Contact Us

TS Packaging’s Journey with the Ganapati Initiative

We recently sat down with Mr. Vincent Oh, Executive Director of TS Packaging (formerly TS Plastics) in Malaysia, a leading provider of flexible packaging solutions who has actively engaged with the Ganapati Initiative. Led by Embode, the Ganapati Initiative takes a systems-building  approach to strengthening the capacity of supply chain businesses in responsible recruitment and labour practices.


In our conversation, Mr. Vincent shared how the initiative helped his team navigate the complex obstacles of the foreign employment process and effective grievance mechanisms. Mr. Vincent also highlighted the friction between rigid global audit standards and local operational realities, noting that a one-size-fits-all approach often overlooks national and local nuances.

 

Question 1: How do supply chain businesses in Malaysia want to be engaged by buyers and brands?

 

It is important for us to understand and document how supply chain businesses in Malaysia prefer to be engaged by buyers and brands. Aligning our approach with these expectations can provide a competitive advantage by enhancing our public reputation. Our involvement with the Ganapati Initiative further demonstrates our commitment to ethical and responsible sourcing. This commitment strengthens TSP’s reputation among stakeholders, including customers, investors, regulators, and other key partners. By integrating supplier-preferred engagement models into our operations, we not only reinforce supply chain relationships but also position ourselves positively in the eyes of the public and industry peers.

 

Collaboration and dialogue between buyers, brands, and supply chain businesses are fundamental to building strong, trust-based relationships. When buyers actively engage suppliers through open, ongoing communication, it fosters a deeper understanding of each other’s challenges, capabilities, and expectations. This collaborative approach allows both parties to work together more effectively, address issues proactively, and co-create solutions that benefit everyone involved. For supply chain businesses in Malaysia, feeling heard and involved in decision-making processes increases their commitment and motivation, leading to higher quality outputs and more reliable delivery.

 

Question 2: How do capability-building initiatives, such as the Ganapati Initiative, support supply chain engagement on labour standards?

 

1) Foreign Employment Process

The foreign employment process involves several key steps, including obtaining work permits, fulfilling regulatory requirements, and ensuring compliance with both local labor laws and immigration policies. Employers must coordinate with government agencies to secure approvals, conduct medical checks, and manage documentation for foreign workers. This process can often be complex and time-consuming, requiring careful coordination to avoid delays and ensure legal compliance.

The Ganapati Initiative can simplify this process by fostering better communication and collaboration between employers, government bodies, and foreign workers. By promoting transparency, fairness, and standardized procedures, the initiative helps reduce administrative burdens and streamlines approvals. It also encourages ethical recruitment practices, which enhances trust and efficiency throughout the employment cycle, ultimately making the foreign employment process smoother and more sustainable for all parties involved.

 

2) Grievance Mechanism

 

The Ganapati Project supports the enhancement of grievance mechanisms by promoting transparent, accessible, and culturally sensitive channels for raising and resolving concerns within the supply chain. By encouraging active engagement with local suppliers and workers, the project helps build trust and ensures that grievances are addressed promptly and fairly. This leads to improved communication, quicker resolution of issues, and a stronger commitment to ethical business practices.

 

Moreover, the Ganapati Project supports the creation of comprehensive frameworks and tools that standardize grievance reporting and follow-up processes, making it easier for companies to monitor, track, and respond to complaints effectively. This strengthens accountability, helps prevent the escalation of issues, and ultimately fosters a safer and more respectful working environment for all stakeholders.

 

Question 3: What challenges do you face, and what more can be done to ensure brands and buyers support and collaborate with suppliers?

 

 

  1. Challenges Faced

For a responsible company that values social accountability, audits such as SMETA and NBC are not merely checklists but a mirror — reflecting how well our systems, values, and culture truly align with ethical business practices.

 

However, we face two key challenges:

 

  1. a) Inconsistent audit interpretations

While audit standards are clear in principle, their implementation often varies across auditors, regions, and industries. This inconsistency makes it difficult for suppliers to fully comply and can strain relationships instead of strengthening them.

 

  1. b) The gap between global standards and local realities

Fairness should not mean uniformity. Labor laws, cost of living, industrial maturity, and cultural norms differ significantly between regions. A one-size-fits-all model risks:

  • treating time control as the only measure of fairness while ignoring value creation,
  • overlooking socio-economic differences between developing and developed nations, and
  • simplifying complex realities like seasonal work, piece-rate systems, and flexible manpower.
  • True fairness lies not in “one standard for all”, but in recognizing different answers within shared boundaries and bottom lines.

 

  1. What Can Be Done — Moving from Time Control to Value Partnership

 

A more balanced and collaborative approach between brands, buyers, and suppliers should move beyond rigid compliance to focus on value, well-being, and mutual growth.

 

  1. a) Indicator Shift: From “hours worked” to “value created”

 

Compliance with legal working hours remains the baseline, but performance metrics should evolve toward productivity, fatigue risk, turnover, absenteeism, satisfaction, and skill progression.Introduce the concept of “Net Employee Value” — balancing income (including overtime) against living costs and health sustainability.

 

  1. b) Strategy Shift: Linking Welfare, Environment, and Reward

 

  • Rewards: Transparent pay models, seasonal incentives, annual or performance bonuses.
  • Welfare: Medical insurance, parental and elderly care support, commuting and meal subsidies.
  • Environment: Ergonomic improvement, temperature/noise control, rest and mental wellness areas.

 

 

  1. c) Governance Shift: From “control” to “co-governance”

 

  • Encourage two-way consultation on working hours, scheduling, and performance allocation.
  • Ensure transparent dashboards for compliance and people indicators — turning perception into evidence.
  • Include Voice of Employee audits as part of ethical certification cycles.

 

  1. Constructive Recommendations for Each Stakeholder

 

  1. a) For Suppliers / Companies:

 

  • Build a three-stage framework: legal working hour baseline + seasonal flexibility + off-peak training.
  • Integrate “more work, more pay” into compliance with clear voluntary principles and health monitoring.
  • Redefine performance from attendance rate to value creation rate.

 

 

  1. b) For Brands and Auditors (SMETA, NBC, etc.):

 

  • Allow regional and industry flexibility within legal limits (e.g., manufacturing seasonality, piece-rate boundaries).
  • Include wage sufficiency and living cost affordability into assessment frameworks, not just hours worked.
  • Transform corrective actions into joint improvement programs that co-create long-term optimization.

 

  1. c) For Governments and Industry Bodies:

 

  • Move from “one single ruler” to “multiple calibrated measures”: legal minimums + regional living cost + industry-specific guidance.
  • Use tax incentives or training funds to encourage company investments in employee health, skills, and family support.
  • Publish transparent living cost indexes and occupational health benchmarks to guide fair dialogue.

 

  1. Rethinking the Meaning of “Fair Work”

 

  1. a) True fairness means giving people both security and choice:
  • predictable and sufficient pay,
  • flexible options during peak and off-peak seasons,
  • real health and rest protection, and
  • growth pathways through skills and advancement.

 

 

  1. b) When employees’ dignity and rewards are protected, the length of working hours becomes less of a conflict. When companies retain efficiency and profit margins, they gain capacity to reinvest in welfare and sustainability — achieving a balance between human well-being and business viability.

 

 

  1. Final Reflection

 

Audits like SMETA and NBC deserve respect — they keep us from drifting off course. But the ultimate purpose of ethical trade should not be about forcing everyone into the same answer; it should be about acknowledging diversity, safeguarding the baseline, and encouraging continuous value creation.

 

When workers can earn a decent living through effort, and companies can sustain profitability through efficiency, compliance becomes a catalyst, not a constraint.

That, in our view, is the true spirit of corporate social responsibility — and the direction every ethical supply chain should move toward.

Share:

More Resources