The Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change Act (FABRIC Act) has been described as world-leading and labeled a “landmark” bill, the “first-ever” of its kind, and transformative and groundbreaking. We’ve heard this type of rhetoric before about other federal and state legislative proposals purporting to revolutionize protections for supply chain workers — and we’ve been quick to counter that those bills, while disguised as human rights legislation, failed to deliver systemic change, did not provide for victim agency, and ultimately perpetuated the status quo of corporate impunity.

It is far too easy for multinational corporations to evade liability for human rights and environmental harms, especially when the companies – which are often based in the European Union (EU) or in the United States (US) – commit those harms in the Global South. We have seen this again and again, from Shell’s extensive pollution in the Niger Delta to the chocolate industries’ reliance on forced labor and hazardous child labor. To address this crisis of impunity, we must pass stronger legislation – legislation that makes companies accountable for their entire supply chains – across the Global North.

In this post, we examine the swift implementation and shift in the global order that took place since Russia’s invasion, just three weeks ago, on February 24, 2022. We look at how companies have responded and compare the widespread exit from the Russian economy with how companies respond to other human rights violations and humanitarian disasters.

In January 2022, the New York Assembly unveiled the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (FSSAA), a law that purports to change the fashion industry and its role in perpetuating human rights and environmental harm. Such a law is certainly needed; the fashion industry is a massive polluter, accounting for between 2-8 percent of global emissions. The industry employs 75 million people, including workers in all parts of the supply chain and in countries throughout the world – many of whom are vulnerable and exploited.

But is this law really as powerful and “historic” as the New York Times claimed? No. After careful analysis, we believe that while we would rather see it pass than fail, there are some major flaws that weaken it. This law will not be a game-changer; at best, it will provide a little bit more transparency in supply chains, a positive but small step in the right direction. At worst, it will stop other pushes for legislation that would actually provide remedy to workers and incentivize changes in supply chains beyond disclosure.