Supply chain transparency has a data accessibility problem, but this is not only a technical one. Platforms like Open Supply Hub (OS Hub) can only be as useful as the data that flows into it. Some of the most valuable data about working conditions, union presence, and factory-level realities belongs to trade unions. Yet the ability and willingness for trade unions to share this with a wider audience may be dependent on many factors. Data may be sensitive, incomplete, stored in different formats, and in addition, trade unions face time and budget constraints and political pressure.
Over the past year, WageIndicator Foundation worked with their trade union network in Indonesia and Türkiye to explore what responsible, union-owned data sharing could look like in practice to improve supply chain transparency. What we found has implications for anyone working at the intersection of supply chain transparency and worker representation.
Good data doesn’t just exist. It has to be developed.
Many transparency initiatives assume that organizations hold data and simply need a platform to put it on. For many trade union support organizations and trade unions, the picture is more complicated. The challenge is not simply finding a platform to host their data (if they even want this in the first place), but when they do, they may need support to assess what data they have, what is safe to share, and how to prepare it in a useful format, especially given that their primary role is often responding to immediate worker needs, which requires significant time, resources, and capacity.
Unions may hold highly relevant information about factories, workers, organising conditions or collective bargaining coverage. But that information is not always structured, regularly updated, or easy to share externally. Data capacity varies widely between countries, sectors, federations and local branches.
The gap between “willing to participate” and “able to participate” can be wide, and closing it requires hands-on, sustained support well beyond a one-time onboarding session, as well as building trust.
Data confidentiality is a precondition, not a formality
In both Indonesia and Türkiye, unions operate in challenging political and legal environments. Concerns about retaliation, surveillance, and the potential misuse of disclosed data are grounded in experience. Unions needed to understand – in concrete terms – what data would be visible, to whom, under what conditions, and whether they could withdraw it at any given time, may the context change.
In Indonesia, trade unions requested a formal Memorandum of Understanding before proceeding. This clarified responsibilities and strengthened the foundation for sustained collaboration. Formalizing data control took time, but it also made the whole thing viable.
In Türkiye, several unions preferred either not to share any data, or to share only a limited level of data while observing how the process would develop. This caution should not be read as a lack of interest in supply chain transparency. Rather, it reflects a realistic assessment of risk. For worker organizations, responsible data sharing depends on control, clarity, and the ability to proceed step by step.
For unions, transparency has to serve their goals
Participation requires a credible answer to “what’s in it for us?”, and that answer has to be specific to unions, not just to the broader transparency ecosystem.
Early skepticism in Indonesia shifted when OS Hub demonstrated how reliable supply chain data can strengthen collective bargaining and advocacy. TSK SPSI, one of the Indonesian unions that ultimately joined the collaboration, describes a journey many unions will recognize: initial hesitation rooted in real concerns about data security, potential misuse, and the risk that inaccurate data could actually worsen industrial relations.
When unions could see the practical dimension, that sharing facility-level data could make their organizing efforts visible to other unions globally, help identify which brands source from factories where they have membership, and open doors to collaboration with international stakeholders they would otherwise have less access to, the conversation shifted. Not because the risks disappeared, but because the value became more concrete.
“By moving forward with OS Hub, we are not only protecting workers more effectively but also opening the door to broader collaboration with various international stakeholders,” said Moch. Popon, General Secretary, FSP TSK SPSI, Indonesia.
What this means going forward
The groundwork laid in Indonesia and Türkiye — the MoUs, the honest conversations about risk, the gradual shift in how unions understand and use data — is not preliminary to the work. Building trust is an integral part of the work.
For OS Hub, for brands, and for the due diligence frameworks now taking shape across Europe and beyond, the implication is consistent: worker organizations need to see how participation serves their own priorities. Supply chain transparency built without that foundation will struggle to earn and have access to the data it needs most.
All views expressed in this blog are those of WageIndicator Foundation and do not necessarily reflect the views of Open Supply Hub.
WageIndicator Foundation partnered with Open Supply Hub to advance worker voice and access to trade union-owned data in global supply chains. This project engaged trade unions in Indonesia and Türkiye in 2025–2026.
Find out more about WageIndicator here.
