There’s an uncomfortable truth slowly infiltrating the apparel industry in 2026: the old formula of ‘just find another supplier’ is breaking down.
For decades, switching sourcing locations has been the magic solution. Bad harvest? Move. Political turmoil? Move. Workers protesting? Move.
Board-level executives and C-Suite leaders are realising that this approach is running on borrowed time. Cracks are forming and soon they’ll be impossible to ignore.
Related Stories
The US and EU are cracking down–which creates expensive mistakes
If you’re entering 2026 with blind spots in your supply chain, then it’s going to be an expensive year.
In the US, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act is being treated more seriously. Anything linked to Xinjiang–either directly, or indirectly–is likely to be stopped at the border. I’ve spoken with apparel companies who’ve seen their products delayed, stopped, or destroyed.
The EU is taking a similar approach, with the Forced Labour Regulation and the Deforestation Regulation. These require apparel companies to do due diligence, and prove that their materials (for example, viscose or cotton) aren’t tied to deforestation or forced labour to continue selling into the EU market.
So, it’s not just about reputational issues, or consumer spending power. Product seizures, lost revenue, regulatory penalties, and broken retailer relationships await any apparel behemoth that doesn’t take supply chain due diligence seriously.
Subcontracting: the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
When prices get squeezed, factories usually rely on the same solution: subcontracting.
The apparel company, at the top of the chain, might be unaware of this. But either way, when subcontracting increases, everything becomes riskier.
Quality issues rise. Delivery schedules slide. Child labor, forced labor, and unsafe working conditions become more likely at the bottom of the chain.
It’s easy to maintain quality and nurture your relationship with a single point-of-contact. Yet, if they’re subcontracting to five other firms, your influence gets diluted. Saying you “didn’t know” won’t cut it at the border.
I’ve heard many stories of 15-hour shifts being mandatory, workers passing out from heat exhaustion, or workers not having PPE.
When these subcontractors create products for your company, you’re the one responsible for severe human rights issues–regardless of what you know.
That’s how the law sees it; that’s how the US and EU customs officers see it; and that’s how your customers are starting to see it.
Ignorance is bliss…but it’s also costly
Brands are looking for the lowest costs–and that’s understandable in such a competitive market. Yet, rising numbers of climate disasters have put an expiration date on this approach.
We’ve watched cotton yields fall in Pakistan after catastrophic floods. Farmers are leaving cotton altogether because they can’t survive the volatility–especially when combined with low price expectations from buyers.
That means brands need to chase new cotton sources. And every move creates price volatility, quality inconsistencies, and delays.
Manufacturing isn’t stable anymore, either. Factories in India, Bangladesh, and across Southeast Asia – the heart of global apparel production–are struggling with record heat and flooding.
As any medic will tell you, workers simply cannot operate at the speed brands expect (or at all) when it’s 38°C or higher on the production floor.
And, switching to a different region isn’t viable for many apparel companies – because the skills, materials and processes you need are only available in a couple of regions.
Is the apparel industry running on borrowed time?
Many apparel executives tell me the same thing: “Human rights issues don’t affect our sales. Customers shop on price.”
They’re not wrong. But they’re looking at the wrong “customer.”
Governments, regulators, and investors don’t shop based on price. These are the ones that decide whether your brand can open new factories all over the world–and, whether your product can be sold in a country in the first place.
The industry is close to a moment where multiple sourcing regions are hit simultaneously by climate events, political instability, and market-entry forced labour prohibitions.
When that day comes, switching suppliers won’t be a viable solution. There’ll be nowhere left to go.
Human Rights=Resilience=Profit Protection
Conducting human rights due diligence isn’t a moral add-on. It’s an operational survival strategy.
Brands that invest in longer-term supplier relationships, stronger worker protections, and traceability will avoid fines and seizures. They’ll also improve quality and supply chain stability.
Not only does this guarantee them access to US/EU markets, it also protects their margins, reassures their investors and keeps the more conscious consumers onside.
Anna Triponel is an internationally renowned business, human rights, and just transition expert, and the founder and CEO of Human Level. Triponel advises apparel companies around the world on how to effectively identify, prevent, mitigate, address and remediate human rights risks and impacts across their supply chains. Her work focuses on strengthening responsible sourcing practices, improving working conditions, and embedding respect for human rights into everyday business decisions.
Anna worked with John Ruggie at Harvard Kennedy School on the development of the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which forms the basis for legal expectations of companies in the field of human rights.
