A Smarter Approach to Safety in Garment Manufacturing

Why formal safety systems in garment hubs like Vietnam and Bangladesh work best when they value the frontline observations of the sewing line.

• By Huynh Tran An Binh
• Mar 24, 2026

Garment manufacturing remains economically significant in both Vietnam and Bangladesh, and the sector's size gives occupational health and safety particular practical importance. One Vietnam industry report stated that apparel and textiles accounted for about 16% of Vietnam’s total exports in 2019, while the garment sector employed approximately 2.8 million people, 80% of them women. The same source noted that the program covered more than 360 garment and footwear factories and about 600,000 workers, and that the sector generated about US$39 billion in export revenue in 2019 [1].

In Bangladesh, official garment-export statistics indicate that ready-made garment exports totaled US$39.35 billion in fiscal year 2024-25, accounting for 81.49% of the country’s total exports [2]. A 2025 news report described Bangladesh’s garment sector as employing about 4 million people and contributing more than 10% of GDP [3]. Taken together, those figures suggest that even incremental safety improvements could affect a very large workforce.

The production model itself helps explain why safety can be hard to manage through inspection and formal compliance procedures alone. The ILO’s synthesis review describes garment production as labor-intensive and notes that both Bangladesh and Vietnam have been among the world’s top garment exporters since the 2000s [4]. The same review states that garment production is one of the few manufacturing industries with a primarily female workforce and that sewing machine operators account for 70% of workers in garment factories [4].

In many facilities, daily work is built around repetitive motions, tightly paced output, fixed workstations and continuous small adjustments to meet line speed and shipment deadlines. Under those conditions, some of the earliest warning signs of risk are likely to appear at line level before they appear in an incident log.

The risk picture in garment work is broad and often cumulative rather than dramatic. The ILO review identifies fire and electrical hazards, chemical risks, ergonomic risks from repetitive movements and awkward working positions, mechanical risks from contact with moving machinery or tools without protection, physical risks such as heat and loud noise, slip and trip hazards and psychosocial risks related to tight production targets, deadlines and heavy workloads [4].

It also notes that sewing machine operators often repeat the same movements for long hours, while workers in cutting, ironing and quality control may stand for long periods. Injuries from sewing-machine needles, the review says, can be frequent if guards are not used [4]. The ILO code of practice reinforces that picture from a control standpoint: it recommends barrier guards, pulley guards, eye-protection guards, needle guards and adequate lighting for sewing operations. It also devotes substantial attention to workstation design, ergonomics, rest periods, fatigue and fire safety [5].

In large formal factories, however, a relatively small OSH team may not be in a position to notice every early deviation as it emerges. The ILO review describes large formal garment factories as typically employing 250 to 5,000 workers [4]. In settings of that size, some issues may first surface as worker observations rather than reportable incidents: a damaged pedal, a chair set too low for the operator, recurring wrist pain, a missing guard, an aisle partly obstructed by materials, poor ventilation around a finishing station or fatigue building during extended overtime.

This does not diminish the role of safety professionals. It suggests that their work may become more effective when there is a structured way to capture and act on frontline observations.

The ILO code appears to support that reading. It states that effective OSH systems require joint commitment and consultation among employers, workers and their representatives [5]. It also says employers should cooperate and consult as closely as possible with workers and their representatives, and that workers should be expected to play a leading role in examining the causes of safety and health hazards and in applying resulting improvements within the enterprise [5].

In addition, the code states that employers should establish and maintain a process of consultation and cooperation with workers and their representatives concerning all aspects of safety, particularly within the framework of safety and health committees or another recognized mechanism [5]. Read together, those provisions do not position worker participation as a public-relations exercise. They position it as part of how an OSH system is expected to function.

Vietnam factory assessment data offer a useful reminder that routine OSH gaps remain operational issues, not historical ones. In 2019 assessments, 78% of assessed factories were non-compliant with monthly overtime limits, 26% had emergency exits or escape routes obstructed or locked during working hours, 31% of assessed workplaces did not have a functioning fire detection and alarm system and 50% of assessed factories did not have sufficient onsite medical facilities or staff [1].

The same report noted that, among factories that had been in the program for eight years, non-compliance in OSH management systems fell from 52% in the first year to 32% after eight years [1]. That pattern does not suggest that all factories share the same weaknesses, but it does indicate that day-to-day OSH management, emergency preparedness and working-time control can remain stubborn factory-level concerns.

One factory case from Vietnam points to a more constructive lesson. In that facility, there were initially no full-time OSH officers, and many employees were undertrained in workplace safety [1]. After advisory support, the site developed a more structured OSH system that included qualified full-time staff, an OSH council, an OSH collaborator network and members of a consultative improvement committee [1]. The report states that non-compliance fell from 29 issues in 2018 to 17 in 2019 [1].

It also recorded the view of a factory representative that action plans were developed in consultation with management and worker representatives, which helped workers feel heard and more aware of their own safety and health in the workplace [1]. That example does not prove that consultation alone caused the improvement, but it does suggest that worker-management dialogue may become more useful when it is tied to staff, follow-up and a functioning OSH structure.

The Bangladesh evidence adds an important caution. A discussion paper on two Bangladeshi garment factories found that nearly three-fourths of surveyed workers in both factories either agreed or strongly agreed that the Participation Committee looked out for their problems and that they could openly express their views there. Yet only 4% of workers in Factory A and 8% in Factory B had directly taken complaints to committee members [6].

The study also found that workers often used other channels for everyday concerns, including supervisors, compliance staff, other bipartite committees and in one case, a complaint hotline [6]. In Factory A, 15 worker representatives were expected to represent a workforce of more than 8,000 workers [6]. Because this was a two-factory case study, it should not be generalized too broadly. Even so, it raises a practical point: a formal worker-voice structure may exist on paper yet still be used less often than the channels workers consider faster, closer or safer.

Fire safety offers another reason to take worker input seriously. The ILO code says employers should maintain a fire-safety management plan, ensure fire-escape routes are visibly marked and free of obstruction and develop emergency arrangements in consultation with workers and their representatives [5]. A 2025 news report on a Dhaka fire said the incident killed at least 16 people, and a fire official stated that neither the garment factory nor the adjacent chemical warehouse had approval or a fire-safety plan. The same report said the building had a grilled door that was kept locked [3].

A single event should not be used to characterize an entire industry. But it does show how quickly routine warning signs-locked exits, missing plans and poor fire management-can become fatal.

For managers and safety staff, the practical lesson may be modest but useful. Formal safety systems remain necessary. So do competent safety officers, inspections, maintenance, training and compliance with legal requirements. But the evidence reviewed here suggests those systems may work better when they are built to capture what workers already notice during routine production: discomfort before injury, blocked routes before emergency, machine irregularities before incidents and fatigue before mistakes.

In practical terms, that could mean making it easier to report small hazards and recurring discomforts, not only injuries; reviewing repeated concerns by workstation or line; and giving workers visible feedback when a problem has been acted on. That approach would not replace professional safety management. It may help make it more realistic, more responsive and more closely aligned with the day-to-day conditions on the sewing line.