Since Myanmar’s military seized power in a brutal coup d’état against the civilian government in February 2021, systemic, escalating and interconnected abuses against garment workers have defined the region’s garment sector, according to data tracked by the Business and Human Rights Center (BHRC).
From the month following the attack until last fall, the BHRC tracked 665 allegations of abuse—exposing a high-risk operating environment characterized by near-total impunity for perpetrators—between March 2021 through October 2024, as released ahead of civil-war-torn Myanmar’s 2026 general election.
Related Stories
The collapse of labor protections, military repression and workplace-level exploitation now reinforce one another—creating conditions where rights violations occur with near-total impunity, the London and New York-headquartered nonprofit found, per the briefing released on Dec. 18.
Just a week earlier, Amnesty International responded to accounts of an air strike on Wednesday night—also known as the evening of International Human Rights Day—reportedly on a hospital in Rakhine State, the human rights organization reported.
“Nowhere and no one is safe from the violence of the Myanmar military, which widening its repression ahead of an election later this month [and] has been marked by human rights abuses,” Joe Freeman, Amnesty International’s Myanmar researcher, said. “Almost five years after the military coup, the international community must take concerted, targeted and effective action to hold perpetrators [accountable].”
The briefing was powered by the organization’s tracker of allegations against Myanmar garment workers. The tool, itself powered through collaboration with partners and allies inside and outside Myanmar, per the BHRC, “monitored the significant increase in labor and human rights abuses of garment workers across the country after the military takeover.”
The organization found that forced and excessive overtime, gender-based violence, child labor, unsafe working conditions and retaliation against union activity have become systemic across the sector since the 2021 military coup “amid widespread repression and the collapsing of labor protections.”
The BHRC saw worker abuses in post-coup Myanmar fall into one of three consolidated categories: intensified militarization and surveillance to suppress organizing; entrenched forced labor indicators like forced overtime and punitive wage practices; and the erosion of job security through increased casualization, unfair dismissals and child labor.
Other trends included pervasive gender-based violence and the collapse of freedom of association.
Taken together, these “interconnected dynamics” reflect the garment sector’s accelerated exploitation amid the region’s civic space collapse, the organization said—meaning that labor rights risks are not isolated incidents but systemic features.
“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,” the BHRC said. “These dynamics define a structurally high-risk operating environment.”
On the coercive productivity front, the report found forced labor indicators to be “deeply embedded” in production systems across Myanmar’s garment sector; mandatory overtime and escalating production quotas appeared in 349 of the cases (over 50 percent) with workers frequently (and reportedly) obliged to work overnight without adequate rest, meals or transport.
Meanwhile, inadequate security conditions exacerbate the exposures.
Workers described severe exhaustion, fainting and sleep deprivation due to limited rest between shifts, the BHRC found, noting that the refusal or inability to meet targets has reportedly led to verbal abuse , threats and punitive measures.
“Further entrenching coercive conditions” was the recurring denial of leave documentation, found in 233 cases (35 percent). The report also found that wage deductions were systematically used to discipline workers for things like refusing overtime, making mistakes or violating discretionary rules—a practice the BHRC said is indicative of an environment where economic coercion is routine.
“Precarity has intensified since the coup. Workers report rising use of day labor contracts—documented in 95 cases—allowing employers to avoid the legal obligations and benefits afforded to permanent staff,” the briefing reads. To that end, unfair dismissals were recorded in 211 cases (32 percent) and “continue to be used punitively.”
Workers reported being coerced into joining management-controlled Workplace Coordination Committees (WCCs) instead of independent unions. These committees have a reputation for reportedly denying workers the right to select their own representatives, thus subverting genuine collective dialogue, per the BHRC.
“These constraints on worker organizing are compounded by widespread audit manipulation, which further obstructs workers’ ability to communicate concerns to external monitors,” the organization said.
On the attacks on freedom of association front, the allegation tracker the allegation tracker detailed workers being coached on what to say to auditors, monitored by management—separate from an allegation detailing CCTV cameras installed in front of the restrooms—or prevented from speaking to inspectors altogether.
Not-so-tangentially, deteriorating health and safety conditions appeared in 297 cases (45 percent) with workers describing issues ranging from unsafe drinking water and leaking roofs to blocked emergency exits and inadequate ventilation—potentially playing out to heatstroke, among other illnesses.
Gender-based violence was reported in 242 cases (36 percent) with women workers reporting verbal abuse, harassment and retaliation—for refusing overtime or missing targets—with some incidents including physical assaults like hair-pulling and sexual harassment; another woman was called a dog.
“As with all conflicts, time will be a judge,” the BHRC said, noting that brands sourcing from Myanmar will be remembered for “whether they used their leverage to protect workers or enabled conditions under which violations deepened,” per the organization.
“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,” the report reads.
Take, for example, an allegation from March 2021. It involved supplier Suntime JCK Company and one of the plant’s employees, Zaw Zaw Htwe, a 21-year-old garment factory worker who was shot in the head by security forces during a protest in Shew Pyi Thar. At the time, BHRC contacted German label Engelbert Strauss as the workwear brand was a reportedly supplied by Suntime JCK; though the company didn’t respond to the BHRC’s request for comment until last September.
“We have been working with one partner business since 2015 in Myanmar—the one referred to in the two publications you sent us and which we would like to reply to,” the letter, penned by Strauss Sustainability Team, reads. “We are continuously and carefully studying the production risks in Myanmar; in consultation with our production partner and numerous international and national stakeholders, we have concluded that, with heightened human rights due diligence, it is possible to manufacture in Myanmar.”
At the same time, the findings also examined how international brands have responded, including exits from the country and continued sourcing without adapted due diligence— what the BHRC said raises questions about business responsibility in a conflict-affected environment.
“The future for Myanmar’s garment sector workers hinges on whether brands act in line with the realities of working life in this context,” the organization said. “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; any exit must be conducted to reduce rather than reproduce the well-documented harms.”
