Read: 2
Li & Fung and VF Corporation both run supplier audits with the same ethical baselines, but they sit in different places in the supply chain. Li & Fung is a supply chain manager; VF is a brand that audits its own production network. This comparison shows where the two align and where they differ.
Program Overview
Li & Fung audits against its Supplier Code, based on the ILO Core Conventions and applied across the factory network it manages for customers. VF audits against its Terms of Engagement — 16 Global Compliance Principles — covering all facilities that make VF branded products, from Tier 1 final assembly to Tier 2 materials.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Area | Li & Fung | VF |
|---|---|---|
| Framework | Supplier Code (ILO Core Conventions, 13 languages) | Terms of Engagement (16 Global Compliance Principles) |
| Scope | Factories in the network it manages for customers | Tier 1 final assembly + Tier 2 material facilities |
| Child Labor | Working age ≥ min employment or compulsory age; never below 15. | Min age 15, or compulsory-education age, whichever is higher. |
| Forced Labor | Prohibited; backed by modern-slavery and responsible-recruitment policies. | Prohibited; a Zero-Tolerance violation if found. |
| Working Hours | ≤60h/week; ≥1 rest day per 7 days. | ≤48h regular; ≤60h total; ≥24h rest per 7 days. |
| Wages | Meet/exceed legal min, industry standard or CBA. | Legal minimum or prevailing wage, whichever is higher. |
| Audit Model | By Li & Fung, approved external firm, or industry organization. | Internal or accredited 3rd party; semi-announced (3-week window) + unannounced. |
| Rating / Fix | Corrective-action plan: immediate / 3 / 6 months. | GREEN / YELLOW / ORANGE / RED / BLACK designation + re-audit cadence. |
Key Differences
Both prohibit child and forced labor and cap weekly hours at 60, but their structures differ. VF applies a single 16-principle Terms of Engagement with a clear designation system (GREEN-to-BLACK) and a defined audit window, while Li & Fung uses an ILO-based Supplier Code with flexible assessment by itself, external firms or industry groups, and corrective-action timelines of immediate, 3 or 6 months. VF also sets a stricter rest rule (24 consecutive hours vs Li & Fung's 1 rest day) and treats forced labor as a Zero-Tolerance item, whereas Li & Fung reinforces it through dedicated modern-slavery and responsible-recruitment policies.
FAQ: Li & Fung vs VF Audit
Q: Do both programs ban forced labor?
A: Yes. Both prohibit forced labor. VF treats it as a Zero-Tolerance violation; Li & Fung backs the ban with modern-slavery and responsible-recruitment policies.
Q: How are the two audit ratings different?
A: VF assigns a GREEN-to-BLACK designation that drives the re-audit cadence. Li & Fung uses corrective-action timelines — immediate, 3 months or 6 months — based on severity.
Q: Can one audit satisfy both Li & Fung and VF?
A: Not automatically. They use different frameworks and assessment models, so a shared social-compliance audit helps but each program still requires its own verification.
Conclusion
Li & Fung and VF share the same ethical floor, so a solid compliance system serves both. The differences — VF's designation ladder and audit window versus Li & Fung's ILO-based code and CAP timelines — mean suppliers should track each program's specifics to stay approved with both.
References
- Li & Fung. Supplier Code (ILO Core Conventions); Forced Labor, Child Labor, Modern Slavery, Responsible Recruitment policies.
- VF Corporation. Terms of Engagement (16 Global Compliance Principles); Factory Compliance Audit Procedure (updated 8/1/2026).
Tag
