Collective Action Reimagined:

A Call for Fair Process and Supplier Inclusion in Fashion’s Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

Who Shapes Fashion’s Future? Our new report reveals how supplier exclusion in MSI’s is hindering our collective change.

table of contents

Introduction

Why This Report Matters

Since 2020, we’ve emphasized the importance of a stronger supplier voice in fashion’s sustainability agenda, as their exclusion has led to strategies that fall short in addressing climate action and human rights. This is evident in all four of our deep dive reports to date. This year’s paper is an investigation into why this exclusion persists, focussing on Multi Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs), which have a unique and enormous potential to drive collective action.

Key Findings:

What We Discovered

  • While MSIs did not cause the resource-based constraints suppliers face, their rules, norms, and governance often reinforce these barriers. This perpetuates a cycle of distrust and disengagement, making it difficult for suppliers to feel a sense of agency and ownership in the solutions these initiatives propose.

  • MSIs are evolving, and the industry’s recognition of supplier voices is growing. This shift has been highlighted in the media, emphasizing that the industry is not listening to the people best positioned to help solve sustainability challenges: the suppliers. With this momentum, now is the time to transform MSIs into the true vehicles for change they claim to be, aligning their ambitions with genuine collaboration and supplier inclusion.

  • The paper presents a model for fair and equitable decision-making within fashion MSIs, building on Ilishio Lovejoy’s adaptation of fair process. Our research supports Lovejoy’s insight that non-biased decision-making, equitable engagement, and transparency are key to addressing the deep-seated inequities that limit MSI effectiveness.  By adopting this approach, MSIs can become more inclusive and better equipped to drive meaningful change in the industry.

Section 1:

Left Out? The Supplier Role In The Origins Of Fashion MSIs

MSIs were designed to bring stakeholders together for collective action, but suppliers have often been left out of their origin stories.

Before we dive into how Cascale (formerly SAC), Social & Labor Convergence Project (SLCP), Textile Exchange, and Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) operate today, it’s important to briefly examine their origins.

Were suppliers involved in the inception of these MSIs?

Who shaped the initial strategies and visions, and for whose benefit?

Did these groups envision collective action from the start, or did this aspiration come later?

If MSIs aim to unite different stakeholders, why are suppliers still being left out?

Section 2:

Unraveling Inequities: How Race, Power, History, And Uneven Supply Chain Dynamics Shape MSIs Engagement

Our research highlights persistent historical injustices that drive inequality and power imbalances in fashion. Manufacturers face downward price pressures alongside costly sustainability standards, with little power to negotiate terms set by brands and retailers. These dynamics, rooted in colonialism, resource and value extraction, continue to shape our industry

These structural inequities affect supplier engagement with MSIs, impacting their time, resources, and voice – ultimately shaping interactions between suppliers, brands, and MSI staff.

By structural, we refer to systemic historical injustices that produce inequality and uneven industry power dynamics that persist in the present day.

While fashion’s MSIs did not create these uneven dynamics, these forces should matter to MSIs because they contribute to supplier disengagement and one-sided strategies that fail to build a shared and equitable vision for the future of fashion. 

These inequities can be reinforced or alleviated by functional rules and processes, but once suppliers are disengaged, it is difficult to recruit new people and to develop solutions that reflect the collective interest or that create shared or equitable outcomes.

And the cycle continues.

This paper offers two different pieces of evidence to make this point:

  1. The resource crunch

Our research shows that for suppliers to participate meaningfully in MSIs, they need significant time, money, and staff, resources that many simply don’t have.

While MSIs differ in structure, only a few well-resourced suppliers can shape decisions. In contrast, brands often have large sustainability teams, leaving smaller suppliers struggling to keep up.

A former ESG manager at a small supplier commented:

“A major barrier for me has been that if we want to engage proactively, we’re expected to do so in this with the same capacity of a brand, but we just don’t have that capacity...”

As sustainability initiatives expand, suppliers face growing pressure to engage with limited capacity.

That likely means most of the industry’s broader sustainability agenda has no supplier input–or very little.

2. How racism, bias, and privilege permeate MSIs

Beyond this resource gap, there’s a deeper issue: many suppliers experience bias, often feeling that MSIs favor Western voices and norms.

Stories of being dismissed or encountering racist interactions highlight the emotional toll this takes. 

As one supplier comments, “The question is what does an inclusive process look like?” And does the staff know how to approach facilitation and meeting organization in a way where suppliers are effectively engaged… My personal experience… is that most MSI staffers have no clue on how their approach, methods, and facilitation styles silence voices,” they add.

These experiences, combined with fear of retaliation, create a cycle where suppliers feel marginalized, struggling to influence the very systems meant to include them.

Section 3:

The Inner Workings: How The Rules, Processes, And Norms Of MSIs Further Undermine Supplier Inclusion

What happens behind closed doors? This section looks at the functional aspects of MSIs: how their rules, governance processes, and decision-making norms can perpetuate structural inequities. While MSIs didn’t create these deep-rooted power imbalances, their processes can either reinforce or alleviate them. By examining how these practices impact suppliers, we highlight the ways they can unintentionally limit supplier participation and engagement, making it difficult to build a shared vision for the industry's future.  

This paper offers two different pieces of evidence to make this point:

1. Membership numbers have proven they are not a reliable indicator of decision-making power

Despite increased supplier membership in MSIs, real decision-making power remains limited. Suppliers often have a voice in working groups and boards, and key decisions are usually staff-led and dominated by larger brands. This limits suppliers' ability to influence strategy and governance, leaving their input marginalized in favor of more powerful stakeholders.

2. Costs of participation fuel exclusion

Participation in MSIs often comes with high costs that can exclude many suppliers. 

Membership fees vary significantly, from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands annually, depending on the MSI. 

Beyond membership, suppliers also face expenses for travel and accommodation to attend in-person meetings, which are often held in Global North cities. 

While some MSIs offer virtual attendance and lower-cost regional events, many suppliers feel these formats limit meaningful engagement and networking opportunities, reinforcing a sense of exclusion and disempowerment in shaping sustainability agendas.

“Everybody’s talking about the supplier, the manufacturer, but we need to talk about the people. And we need to talk about capacities that the organization provides to their people and that certain individuals have developed.” 

One ZDHC staffer notes:

Section 4:

The Exclusion And Disengagement Feedback Cycle: How Structural Inequity And Functional Exclusion Combine To Limit Msi Effectiveness

The power of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) is in bringing together diverse perspectives and skill sets in a pre-competitive environment and using that diverse talent to solve complex problems. Our research indicates that ineffective stakeholder engagement within MSIs ultimately leads to a chain reaction and a cycle of exclusion, missed know-how, disengagement, burnout, a loss of trust, and failed solutions. 

Bias leads to a lack of relevance to suppliers

Many suppliers see MSIs as external and imposed, feeling they offer limited benefits compared to the costs involved. For suppliers, the time and resources needed to comply with standards are significantly higher than for brands and retailers. This imbalance leaves suppliers questioning the relevance of MSIs to their own challenges, leading to further disengagement.

Lack of equity leads to burnout and then disengagement

Structural inequity means only a small group of suppliers can engage fully, often facing bias and rules that favor well-resourced brands. This creates a cycle where the same few are overburdened, leading to burnout and disillusionment. Some step back entirely, carrying frustration over biased experiences, while others remain but doubt the process. MSIs have a responsibility to address these tensions and ensure fairness, yet many suppliers feel their concerns go unresolved, eroding trust and hope for true change.

Disengagement exacerbates broken solutions

Once suppliers are disengaged, it becomes increasingly impossible to develop sustainability strategies that reflect the collective or create shared or equitable outcomes, and the cycle continues.

A Call for Fair Process:

Strengthening Supplier Inclusion And Engagement To Drive Collective Action Within MSIs

the way forward

Throughout this paper, we’ve highlighted that MSIs have the potential to drive the collective action needed to achieve ambitious sustainability goals in the fashion industry.

However, the exclusion of suppliers identified in our research hinders these initiatives’ effectiveness and is a major reason why they often fall short of their stated missions.

By valuing and including suppliers, we can energize these initiatives and drive real progress.

So how do we do it?

Building on the adaptability of MSIs and Illishio Lovejoy’s approach, we propose applying the organizational management theory of fair process to transform MSIs and enhance stakeholder engagement. 

What Is Fair Process?

Fair Process is a decision-making framework rooted in principles of transparency, engagement, and equity. It ensures that all stakeholders—especially those most affected by decisions—are given a meaningful voice in shaping outcomes. By integrating Fair Process, organizations foster trust, commitment, and collective action, ultimately driving more effective and equitable solutions.

Adapting The Fair Process Model For MSIs

The three principles of fair process in an MSI context:

  • As mentioned, suppliers often experience overlapping forms of bias based on factors such as race, geography, and their position in the business model. Instead of MSIs positioning themselves as inclusive, a first step might include acknowledging and working to reduce bias. Non-biased decision-making involves participants’ perceptions of justice within a process. Do they feel they are being treated fairly in relation to others? Are they being unfairly treated because of their background, ethnicity, native language, gender or position in the supply chain? This is an important point for fashion MSIs, as extreme structural and historical inequality in the industry seeps into all aspects of these organizations.

  • We aren’t just calling for suppliers to feel included. They must also have a meaningful voice in decision-making. Applying Lovejoy’s recommendations, we advocate equitable engagement and decision-making. Equitable engagement would mean not just giving suppliers a “seat at the table” but addressing the power differentials and barriers they face to engagement. We advocate, in line with Lovejoy’s findings, for a move beyond equal partnership to equitable partnership in decision-making. Inclusion is about shared power, meaning suppliers shouldn’t just have a seat at the table but should be able to co-create solutions and drive strategy.

  • Fair process stipulates that transparency is critical to building buy-in and trust around solutions. Even if a solution or outcome is “good,” if participants feel shut out of the process, they are far less likely to support it. In line with Lovejoy’s findings, we advocate for clear rules and reporting concerning who makes decisions, how members can and cannot influence decisions, clear communication of final decisions, and how and why decisions were reached.

Fair Process: A How-To-Guide For MSIs

How To Implement The Acknowledgement And Reduction Of Bias Principle:

  • Rather than positioning themselves as inclusive, MSIs should first recognize how structural inequity limits supplier engagement and affects outcomes. Acknowledging that, while MSIs didn’t create these inequities, their rules often favor large brands and perpetuate disadvantages for suppliers, would be a crucial starting point.

  • Addressing bias requires openness and empathy. During feedback, we encountered defensiveness and discomfort, often rooted in the privileges of systemic advantage. Recognizing supplier perspectives highlights the barriers they face in being heard due to structural inequities. Reducing bias could involve hiring staff with supply chain expertise and developing targeted training with suppliers, helping MSI staff understand why suppliers often feel excluded from decision-making processes.

  • There should be a clear process for addressing bias and protecting those who speak out against it. As one supplier noted, “Culture and attitude should be more of a focus, and [bad] behavior should immediately be called out.”

  • Our report only begins to explore supplier experiences within MSIs. Rather than offering prescriptive solutions, we recommend that MSIs collaborate with suppliers to initiate ongoing dialogues about these issues, focusing on recognizing and reducing bias. This could be through writing, meetings, or one-on-one discussions, ensuring consistent efforts to address and monitor progress over time.

How To Implement The Equitable Engagement And Decision-Making Principle: 

  • This could include facilitating connections among suppliers, enabling them to collectively amplify shared viewpoints, and supporting initiatives that promote thought leadership from the supply chain on sustainability issues. 

  • Work with suppliers to redesign the rules, norms, and functional ways of operating to ensure suppliers, alongside other stakeholders, have meaningful influence over  outcomes such as programs, tools, strategies, standards, frameworks, and beyond. 

How To Implement The Transparent Process Principle: 

  • We advocate for transparent rules and reporting on decision-making processes, including who makes decisions, how members can influence those decisions, how final decisions are communicated, and the rationale behind them.

  • Adopting a fair process model should empower suppliers to transition from passive implementers to active shapers of sustainability, leading to more effective solutions. This could involve monitoring suppliers’ perceptions—do they feel engaged as co-creators? 

How Other Stakeholders Can Be Effective Allies

    • We do not wish to downplay the structural barriers that contribute to supplier exclusion. However, suppliers play a crucial role in advocating for their position as co-creators of sustainability, rather than mere implementers. This shift requires vulnerability and more informal, human-to-human conversations between suppliers and brands and retailers, focusing on shared goals rather than company roles.

    • Suppliers should also proactively seek to understand their customers’ objectives so that they can proactively propose meaningful ways to achieve those objectives.

    • Brands and retailers should use their power and relatively larger voice within MSIs to advocate for more manufacturer inclusion–and for MSIs to genuinely reflect suppliers’ voices.

    • Brands and retailers should support convergence and drop proprietary standards, tools, frameworks, and other de facto standards.

    • Brands and retailers need to genuinely engage suppliers as partners and co-creators of strategies and programs to transform fashion. Practically, this means involving suppliers in defining how to achieve objectives rather than deciding unilaterally and imposing solutions. It also calls for vulnerability and informal, human-centered conversations that focus on shared goals beyond just company roles.

    • Brands need to support their suppliers through more equitable risk-sharing and investment. This may require rethinking sourcing practices - not out of benevolence - but because there is a shift in how self interest is understood: in the face of the climate crisis, the collective’s interest is a brand and retailer’s self interest. This, in turn, may require engagement with investors.

    • Conduct further research on MSIs, fair process, and geographic inequalities, focusing on power imbalances and meaningful engagement. Academic institutions should prioritize studies that explore the dynamics of power within MSIs in sectors like fashion (where inequity is entrenched and severe) and how these impact stakeholder participation and decision-making.

    • Legislators and activist organizations need to be aware that MSIs may not be representative of the entire industry and that primary stakeholders may not not been effectively engaged. Legislative bodies should critically assess the representativeness of MSIs–when you engage MSIs, be sure to ask who does this organization really represent? In engagement with MSIs, push to ensure all voices are heard.

    • Legislators should commit to inclusive principles in the lawmaking process and advocate for legislation that addresses inequities within the value chain.

    • Push for reforms. Demand transparency and more thorough and effective stakeholder engagement within MSIs. Legislators should require MSIs to publicly disclose their stakeholder engagement processes, including who is involved and how decisions are made.

    • Advocate for MSI reform and transparency, including regarding supplier engagement. Activist groups should campaign for MSIs to adopt more inclusive and transparent practices, holding them accountable for their engagement strategies.

    • Create platforms for public scrutiny and dialogue where stakeholders can share their experiences and hold MSIs accountable for their actions.

Get the insights, join the conversation, and be part of the change.

Download the report and join our webinar on November 14th for an in-depth discussion on how we can reimagine collective action in fashion.