News - The Partnership for Sustainable Textiles (Textiles Partnership)
End and new beginning – what remains of the objectives of the Textile Alliance?
Under the impression of the factory collapse of Rana Plaza, the Alliance for Sustainable Textiles (Textile Alliance) was founded in 2014 as a multi-actor partnership between the federal government, business, trade unions and civil society. The aim was to improve the working conditions in the suppliers of German clothing companies and to reduce environmental damage. At the beginning of 2026, the Textile Alliance was transferred to the new format ‘Dialogue and Impact for Sustainable Textiles (DST)’. This is a good time to take stock and formulate expectations for the new initiative.
From the point of view of civil society in the Textile Alliance, the balance sheet is sobering. Despite individual structural progress, the Alliance has failed to achieve its central goal of sustainably improving labour and environmental conditions along global supply chains. This is also shown by the fact that there are still no demonstrable improvements in living wages for workers and that measurable progress is largely lacking in key topics such as trade union freedom, gender-specific violence, chemical management or climate protection. Several factors were decisive: The member companies did not fundamentally change their purchasing practices, and only about half of the German textile industry participated in the alliance at all. In addition, companies withdrew as soon as more transparency or further requirements were debated. According to civil society, initiatives such as the Textile Alliance can only be effective if they are based on binding legal requirements. In the absence of this framework, its structural assertiveness remains limited. It is also critical that the companies were never willing to support the governance structures of the Textile Alliance through membership fees.
A joint statement by FEMNET, SÜDWIND, Inkota and HEJSupport.
Limited progress on review
With the restructuring of the textile alliance 2022/23, the civil society activists associated cautious optimism, but also clear skepticism. The publication of the aggregated list of suppliers, to which all member companies had to contribute, as well as the obligation of all companies to actively engage in a production country in the future, were positive. The introduction of key performance indicators (KPIs) was also a positive step in principle. However, the KPIs often remained too non-binding, did not contain any time targets and thus left
There is no concrete measurement of progress. At the same time, however, many important issues – including forced labour, corruption and sustainable fibres – have been removed from the focus of the alliance. As a result, the Alliance moved away from a comprehensive due diligence approach from the point of view of civil society. The resistance of many corporate representatives against KPIs and against more transparency shows from the point of view of the NGOs that central actors are still im-mer not ready to take the necessary steps for real changes. With the transfer of the textile alliance to the DST, all reporting obligations on the KPIs are now eliminated and the publication of the aggregated supplier list is now off the table.
No capacity to act in acute crises
The fact that the Alliance was not able to act even in acute human rights crises was demonstrated, among other things, during the COVID19 crisis and in 2023 by the protests of workers in Bangladesh in the wake of the wage increase, which were subjected to massive repression. In both cases, the alliance failed to achieve a common position among all member companies and, for example, to take a clear position for workers by means of letters to the government in Bangladesh. The issue of forced labour in Turkmenistan also lacked a clear position. From the point of view of civil society, important opportunities have been missed to send clear signals against serious human rights violations.
Alliance initiatives and projects
Despite the aforementioned gaps, the Textile Alliance has initiated numerous alliance initiatives and projects in producing countries in recent years, some of which have provided important impetus and have achieved concrete improvements in certain areas. However, many of these initiatives remained too limited in time and money to bring about structural changes or to broaden successful approaches. The original claim to develop effective models in pilot projects, which are then adopted by many companies, was rarely achieved.
For all these reasons, despite positive impulses and individual reform steps, civil society in the Textile Alliance sees little impact on the ground through the work of the Textile Alliance. The living and working conditions of workers in global supply chains have not improved noticeably. At the same time, the Alliance has enabled a continuous exchange between business, politics, standard organisations and civil society over many years – a slide-log format that can remain an important basis for joint learning processes and progress in the future.
The new Dialogue Platform – Expectations for the DST
The transformation of the Textile Alliance into the new format ‘Dialogue and Impact for Sustainable Textiles (DST)’ marks the beginning of a new phase of cooperation. This reform follows several years of intensive structural debates and a phase in which the financial resources of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) have been significantly reduced. It is therefore all the more important that the experience gained over more than ten years of the Textile Alliance is used consistently and that existing weaknesses are not continued.
One of the most important strengths of the previous alliance was the continuous exchange between companies, politics, standard organizations and civil society. This dialogue may take place in
The new format is not lost. At the same time, the DST must make sure that dialogue leads to concrete improvements in the producing countries much more than before. Dialogue alone does not improve working conditions – it is crucial whether companies are willing to change their own actions and support projects financially and politically.
Transparency must play a central role in the DST. This includes, in particular, that member companies continue to disclose their supply chains, for example by publishing their suppliers in the Open Supply Hub – at least in aggregate form, as was most recently mandatory in the Textile Alliance. Transparency on supply chains, risks, actions and progress is key to credibility, learning and accountability.
On the positive side, the DST provides for greater involvement of rights holders, local trade unionists and civil society organisations from the producing countries. However, it will be crucial to anchor this participation in a structural way, to secure it financially and not only to consult rights holders on a case-by-case basis, but also to involve them in the development of projects, priorities and evaluation mechanisms. If the DST is to have an impact on the ground, the perspectives of those affected by the production conditions must be systematically included.
The success of the DST will largely depend on how many companies are actively involved – and whether they are willing to implement concrete changes beyond dialogue. It is not the participation alone that is crucial, but the actual cooperation in projects, the adaptation of purchasing practices, the support of living wages, the strengthening of complaint mechanisms, measures against gender-based violence as well as effective environmental and climate measures. Companies have the greatest leverage for supply chain improvements and are therefore particularly responsible.
Especially at a time when legal due diligence obligations are coming under political pressure at national and European level, initiatives to implement human rights and environmental due diligence obligations are needed more than ever. However, such initiatives can only be effective if they are ambitious, transparent, binding and actively supported by a sufficient number of companies.
From the point of view of civil society, the DST should therefore fulfil the following key requirements:
- Mandatory transparency: Member companies should continue to be obliged to disclose their supplier structures, preferably on their own website, but at least by publishing them in the Open Supply Hub.
- Measurable objectives and progress: Projects and initiatives under the DST must include clear objectives, timetables and indicators to make progress measurable.
- Binding participation of rightholders: Local trade unions, workers' representatives and civil society organisations from the production countries and in Germany must be structurally involved and their participation supported financially.
- Sufficient funding for projects: Projects in producing countries must be long-term and sufficiently funded to achieve structural changes and to broaden successful approaches.
- Active role of enterprises: Companies must not only engage in dialogue, but also actively (also financially!) support projects, change their purchasing practices and take responsibility for improvements in their supply chains.
- Clear human rights and environmental ambition: Issues such as living wages, trade union freedom, gender equality, effective complaint mechanisms as well as environmental and climate protection, e.g. in chemical management, must remain central topics of cooperation.
conclusion
The DST will have to be measured by whether it is possible to achieve concrete improvements in the producing countries beyond dialogue. Companies have the greatest leverage for this and are responsible for actively participating, creating transparency, financing projects and changing their purchasing practices. Only when dialogue is combined with binding objectives, transparency and concrete measures can the DST become an effective instrument for better working and environmental conditions in global supply chains.