Supply Chain Risk Starts Where Visibility Ends

Five takeaways from the Design for Freedom Summit on ethical sourcing, procurement, and systemic change.

The biggest risks in our supply chains sit in the tiers we can’t see. It was a point I kept coming back to throughout the fifth annual Design for Freedom Summit.

Stepping into the summit at the start of my role with SMS Collaborative, I expected to hear important conversations around ethical sourcing and supply chain transparency. What stood out more than anything was how connected these conversations have become, and how much urgency there is behind them.

I had the opportunity to attend alongside Victoria Owens, Parallel’s Managing Director, and across sessions, we found ourselves returning to many of the same themes: forced and child labor embedded deep within supply chains, the growing pressure to decarbonize, and the role circularity can play in reducing both environmental and human risk.

What made the conversations particularly meaningful was the shift in tone. These challenges aren’t new, but the level of urgency, and the focus on what it will take to address them, felt different. There is a clear recognition that the systems behind how materials are sourced, specified, and delivered need to evolve, and that doing so will require more coordination across the industry than we’ve seen before.

Below are the takeaways that stayed with me most, and where I see the greatest opportunity for progress.

(1) Ethical sourcing starts with supply chain visibility.

You can’t address what you can’t see.

The biggest risks don’t sit at the surface. They exist in the hidden tiers of the supply chain, where visibility drops off and exposure to forced and child labor increases.

Across sessions and breakouts, there was a consistent emphasis on mapping supply chains more fully—and in many cases, shortening them—to better understand where materials originate.

For organizations, this isn’t just about transparency for its own sake. It's about building the foundation needed to take meaningful action.

(2) Social equity must be embedded in climate action.

“We can’t separate climate action from human impact. The same decisions that shape our carbon footprint also shape people’s lives across the supply chain.” — Victoria Owens

Decarbonization and human rights are often treated as parallel efforts. In reality, they are deeply linked.

The same systems driving environmental impact—resource extraction, globalized supply chains, cost pressure—are often tied to labor exploitation. Addressing one without the other creates blind spots.

What came through clearly at the summit is that climate strategies need to account for both environmental and human outcomes. Not as an add-on, but as part of the same decision-making framework.

(3) Procurement power can dive systemic change.

If there was one lever that came up repeatedly, it was procurement.

Large buyers, especially hyperscalers in the data center space, have outsized influence on how materials are sourced, specified, and delivered. Shifting how they buy has the potential to reshape the market.

That shift is already starting to take shape through:

• More intentional specification language

• Increased expectations around transparency (carbon, sourcing, disclosures)

• Greater consideration of legal and social risk in supply chain decisions

There’s also growing momentum behind collective efforts like the iMasons Climate Accord, which is working to align expectations and push the industry toward shared standards.

The tension is real, though. The industry is still balancing a race to the bottom on price with a push toward accountability and transparency.

(4) Collective action is needed to overcome market barriers.

One of the more candid themes: progress is constrained by economics.

Construction and manufacturing operate on tight margins, and the lowest-cost option still wins more often than not. That makes if difficult for individual organizations to move first without absorbing additional risk.

What’s needed, and increasingly happening, is alignment:

• Shared standards

• Industry-wide commitments

• Cross-sector collaboration

We’re also seeing more practical mechanisms take shape, from embedding expectations directly into contracts to creating incentives for suppliers who meet higher standards.

Individually, these efforts feel incremental. Together, they start to shift what’s expected and what becomes possible.

(5) Circularity reduces both environmental and human risk.

Circularity is gaining real traction, and not just as an environmental strategy.

Designing for reuse, extending material lifecycles, and reducing reliance on raw material extraction can also reduce exposure to exploitative labor practices. The earlier in the supply chain you go, the higher the risk. Circular strategies help move demand away from those high-risk entry points.

Material choices matter here, too. Timber, for example, continues to be a major focus given its scale within the built environment and the importance of responsible sourcing.

Where This Goes Next

What I took away most from the summit is that the path forward is less about any single solution and more about how these pieces come together.

There is momentum building—around transparency, around accountability, and around the role the industry can play in addressing both environmental and human impact. At the same time, there are still real constraints, whether economic, structural, or policy-related, that make progress uneven.

What feels different is the level of alignment beginning to take shape. More organizations are asking similar questions, working toward shared frameworks, and recognizing that isolated efforts won’t be enough.

The opportunity now is to translate that alignment into action—through the decisions we make, the partnerships we build, and the systems we choose to support.

Because ultimately, the choices we make about materials, sourcing, and supply chains don’t just shape environmental outcomes; they shape human ones as well. And from where I sit, that’s where this work becomes both more complex and more important.