol or buyer checklist is a view over that pool. If the same document is requested on five separate lists, it is updated once and shows as current on all five. When a new buyer checklist arrives, the job is to map that checklist to the pool.
It is not, but they intersect. The OHS side manages its own obligations and processes; this system compiles evidence against the buyer's audit protocol and runs the finding cycle. The two can — and should — be set up to share the same data; otherwise the same document is kept in two places.
Subcontractors are registered in the system and the documents required from them are tracked on the same calendar. The collection method is chosen to match the subcontractor's capacity: for some, a simple upload link is enough; for others, it is more realistic for your team to record the document. What matters is that it is visible which subcontractor is missing what.
Evidence lists per protocol and per buyer; an evidence pool with defined owners and refresh calendars; finding and corrective action tracking; a subcontractor register; an audit file compiled in a single step and outputs that answer buyer data requests. Everything produced is handed over to you, source code included.
In a 30-minute discovery call we listen to what you need and tell you honestly whether custom development or an off-the-shelf product is the better answer.
We build a system that calculates the preferential origin of your exported products rule by rule, tracks supplier origin declarations at product and validity level, and records HS classification decisions together with their reasoning. The goal is to be able to show the calculation behind an origin claim the moment it is asked for.
Details →We build a layer that calculates the embedded emissions of the products you export to the European Union at plant, line and batch level. It combines production, energy and raw material data and produces the result in a form your buyer will accept and a verifier can trace.
Details →We build an infrastructure that collects the data behind sustainability reports at source, stores it with an auditable trail and manages the recurring reporting calendar. We are not the ones who sign the report; we produce what the report rests on.
Details →For manufacturers of machines and devices with embedded software, we build a regime that generates the software bill of materials, keeps the component and licence inventory current, monitors known vulnerabilities and establishes notification and update processes.
Details →We build an infrastructure where product-level material composition, production history, supply chain trail and repair information is collected, versioned and published through a data carrier. The way to be ready when the date is set is to start accumulating the data today.
Details →If your business depends on a program whose developer can no longer be reached, whose source code is incomplete or which has no documentation at all, we take that system over, establish how it works on the basis of evidence, and bring it back to a state where it can live on.
Details →
