Are partnerships the new relationship?
Recently I have engaged in a lot of conversations about relationships; what they mean to a sustainable resilient supply chain, and how to define them. We often celebrate duration, how long the relationship has existed and while that certainly should be an aspect of measured success, it is sometimes used as the single metric. Years at a job are often celebrated as milestones, anniversaries for marriage, and for the purpose here - how long brands have been engaged with their suppliers. If the relationship between spouses, an employee and employer, or between a brand and supplier is toxic should that measure still hold?
The efforts to alleviate stress on a supplier and ensure that the brand’s actions do not have adverse human rights are necessary, but the complexities of the apparel industry and the value chain make it challenging to define and enforce responsible purchasing practices. Outsourcing, a significant component of fashion’s supply chain (and other industries as well), has progressed over time. Since the shift of production to global manufacturers in the 90s, the notion of outsourcing expanded as opportunities to capitalize on the growth of the industry arose. Intermediaries took a role in the global supply chain, each time (some) diluting the relationship between a brand and supplier; brands therefore inherently outsourced their own supplier relationships. And as the number of manufacturers increased, the abundance might have also aided in diminishing the relationship value. Why have a strong relationship with a few suppliers to produce products (based on their ability) when you could prioritize the manufacturer with the lowest cost? This is sometimes evident when analyzing smaller brands and their relationships with manufacturers as compared to larger brands.
Throughout my career, I have worked directly with factories, mills but also agents; the key relationships to executing my (or my employer’s) design vision. Some relationships which I call ‘partners’ have been steadfast; each of us supporting one another - working with production partners that cared about suppliers that understand their production capabilities, or with suppliers themselves listening to their challenges when trying to make the concept come to life and working through it to come to a resolution that works on both ends (or at least I thought as my perception has somewhat changed now). But others, I know, were simply based on the transactional relationships depending on the brand, the factory, and my cross-functional partners.
In my role today, having shifted from working on products to ideating on systemic change, I connect with several organizations also trying to work towards a better future for the apparel industry. We often discuss how we solidify ‘partnerships’; what each party can bring to the table and how to share to the public broadly. This is what I think we are missing in the context of the buyer and supplier dynamics. We are consistently talking about the power dynamics of the ‘relationship’ BUT if we shift it to assess the quality of the partnership does our thought process change? We talk about shared responsibility and co-benefit models (which I enthusiastically promote); and in codes of conduct and purchasing contracts, we use the term ‘relationship’ as a part of the legal terminology. It all works, yet it doesn’t necessarily change the perception of a brand and its supplier and therefore our approach as an industry.
Using the label of partnership changes the view on both ends, but more importantly, understanding what it means to truly be a partner is just as salient. I often hear staunch advocates for suppliers talk about what brands/buyers are doing wrong, and we hear a lot about how brands could do much better (I wrote about it in my last blog), yet we don’t try to see from each other’s point of view. In a partnership (a positive working relationship that is), you respect each other and are willing to work together to ensure you both not only function but are successful. You listen to each other and don’t dictate orders; you challenge one another but with a willingness to remain open to change.
There is an expectation that relationships alone will be strong enough to withstand the requirements for true systemic change, which requires a huge undertaking. As we talk about what needs to be done on the supplier side for ‘Just Transition’ and as climate change affects supplier infrastructure with flooding and temperatures rising, the dynamics of a true partnership will be needed. Sometimes you need a dramatic shift to change the paradigm but other times it’s just a reframing. That shift in perspective, whether subtle or extreme, can have an impact. Relationships between brands and suppliers just might need to evolve to partnerships, with metrics attached to evaluate their strength.
Bio
Chana Rosenthal is the principal and founder of reDesign Consulting, an apparel focused sustainable business advisory firm. She works with clients on thoughtfully created strategies and frameworks that shift internal business operations to be more sustainable and drive impact across the supply chain. She's done extensive work with the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, as well as other organizations and businesses. Prior to consulting, she had a long career in apparel denim design with significant roles at several well-known brands like Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, American Eagle/AEO.
She also serves on the associate council for Delivering Good, a non-profit that distributes excess inventory to those in need through a network of community partners. Chana has an Executive MBA from NYU Stern, specializing in Sustainable Business and Innovation, and Supply Chain Management, and is based out of Brooklyn, NY.
