The textile and apparel industry, although immense in its economic contributions and global reach, harbours persistent challenges in working conditions. In my latest co-authored paper, conducted alongside a fantastic team of co-authors, I set out to explore how actors at the very beginning of the value chain—namely Australian cotton producers—could help address downstream human rights risks that arise far beyond the farm gate. While cotton grown in Australia is widely considered to have a low risk of exploitation, it journeys through multiple tiers of spinners, fabric mills, and garment factories in overseas locations. Understanding and mitigating the labour and human rights risks in these downstream stages became our focal pursuit.
Conceptualising the Cotton Value Chain
We began by examining the way in which the value chain is typically framed. It is easy to imagine a neat, linear progression—cotton fields to yarn spinners to textile producers to garment assemblers, ultimately reaching retailers and then consumers. Yet the reality is very different. Cotton bales from Australia may be blended with fibres from other regions; apparel production occurs in distant factories run by subcontractors, and retailers may struggle to track exactly which fields supplied the cotton in their clothing and apparel. This fragmentation is precisely what makes oversight and accountability so difficult.
Through interviews and desktop analyses, we find that cotton producers typically focus on on-farm issues, such as pesticide use or water management, while fashion brands and retailers concentrate on labour rights in the cutting-and-sewing stages. The zone in between—the realm of yarn and fabric manufacturing—remains partially neglected. Our findings highlight that, although the Australian cotton industry cannot monitor or control every tier of the supply chain, it can still make headway through strategic actions that extend past its usual sphere of influence.
Finding Points of Intervention
Our research revealed several possible intervention points, which include ramping up transparency, implementing robust traceability systems, promoting meaningful certification, forging deeper partnerships with mills and merchants, and supporting worker-driven initiatives on the factory floor. These strategies, however, bring their own obstacles. Small producers rarely have leverage over large global mills. Merchants seldom track precisely where bales travel after a sale, and it can be daunting for an Australian grower to impose contract terms on spinning or weaving facilities in multiple countries. Despite these barriers, there is a shared understanding that doing nothing is neither practical nor sustainable in a world where regulators, investors, and consumers are increasingly scrutinising each link in global production.
Establishing stronger ties with downstream actors rests on recognising that value chains are more intertwined than many of us imagine. Where there is trust and transparency, everyone stands to benefit: crop cultivators gain a more credible reputation for quality and ethical standards, mills secure reliable cotton supplies, retailers reduce reputational risks, and workers find themselves less vulnerable to exploitation. A willingness to break away from purely transactional arrangements—and form stable, multi-year collaborations—could pave the way for improved labour conditions. It may also enhance resilience for all involved in the chain.
Taking a Strategic Enforcement Approach
Another central concept in our work is strategic enforcement. Traditionally, enforcement falls to government agencies that inspect workplaces and impose sanctions for non-compliance. Yet the apparel industry’s far-flung operations have made it difficult for regulators to keep pace. Our research suggests that private, industry-led efforts can complement public regulation by focusing on areas where modest shifts—like including labour clauses in purchase contracts or participating in worker-driven social responsibility programs—may produce outsized effects. This hinges on identifying pivotal points of influence rather than attempting wholesale reform in one swift motion.
Some readers may wonder what this means for brands and consumers. Retailers keen to demonstrate responsible sourcing could champion Australian cotton precisely because it offers well-documented environmental and labour credentials at the farm level and shows promise for strategic engagement downstream. Shoppers, meanwhile, can look for products that disclose meaningful information about the fibres’ origins and the standards maintained throughout the supply chain. While certification logos and traceability innovations are no magic bullet to address downstream human rights risks, they can at least illuminate that formerly opaque passage from field to fashion.
Addressing Downstream Human Rights Risks
Our research underscores the significance of looking beyond the farm gate, of forging new collaborations, and of recognising the potential for downstream and upstream stakeholders to contribute to a fairer, safer, and more transparent value chain. The work is not merely about diagnosing downstream human rights risks, but about proactively brainstorming and testing constructive solutions. In the complex network of global fashion and apparel, Australian cotton has a chance to stand out as a trusted and responsible fibre if it is willing to follow its crop downstream and help cultivate better outcomes for the people who spin, weave, sew, and ultimately wear cotton around the world.
