Myanmar's military illegally seized power in a violent military coup in February 2021. From then until October 2024, the Business and Human Rights Centre tracked 665 allegations of garment worker abuse in Myanmar. These findings reveal systemic, escalating and interconnected abuses across the sector – including forced and excessive overtime, unsafe working conditions, wage deductions, gender-based harassment and retaliation against union members and worker representatives – since the 2021 coup. Military repression, collapsing labour protections, and workplace-level exploitation now reinforce one another, creating conditions in which rights violations occur with near-total impunity.

Across the data set, the following consolidated trends emerge:

• Militarisation, surveillance and audit manipulation have intensified, as some factories  cooperate with security forces to suppress organising and conceal violations.
• Forced overtime, excessive production targets, and punitive wage practices point to entrenched forced labour indicators embedded in daily operations.
• The erosion of job security, including increased casualisation, unfair dismissals and child labour has deepened worker precarity and stripped workers of legal protections.
• Gender-based harassment and violence remain pervasive, used as tools of discipline, intimidation and control within a predominantly female workforce.
• Freedom of association has effectively collapsed, with union leaders criminalised and non-independent workplace committees used to silence worker voice.

Taken together, these patterns show that severe labour rights risks are not isolated incidents but systemic features of Myanmar’s garment sector. The evidence points to conditions in which protections have deteriorated so extensively that harmful practices can occur unchecked, and where workers face sustained exposure to coercion, insecurity and retaliation. These dynamics define a structurally high-risk operating environment.

The data also reflects divergent corporate responses to these conditions. Some brands have adjusted elements of their due diligence frameworks or expanded monitoring in an attempt to account for rising risks. Others have concluded that meaningful heightened human rights due diligence (hHRDD) is not feasible and have exited the country. A further group continues to source without adapting their due diligence approach to the structural risks identified in this data set. In these cases, company conduct reflects a willingness to allow risks to workers’ rights and wellbeing to persist where significant operational changes or a responsible exit are not pursued.

Context

The garment industry is marked by structural labour rights abuses, driven by a production model that hinges on low costs and intense pressure on suppliers. In Myanmar, the February 2021 military coup stripped away the final safeguards against abuse, accelerating a surge in exploitation across the garment sector with near-total impunity. The collapse of democratic institutions, the criminalisation of worker organising and the erosion of basic civic freedoms have created conditions in which labour violations escalate with near-total impunity. These allegations reflect conditions that have become immeasurably difficult and dangerous, with workers facing shrinking avenues for redress and escalating reprisals for raising concerns.

The wider political environment has reinforced these patterns. Restrictions on freedom of association and the arrest, surveillance and harassment of union leaders have severely undermined workers' ability to organise or negotiate. The International Labour Organization’s extraordinary decision to invoke Article 33 in June 2025 underscores the severity of the situation, calling on governments and companies to ensure they are not sustaining the military authorities through their commercial relationships.

In this context, international standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), make clear that heightened human rights due diligence is essential for any company evaluating continued sourcing from Myanmar. Standard approaches are not equipped to address the structural and escalating risks documented across the sector. Looking ahead, there is no indication that worker abuse will diminish under current conditions. For companies that continue to source from Myanmar, the critical question is whether hHRDD can meaningfully safeguard workers’ rights and wellbeing in practice. Under international norms governing conflict affected and high-risk environments, this is not a discretionary standard but a minimum expectation for responsible business conduct.

Some brands have opted to withdraw, citing an inability to operate responsibly, while others have remained. Under the UNGPs, companies operating in conflict affected contexts must undertake enhanced HRDD that assesses both factory level and structural risks; the heightened likelihood of severe harms; and the ability to apply leverage; and responsible exit where risks cannot be mitigated.

As with all conflicts, time will be a judge. Brands sourcing from Myanmar will be remembered for whether they used their leverage to protect workers or enabled conditions under which violations deepened. In an environment where worker voice is suppressed and oversight obstructed, companies unable to demonstrate meaningful action to prevent harm will face unavoidable questions about whether their sourcing contributed to the coercive structures shaping the sector.

Shrinking civic space, rising worker exploitation

Worker abuses in post-coup Myanmar fall into several interconnected categories:

• Militarisation, business-junta collusion and surveillance
• Coercive productivity and forced labour indicators
• Casualisation and unfair dismissal
• Child labour
• Neglect of health and safety
• Gendered violence and bodily control
• Suppression of worker organisation and voice

These interconnected dynamics reflect how the collapse of civic space has accelerated exploitation across the garment sector.

Militarisation, business-junta collusion and surveillance

Since the coup, factory-military collaboration has become a recurring feature of workplace governance, restricting workers’ ability to organise and raising severe safety risks. In an early incident in February 2021, workers at a garment factory reported being locked inside the premises to prevent them from joining Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) demonstrations. This example illustrates how political repression quickly seeped into workplace management practices, signalling the collapse of basic protections for freedom of movement and expression.

Following activation of the People’s Military Service Law in 2024, workers expressed fear of forced conscription when returning home after late shifts, intensifying the risks associated with mandatory overtime.

Employers have also reportedly involved security forces to suppress grievances. In August 2023, workers' demands for unpaid wages and relief from forced overtime were met with a joint military and police raid, followed by threats delivered to their homes. In another incident, security forces allegedly used lethal force during wage protests, resulting in worker deaths, including that of a woman union leader and the arrest of around 17 workers. Such incidents underscore the untenable risks faced by workers attempting to assert their basic rights.

Surveillance has simultaneously expanded. Workers report CCTV cameras placed near toilets, intrusive searches, confiscated phones and restrictions on communication, creating an environment in which speaking openly about conditions is unsafe.

Suppression of worker organising and workers' voices

Following the military takeover, trade unions became central to CDM. Their involvement led to a violent crackdown; the military declared 16 labour unions and labour rights organisations illegal, and numerous organisers were arrested. Since then, unions have reported continued deterioration in their ability to operate, with 110 tracked cases reflecting increased surveillance, intimidation, and collaboration between suppliers and the military to suppress organising.

Union leaders and activists have faced arrests, home raids and harassment, forcing many into hiding to protect themselves and their families. Workers have reported being warned not to join unions or denied the right to form one, and threats targeting union leaders. Union members also reported being dismissed under false pretences or denied re-employment after factory closures, demonstrating that even basic expressions of worker voice now carry significant personal risk.

Restrictions on organising have continued through the manipulation of worker management committees. Workers reported being coerced into joining Workplace Coordination Committees (WCC) instead of independent unions. WCCs have also been accused of being formed by employers and denying workers the right to select their own representatives, limiting genuine representation and weakening any avenue for collective dialogue.

These constraints on worker organising are compounded by widespread audit manipulation, which further obstructs workers’ ability to communicate concerns to external monitors. Workers described being prevented from speaking to inspectors, instructed to lie during audits, or monitored by management while interviews took place. Some reported being coached in advance on what to say, while others noted that pregnant workers, child workers, and day workers were hidden from view during inspections to prevent auditors from gaining an accurate understanding of conditions inside factories.

Taken together, these dynamics significantly undermine the conditions required for credible human rights due diligence, which depends on workers being able to speak safely and on information that can be independently verified. In an environment where worker voice is suppressed and oversight processes are curated to conceal violations, brands face structural barriers to identifying harm, assessing risk accurately, or ensuring that corrective actions are effective.

Case study: Myo Myo Aye

Recommendations and conclusions: What's next for Myanmar’s workers?

The findings reveal a sector where the legal system, judicial oversight and collective structures that should uphold labour rights have been profoundly weakened. Workers face coercion, surveillance, restricted civic space, and limited access to remedy, while the structures that once allowed them to raise concerns or influence conditions have been eroded. In this context, any company that continues to source from Myanmar must recognise that responsible sourcing cannot be treated as a compliance formality, but as a necessary safeguard in a sector where labour violations are the norm.

Under the UNGPs, heightened due diligence in a conflict-affected setting requires companies to demonstrate with independent and verifiable evidence that heightened, conflict sensitive due diligence is feasible and effective in practice; and this assessment leads to the conclusion that they can implement measures that ensure the safety and wellbeing of workers.

Meeting this threshold is exceptionally challenging in an environment where worker voice is suppressed, surveillance is common, and information is routinely distorted or withheld. These conditions undermine the core elements of human rights due diligence: the ability of workers to speak without fear, the capacity to verify information, and the presence of functioning channels for remedy. Without these foundations, companies cannot rely on standard oversight tools or factory level assurances to understand or address the risks faced by workers.

For brands that determine they cannot meet these responsibilities, a responsible exit is required. A responsible exit is not withdrawal by default but a structured and transparent process, designed and implemented in consultation with workers and their representatives. Such a process should prioritise reducing the instability workers already experience and ensure that withdrawal does not deepen existing harms.

The future for Myanmar's garment sector workers hinges on whether brands act in line with the realities of working life in this context. Against a backdrop of coercion and weak protections, the question is not whether a company wishes to act responsibly but whether it can do so in practice. The responsibility now is clear: any continued presence must deliver demonstrable improvements for workers, and any exit must be conducted to reduce rather than reproduce the well-documented harms.