It is often known that suppliers and buyers in the fashion industry hold unequal power. Its risks are also present.
Since consumers have become accustomed to inexpensive clothing over the past few decades and their desire for the newest styles has become insatiable, fashion brands and retailers—who, let's face it, are naturally motivated by profits—have searched for suppliers who could deliver orders quickly and at the lowest possible cost, reported Just Style.
The cycle continued, and as a result, suppliers are under pressure to the point where they are compromising worker health, safety, and welfare in order to outbid competitors on price, win contracts, and produce goods on schedule in order to receive payment according to the terms of the agreement. Less pay for orders that arrive late.
Additional complicating factors are the focus and inclination of consumers towards "sustainable fashion." Customers want to know that the clothing they buy is manufactured with sustainable materials, processes, and fibers because they want to feel good about the purchases they are making. Once more, the supplier bears the final say and is expected to fulfill this, usually at no additional expense.
However, a significant portion of the recently approved Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) on March 15th relates to purchasing procedures.
In order to make sure they are responsible, brands and merchants will be subject to more scrutiny over their purchasing habits.
The Ethical Trade Initiative indicates that corporations must adjust in order to minimize risks and guarantee adherence to both current and new laws, as purchasing practices are intricately linked to national frameworks and regulations such as CSDDD.
According to the alliance of industry stakeholders devoted to enhancing human rights in supply chains, it is critical that businesses carry out in-depth evaluations of their purchasing procedures, pinpoint opportunities for development, and get input from suppliers.
"Companies can proactively minimise negative outcomes and uphold ethical standards by examining the impact of purchasing decisions on human rights," the group claims.
The majority of the burden is placed on brands and merchants by the legislation, which also partially corrects the power disparity.
"It will become harder for apparel buyers to shift the risks and costs associated with the transition to a more sustainable industry fully onto apparel manufacturers," stated Matthijs Crietee, STTI project lead at the International Apparel Federation (IAF). "It will create a more level playing field with better opportunities for real environment and human rights improvements"./BGNES