Every month I get a version of the same message from a factory manager: “We just finished a SMETA audit. Now our American buyer wants RBA. And our European buyer is asking for BSCI. Do we really need all three?”
The honest answer is: sometimes yes, but usually not. More often, the factory is auditing in circles because nobody has taken the time to map how these frameworks actually overlap — and where they genuinely diverge.
This article is that map.
I am comparing the three frameworks as they stand today: SMETA 7.0 (released September 2024), amfori BSCI (Code updated 2021, system manual updated September 2024), and RBA v8.0 (current since January 2024). [FACT-CHECK: Verify exact release dates before publishing]
A quick orientation: what each framework is trying to do
Before going into columns and checkboxes, it helps to understand the philosophy behind each scheme.
SMETA (Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit) is an audit methodology, not a code. Sedex does not own a code of conduct — it provides a standardised way to conduct and share audits. The underlying requirements in a SMETA report come from the ETI Base Code and local law. What SMETA 7.0 adds is a more structured management systems assessment layer, requiring auditors to evaluate not just whether a violation exists today, but whether the factory has systems in place to prevent it tomorrow.
amfori BSCI is a membership and improvement programme. The amfori Code of Conduct sets the requirements; the BSCI audit process measures performance against them. The key difference from SMETA is the emphasis on continuous improvement: factories move through a cycle (Initial → Follow-up → Re-audit) and members are expected to support suppliers rather than simply grade them.
RBA (Responsible Business Alliance, formerly EICC) was built by and for the electronics supply chain, though it has expanded significantly into adjacent industries. Its Code of Conduct — now at v8.0 — is unusually prescriptive compared to the other two. Where SMETA references “local law” as a baseline and the ETI Base Code as the ceiling, RBA specifies numerical limits, management system elements, and environmental metrics within the code itself.
The four pillars: what each framework actually covers
All three frameworks organise requirements into roughly the same categories. Here is how the pillars map across schemes:
| Topic area | SMETA 7.0 | amfori BSCI | RBA v8.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour rights (hours, wages, freedom of association) | Pillar 1 — Labour | Chapter 1 — Workers’ Rights | Section A — Labor |
| Health & safety | Pillar 2 — Health & Safety | Chapter 2 — Health & Safety | Section B — Health & Safety |
| Environment | Pillar 3 (4-pillar only) | Chapter 3 — Environment | Section C — Environment |
| Business ethics / anti-bribery | Pillar 4 (4-pillar only) | Chapter 4 — Business Conduct | Section D — Business Ethics |
| Management systems | New in 7.0 — MSA layer | Embedded throughout | Section E — Management Systems |
The headline difference is the 2-pillar vs 4-pillar option in SMETA. Many buyers only require Pillars 1 and 2, which means a SMETA report in their system will contain no environmental or ethics data at all. If your buyer switches to the 4-pillar format, your audit scope doubles overnight — a shock I have watched many factories absorb badly because they were never told the difference.
Where the frameworks genuinely diverge
Working hours: numbers vs principles
This is where factories feel the gap most acutely.
The ETI Base Code, which underpins SMETA, states that working hours shall not exceed 48 hours per week as a regular work week, with a maximum 12-hour overtime per week (60 hours total) except in extraordinary circumstances. It also requires at least one day off in seven. SMETA auditors then check compliance against local law first — so in Vietnam, the 48-hour standard week and the 200-hour annual overtime cap apply.
RBA v8.0 is stricter: the Code states that the regular work week shall not exceed 60 hours, including overtime, and workers shall have at least one day off in every seven-day period. That sounds similar, but RBA’s 60-hour ceiling is an absolute, not a reference to local law. In jurisdictions where local law allows temporary exceptions to the overtime cap (as Vietnamese law does for export industries up to 300 hours annually), an RBA auditor will still cap the threshold at 60 hours per week regardless. [FACT-CHECK: Confirm RBA v8.0 exact language on the 60hr cap]
amfori BSCI follows a similar local-law-first approach to SMETA, with the amfori Code setting principles rather than specific hour limits.
Practical implication: A factory producing for an electronics brand under RBA that also supplies a textile buyer under SMETA could face different hour thresholds for the same workers on the same production line, depending on which audit was scheduled.
Findings and corrective actions
SMETA 7.0 introduced two new finding types that factories need to understand:
- Collaborative Action Required (CAR): A finding where the root cause lies partly outside the factory’s control — brand buying practices, pricing pressure, structural issues in the supply chain. The auditor documents the CAR, but remediation requires the buyer and supplier to act together. This is a significant departure from the old model where factories were expected to fix everything themselves.
- Workplace Requirements: Tied directly to the ETI Base Code clauses, these are the traditional corrective actions, now labelled more precisely.
RBA uses a tiered system: Priority, Major, and Minor non-conformances. A Priority non-conformance triggers mandatory follow-up within 90 days. [FACT-CHECK: Confirm RBA v8.0 follow-up timeline for Priority findings]
amfori BSCI scores factories on a 1–5 scale across the Code areas. A score of 1 or 2 triggers an improvement plan. The scoring approach means factories are less likely to be de-listed for a single weak area — the system is designed for gradual improvement rather than binary pass/fail.
Management systems: the gap widens in 7.0
SMETA 7.0’s Management Systems Assessment (MSA) is the most significant structural change in the new version. Auditors now evaluate whether the factory has documented policies, roles, monitoring systems, and grievance mechanisms — not just whether today’s payslips are correct.
RBA has always had Section E (Management Systems), so factories that are already RBA-compliant will find the SMETA 7.0 MSA largely familiar. The language differs, but the intent is the same: systems, not snapshots.
amfori BSCI embeds management systems expectations throughout its chapters rather than isolating them. The September 2024 system manual update emphasised due diligence language that mirrors the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) — which makes sense given amfori’s European member base.
Decision framework: which scheme should you prioritise?
Is your primary buyer in electronics / tech hardware?
└─ YES → Prioritise RBA. Other schemes will slot in.
└─ NO
└─ Is your primary buyer European (EU/UK)?
└─ YES → BSCI or SMETA (check which Sedex/amfori is their platform)
└─ NO
└─ Does your buyer require Sedex sharing?
└─ YES → SMETA 2-pillar minimum; ask about 4-pillar
└─ NO → Confirm buyer's audit acceptance listA few real-world patterns I see repeatedly:
Pattern 1 — Garment factory, European buyers only: These factories almost always end up on SMETA and/or BSCI. The good news is that a strong SMETA 4-pillar audit is increasingly accepted by amfori members in lieu of a BSCI audit, especially since both reference the ETI Base Code. The duplication is shrinking.
Pattern 2 — Electronics factory, US and Japanese buyers: RBA is the baseline. SMETA acceptances are growing in this segment, but ask the buyer explicitly before assuming.
Pattern 3 — Multi-product factory, mixed buyer portfolio: This is the hard case. The answer is not to run three separate audits simultaneously. The answer is to build your management systems against the most demanding standard (usually RBA’s Section E or SMETA 7.0 MSA), which will satisfy the others at the systems level, then address any code-specific gaps as add-ons.
Three misconceptions I correct every week
“We passed SMETA, so we’re compliant.” A SMETA report is a point-in-time photograph. “No critical findings” does not mean “compliant” — it means the auditor did not observe a critical violation on that day. Twelve months later, without maintenance, the same factory often produces a different result.
“BSCI is easier than SMETA.” This conflates the audit’s format (BSCI’s scoring scale feels gentler than a binary critical/major/minor system) with the requirements (the amfori Code and ETI Base Code are substantively similar in labour rights requirements). A factory that scores 3/5 on BSCI wages has a wage problem regardless of the scheme.
“RBA is only for electronics.” RBA has actively expanded its scope. I have seen RBA audits used by retail buyers, automotive component buyers, and food-packaging buyers in the past two years. If your buyer list is diversifying into US brands with tech-supply-chain roots, RBA literacy is worth building now.
What to do before your next audit cycle
-
Map your buyer requirements — not what you think they require, but what is written in their supplier code of conduct. Download the actual document. Many factories operate on five-year-old assumptions.
-
Identify your most demanding requirement per topic area — hours, wages, freedom of association, health and safety systems. Build your internal monitoring to that ceiling.
-
Ask your buyers which finding formats they accept — specifically, do they accept a SMETA report in lieu of their proprietary questionnaire? Do they accept cross-recognition between schemes?
-
Prepare for the SMETA 7.0 MSA layer — if you have not yet been audited under 7.0, the management systems questions will feel different from 6.1. [LUKAS-INSERT: Add specific examples of MSA questions from your recent 7.0 audits]
-
Document your CAR awareness — under SMETA 7.0, if you believe a finding has a root cause in buying practices (e.g., last-minute order changes forcing overtime), you have a right to request a CAR classification rather than a standard corrective action. Factories rarely know this.
The audit landscape is consolidating slowly. SMETA and BSCI have cross-recognition agreements in development; RBA has observer status in various multi-stakeholder forums. In five years, the question “which scheme do we need?” may be simpler than it is today.
Until then, the answer is: know the differences, build to the highest common denominator, and stop letting buyers schedule audits without first asking whether the last report already covers what they need.
Lukas Tran has conducted audits against SMETA, BSCI, RBA, and a dozen proprietary codes across fifteen countries. Questions and corrections are welcome — this field moves fast.