Apparel brands’ responses to the US tariffs in 2025 exposed suppliers to sudden commercial shocks and led to widespread human and labour rights harms for workers. According to new research published by the Business and Human Rights Centre (the Centre), brands rapidly adjusted sourcing locations, pricing and order volumes across global garment supply chains – pushing financial pressure down supply chains and resulting in significant human rights consequences for workers.  

The research shows suppliers reported orders being paused or cancelled, pressure to reduce prices, and, in some cases, being asked to absorb or share the additional tariff-related costs. Meanwhile, workers in these supply chains consistently bore the brunt as human rights risks remained an afterthought to commercial decisions. Factory closures, layoffs, reduced working hours, wage cuts and delayed payments affected workers across garment producing countries. Women and migrant workers were particularly exposed due to precarious employment and limited social protections, facing food insecurity, loss of access to life saving medicine and heightened risks of trafficking and survival sex. 

In April 2025 and January 2026, the Centre contacted the top 25 fashion companies importing to the US to seek clarification on how tariff-related sourcing changes were being managed. None of the companies responded to either request. This demonstrates a clear failure of corporate transparency, the first element of accountability, and raises serious concerns about the existence and effectiveness of human rights due diligence in practice. 

The following trends were observed in relation to brands’ purchasing practices in the aftermath of the 2025 US tariff announcement:  

• Across multiple sourcing countries including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lesotho, Sri Lanka and India, suppliers consistently reported orders being delayed, paused or cancelled as buyers reassessed sourcing in response to tariff driven cost pressures. 
• Differences in tariff rates between countries drove rapid reallocation of sourcing across garment supply chains, as US buyers rapidly shifted orders away from higher tariff locations. 
• Buyers pushed suppliers for lower prices and sought to pass part or all of the additional costs, further compressing already narrow margins and intensifying competition between suppliers.   

Meanwhile, the following worker impacts were recorded across garment supply chains:  

• Layoffs and factory closures, as suppliers scaled back or suspended operations in response to falling orders;  
• Declining orders and price pressures coincided with reductions in working hours and overtime, effectively functioning as wage cuts; 
• Order volatility and compressed timelines drove excessive overtime when orders did materialise;  
• Women workers, who comprise the majority of the garment workforce, were disproportionately affected by layoffs and wage losses, reflecting their concentration in more precarious forms of employment; 
• Unions reported employers using tariff pressures to weaken labour protections, including denying workers’ rights such as unionisation, meal breaks and overtime pay, as well as being forced to sign voluntary redundancy letters.  
• Wider social impacts were recorded beyond factory floors, including loss of access to essential healthcare and rising economic insecurity following factory closures. 

These outcomes for workers reflect a repeated, foreseeable and avoidable pattern in supply chain crises, akin to what was observed during the Covid 19 pandemic. During tariff uncertainty and rising global disruptions, responsible practices matter most. Instead, apparel brands’ silence in the face of these labour rights violations raises serious concerns about their human rights due diligence processes.  

Anithra Varia, Interim Project Manager Labour Rights, Business and Human Rights Centre, said: “The 2025 US tariffs didn’t just reshape trade, they reshaped livelihoods as well. When a crisis hits global supply chains, more often than not the costs are pushed down onto suppliers, with disastrous consequences for workers. As brands made calculated commercial decisions, garment workers were left facing layoffs, rising precarity, the erosion of labour rights, and in many cases hunger and marginalisation. The response to the tariff crisis reveals a systemic failure by brands who continue to treat human rights as optional when commercial pressures arise. 

“How brands respond to disruption matters. In supply chains characterised by significant power asymmetries between buyers and suppliers, adjustments to purchasing practices can place immediate financial pressure on suppliers operating on narrow margins. When commercial pressure is pushed down supply chains, workers pay the price. Better practice means maintaining agreed prices and payment terms, honouring existing orders, and working with suppliers and worker representatives to protect wages, benefits and severance when disruption hits. Brands and buyers have the power to determine where shocks land across supply chains. As tariff uncertainty continues, these actors must urgently adopt responsible purchasing practices to prevent financial pressure on suppliers translating into human rights harms for workers.” 

// ENDS  

Notes to editors:  

• Business and Human Rights Centre (BHRC) is a global organisation working at the intersection of business and human rights. With partners and allies worldwide, we seek to put human rights at the heart of business to deliver a just economy, climate justice, and end abuse. Find out more about our approach here. 
• The Who Pays For The Crisis? portal presents up-to-date information on the key intersection between supply chain resilience, purchasing practices and worker rights. Find out more and sign up to the newsletter for the latest updates here.  

Media contact: Priyanka Mogul, Senior Media Officer, Business and Human Rights Centre, [email protected]