Few codes include provisions on freedom of association, and fewer still mention the right to organize unions and bargain collectively. The language in company codes of conduct is often purposely vague, in order to limit corporate responsibility and public accountability. Nowhere in this clause is there a requirement that workers producing Russell products receive a living wage. One important exception is the Australian Code of Practice for Homeworkers. Company codes seldom provide independent means for verification that the company or its suppliers are complying with the code.
Companies usually rely on internal monitoring by their own personnel.
In a very few instances, companies have responded to public pressure about specific sweatshop abuses by mandating local non-governmental and human rights organizations to monitor conditions in specific factories for limited periods of time. Reports from internal monitors or external auditors are rarely made public. And companies generally do not disclose the locations of the factories where their clothes are manufactured, making it virtually impossible for labour or human rights organizations to confirm whether the company is living up to its standards. However, some companies are responding to demands for greater transparency in monitoring. The report also outlined the steps the supplier would need to take to comply with the Liz Claiborne code and Guatemalan law.