Conversations about labor data in fashion supply chains often begin with the assumption that brands and trade unions always want very different things.

Brands generally approach labor data through the lens of human rights due diligence, compliance requirements, and risk management. Trade unions are primarily concerned with protecting workers’ rights, supporting collective bargaining, and improving access to remedy.

These different priorities shape how brands and trade unions assess workplace conditions, which sources of information they trust, what action they expect data to trigger, and which information they believe should be made public. However, our conversations with both groups suggest that there remains considerable scope for convergence.

Over the past year, Open Supply Hub has spoken with dozens of fashion brands and trade unions working in fashion supply chains. Through consultations and discussions across various forums, including sessions that brought brands and trade unions physically into the same room, we have identified several areas in which both groups are seeking similar types of information to better understand the conditions at supplier facilities and inform their respective actions.

These areas of convergence create practical opportunities for collaboration, provided that the data is carefully defined, verified, and governed without creating additional risks for workers or local communities.

Below are some of the areas in which we found the strongest convergence, particularly around information that could be made openly available to strengthen workers’ rights and access to remedy in fashion supply chains.

1. Making grievance mechanisms visible and accessible

One of the clearest areas of shared interest is greater data transparency around the grievance mechanisms available at different levels of global fashion supply chains, from farms and factories to company headquarters.

Trade unions want to know which mechanisms are available so they can help workers understand where to raise a grievance, which channel is appropriate for each type of complaint, who is eligible to use it, how the process works, and what outcomes or forms of remedy workers can reasonably expect.

Brands, meanwhile, need this information to assess whether workers across their supply chains have meaningful access to remedy, identify gaps in coverage, and determine where mechanisms require further investment or improvement, as required under human rights due diligence legislations.

Participants identified several data points in relation to grievance mechanisms that would be particularly valuable to make publicly available:

• Whether the mechanism is currently active
• The organization responsible for operating it
• The facilities, sectors or geographic areas it covers
• The languages in which support is available
• The different ways workers can contact/use it
• Whether anonymous complaints are accepted
• Whether workers can use it with support from a trade union or another trusted civil society organization
• The types of grievances it is equipped to address
• The expected time frame for responding to and resolving a grievance

Trade unions also stressed that information about access should eventually be accompanied by data showing whether these grievance mechanisms are actually delivering remedy. This could include the number and types of grievances received, the average time taken to address them, and the proportion that resulted in an outcome accepted by the affected worker. A trade union leader from Sri Lanka said, “Without information about outcomes, it is difficult to assess whether a mechanism is functioning effectively or merely exists on paper.”

There was also shared recognition that transparency alone will not guarantee access to remedy. However, everyone we spoke with saw it as an essential first step towards making grievance mechanisms more accessible and accountable.

2. Meaningful data on freedom of association

A second area of convergence is around the kinds of data needed to understand freedom of association in a facility. Freedom of association is widely understood as an enabling right: where workers can organize and bargain collectively, they generally have stronger structures through which to raise concerns, negotiate improvements, and seek remedy.

In joint discussions that brought brands and trade unions together, some brands considered a simple “yes or no” indicator of union presence to be a useful indicator of freedom of association. Trade unions, however, were more cautious of this data point. They noted that the existence of a union does not necessarily mean that workers are independently or effectively represented. They argued, in some countries and sectors, employer-dominated or so-called “yellow unions” are prevalent, meaning that a basic indicator of union presence may provide a misleading picture of freedom of association at a facility.

Participants also stressed that there cannot be a single indicator that meaningfully captures freedom of association across all contexts. Whether workers are able to exercise this right in practice is shaped by a wider set of factors, including national labor law and its enforcement, the nature of industrial relations, political and geopolitical conditions, and the independence and strength of trade unions. A combination of indicators is therefore needed to build a more meaningful picture of freedom of association at a facility.

At the same time, participants across groups consistently saw collective bargaining agreements as an important part of that picture. While the existence of an agreement alone cannot demonstrate that workers are able to exercise freedom of association effectively, more detailed information about the agreement can help provide a sense of the scope and substance of collective bargaining and freedom of association at a facility. Participants identified several data points relating to collective bargaining agreements that would be particularly valuable to make publicly available:

• The trade union or unions that are party to the agreement
• The employer and facilities covered by it
• The workers or categories of workers covered
• The date on which the agreement was signed
• Its period of validity
• The subjects it covers, such as wages, working hours, leave, occupational health and safety, and grievance procedures
• A link to or copy of the agreement itself

3. Understanding climate and environmental risks

High temperatures and humidity, flooding, landslides, extreme weather, and other environmental hazards can have serious consequences for both garment workers and production itself. Their effects can range from occupational injuries inside facilities to damage to workers’ homes, lost wages, and difficulties reaching workplaces safely.

Both brands and trade unions saw value in linking facility-level data with information about local climate and environmental risks. Brands told us that this could help them identify locations requiring closer monitoring, determine which suppliers need additional support and help direct resources towards the regions facing the most urgent risks.

As one brand representative from the UK explained, “Linking environmental risk data to individual facilities would help us identify which suppliers are most exposed, engage them before conditions worsen, and direct support, such as investment in cooling, worker protection, and emergency planning, to where it is most urgently needed.”

For trade unions, this information could strengthen collective bargaining negotiations and support broader advocacy for workers’ rights. It could help unions negotiate stronger provisions on extreme weather, paid work stoppages, rest breaks, and emergency procedures. It could also help them identify where community infrastructure, such as emergency shelters, needs to be strengthened before extreme weather events occur.

Both groups also agreed that climate-risk data is most meaningful when it is connected to information about actual working conditions. Knowing that a facility is located in an area experiencing extreme heat does not reveal whether workers have adequate ventilation, reliable access to drinking water, sufficient rest breaks, appropriate protective equipment, or the right to stop working when conditions become unsafe.

Participants identified several data points that could be particularly valuable to make publicly available in this context:

• Temperature and humidity levels around a facility, including the frequency and duration of extreme-heat conditions
• Exposure to flooding, landslides, forest fires, and other extreme-weather risks
• Whether buildings have been assessed for structural risks
• Whether the facility has an emergency-response plan, including evacuation procedures and first-aid support
• The type and coverage of ventilation, drinking-water points, cooling systems, and shaded or cooled rest areas

4. Understanding workforce composition without increasing risks for marginalized worker groups

Brands and trade unions also expressed interest in better information about the composition of the workforce in a facility.

Gender-disaggregated data was one area of shared interest. Both groups agreed that it is useful to know the proportion of women and men employed at a facility, and that the breakdown should help understand gender representation across different levels of employment, including supervisory, middle-management, and senior-management roles.

As one brand representative from Germany noted, “A facility may employ a predominantly female workforce while most decision-making positions remain occupied by men. Understanding who holds authority within the workplace can provide a more meaningful picture of gender inequality and help identify conditions that may increase the risk of discrimination, harassment, and gender-based violence.”

There was also interest in understanding the proportion of workers employed on permanent, fixed-term, temporary, or other contractual arrangements. This information could help reveal patterns of precarious employment and outsourcing, and support assessment of whether employment practices are consistent with national labor laws and standards.

Some trade unions, however, raised concerns about the reliability of data on contractual-status. They argued that employment arrangements can change quickly, workers may be incorrectly classified, and suppliers may use different definitions when reporting employment categories. Participants nevertheless agreed that this remains an important area to work towards clearer definitions and higher-quality data.

Views differed more significantly on publishing information about the number and percentage of migrant workers. While several brands saw migrant-worker data as useful for identifying risks linked to recruitment, employment and immigration status, many trade unions cautioned against making this information public. In contexts of rising anti-migrant sentiment, they argued that facility-level data revealing the presence of migrant workers in the open could increase the risk of those workers being targeted by immigration authorities, law-enforcement agencies, or other hostile groups.

Participants identified the following workforce-composition data points as potentially valuable to make publicly available:

• Gender breakdown by department, job grade, shift, and contract type
• Percentage of women in supervisory and decision-making roles
• Permanent, fixed-term, temporary, seasonal, and piece-rate workers.

5. Data on workplace services and facilities

Brands and trade unions also identified information on workers’ access to essential services and employer-provided facilities as an important component of understanding working conditions at a facility. Particular areas of interest included employer-provided accommodation, transport, childcare, and healthcare facilities, all of which can significantly shape workers’ wellbeing, economic security, and ability to remain in employment.

For both groups, a primary concern was establishing whether such services and facilities are available and, where relevant, whether their provision complies with requirements under national law. Participants emphasized that, once again, availability alone provides only a partial picture. Information on the capacity, coverage, accessibility, and quality of these services is also necessary. For example, the existence of a childcare facility does not indicate whether it has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the workforce; similarly, the provision of transport does not establish whether it covers all shifts or categories of workers.

This data may also help identify conditions associated with heightened labor-rights risks. Employer-provided accommodation, for instance, may constitute an important benefit, particularly for migrant workers or workers employed far from their place of residence. At the same time, where accommodation is located within a factory compound or remains under substantial employer control, it may increase workers’ dependence on the employer and raise concerns relating to freedom of movement, privacy, and working hours.

Participants also recognized that some dimensions of these services and facilities cannot be adequately captured through simple quantitative indicators. Assessing the quality of accommodation, the accessibility of childcare or healthcare, or the degree of control exercised over workers living in employer-provided housing may require qualitative information and direct engagement with workers. Both groups therefore emphasized the importance of distinguishing between information that can be meaningfully standardized and made publicly available, and information that requires additional context, investigation, or worker consultation to interpret.

Participants identified the following data points as potentially valuable to share publicly:

• Availability and coverage of employer-provided or employer-arranged transport, including the shifts and categories of workers covered
• Availability and capacity of employer-provided or employer-controlled accommodation
• Availability and capacity of workplace childcare facilities or employer-supported childcare arrangements
• Availability of workplace healthcare services, including on-site nurses, clinics, and other forms of medical assistance
• Availability of basic workplace facilities, including safe drinking water, sanitation, rest areas, and canteens
• Where relevant, whether the provision of these services and facilities meets requirements established under national labor law or other applicable standards.

6. Making labor data trustworthy and actionable

Across these different areas, brands and trade unions also raised a common challenge: greater access to labor data does not necessarily translate into information that can be confidently interpreted or acted upon.

Participants repeatedly pointed to questions of data quality, including the reliability, completeness, consistency, and comparability of available information. This is particularly important for labor-rights data, where the significance of an individual data point often depends on the wider workplace, sectoral, and national context. The existence of a grievance mechanism or a collective bargaining agreement may be relevant, but it does not on its own explain how that mechanism functions, how workers experience it, or what conclusions should reasonably be drawn from it.

Both groups therefore expressed interest not only in greater access to data, but in information that enables users to assess its credibility, relevance and evidentiary value, including whether it is sufficiently meaningful to warrant further investigation or action. As one brand representative put it during our discussions, an important question is: what is the data worth acting on?

Participants also noted that collecting, verifying, maintaining, and interpreting information can be technically and institutionally demanding, particularly where organizations are working across multiple data sources and complex supply chains. Making labor data more useful therefore requires attention not only to what is collected and shared, but also to the standards, context, verification processes, and analytical capacity needed to support meaningful interpretation and action.

From shared priorities to joint action

These findings come from a limited set of conversations and may not apply uniformly across every country or part of the fashion supply chain. They nevertheless point to opportunities for brands and trade unions to bring together different but complementary knowledge and make it openly accessible. A shared evidence base can help each group understand the information behind the other’s decisions, even when they do not agree on its interpretation or the action required.

Both groups agreed that the purpose of such data should not be to rank suppliers or label facilities as “good” or “bad.” Individual indicators can instead help identify where risks may be greater, where important protections already exist, and what further investigation or action may be necessary.

As mentioned earlier, decisions about what information to collect, combine, or publish must remain grounded in the specific country, sector, and worker context. Clear definitions, reliable verification, appropriate safeguards, and meaningful consultation with workers, local communities, and other relevant stakeholders are therefore essential.

Brands and trade unions may approach labor rights from very different positions and will not always agree on how evidence should be interpreted or what should be done in response. Building greater agreement around what information is needed, how it should be understood, and what makes it sufficiently credible to act upon, however, offers a practical starting point for developing more informed and collaborative responses to labor-rights risks in global supply chains.