Since the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act came into effect in March 2022, most discussions have focused—understandably—on its domestic workplace implications. The law prohibits the enforcement of arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual misconduct, a shift that many view as long overdue. But its ripple effects extend beyond HR departments or courtrooms. Supply-chain transparency, particularly on labor practices, is another area where the law’s influence—though indirect—has begun to materialize in ways that deserve closer scrutiny.
For US apparel brands, the connection might not seem obvious at first glance. After all, the Act applies to arbitration clauses signed by employees, not to suppliers or contractors overseas. Yet the cultural shift it signals, one that places greater emphasis on formal grievance processes and external accountability, is difficult to ignore. Brands that market themselves on ethical sourcing are finding that domestic expectations around transparency and worker voice are starting to align with what stakeholders want to see further down the supply chain. There’s a sense—still nascent, perhaps—that the old model, where Tier 1 factories were the main focus of labor audits, is no longer sufficient.
This is particularly relevant in sectors like apparel, where supply chains stretch deep into agricultural production. Cotton farms, for example, or processing facilities that sit one or two steps removed from final assembly plants. Historically, these tiers have received less scrutiny. Audits often stop at the first tier, where visibility is easiest to achieve and relationships tend to be stronger. But as consumer and regulatory attention shifts, brands are being encouraged—if not yet formally required—to extend their labor assessments to Tier 2 agricultural suppliers. It’s a move that sounds logical in principle but can be difficult in practice.
One practical step is to broaden worker surveys to include these lower tiers. That’s easier said than done. Tier 2 suppliers are often small, dispersed, and operating in regions where formal labor structures may be weak. Still, apparel brands can start by adapting the tools they already use at the factory level. Survey instruments—whether paper-based, digital, or hybrid—can be redesigned for agricultural contexts. Questions may need to be simplified, and delivery methods rethought. For example, mobile-phone-based surveys are increasingly common, although they require network coverage and a degree of digital literacy that may not always be present.
The challenge, of course, is creating a space where workers feel safe to respond honestly. Forced arbitration, in a sense, represents a closed system—where grievances don’t see the light of day. The broader push for transparency aims at the opposite: opening channels where workers can report issues without fear of retaliation. In this context, anonymized whistleblower forums hosted on open platforms are becoming part of the toolkit. Setting these up requires careful thought. The platforms must be easy to access but secure; they should allow workers to report in their preferred language; and they must be genuinely anonymous, not just in name.
For brands exploring these forums, there are a few ways to proceed. Some are opting for third-party providers that specialize in managing such reporting systems, often with experience in high-risk sectors. Others are experimenting with open-source solutions that can be customized to their needs. The first step tends to be mapping where the greatest risks lie—in other words, identifying the supply-chain nodes where worker voice mechanisms are most urgently needed. From there, setting up the forum itself involves configuring access protocols, deciding how reports will be triaged, and assigning responsibility for follow-up actions.
Yet, one should be cautious about overpromising what these forums can achieve on their own. Anonymity is no panacea. Reports still need to be investigated, and findings acted upon. In regions where local authorities are weak or complicit, this can prove exceptionally difficult. There’s also the question of trust. Workers won’t use a reporting channel they don’t believe in. Building that trust takes time, and it often depends as much on informal networks—local NGOs, community leaders, peer educators—as on formal systems. Brands that have made progress on this front tend to be those that work collaboratively with civil society rather than imposing solutions from the top down.
It’s important to recognize, too, that expanding labor transparency into Tier 2 and beyond can reveal uncomfortable truths. Some firms, perhaps understandably, hesitate to look too closely at the agricultural end of their supply chains for fear of what they might find. But the direction of travel is clear. Whether driven by legislation, consumer expectations, or investor pressure, greater scrutiny of these hidden tiers seems inevitable. The Forced Arbitration Ban has, in its own way, contributed to this climate by reinforcing the idea that silence around labor abuses is no longer acceptable—at least not as a default.
At the same time, the tools available to brands are evolving. Data platforms, mobile technologies, and open-source software offer possibilities that didn’t exist even a few years ago. But tools are only part of the equation. The willingness to use them meaningfully—and to act on what they reveal—is what ultimately matters. For now, brands are at various stages on that journey, with some taking bold steps and others proceeding more cautiously. The space is fluid, and expectations continue to shift. How firms choose to navigate it will likely shape the future of labor transparency in supply chains for years to come.