If history serves as an indicator, one might naturally assume that social and environmental initiatives would be the first programs on the chopping block during a time of tariff turmoil. But that’s not the full story, experts insisted at the Sourcing at Magic trade show in Las Vegas this week.

During a panel entitled “Navigating the New Normal: Compliance, Risk and Resilience in Global Sourcing,” Washington, D.C. based industry groups said compliance looms large in the minds of brands and retailers, especially as the global regulatory landscape evolves.

Asked whether the Trump administration’s mercurial trade policies have derailed brand efforts to become more sustainable and socially responsible, Conor O’Brien, sustainability policy specialist at the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), said companies are learning to juggle multiple goals rather than falling back on the timeworn tradition of chasing the lowest-priced needle.

“One might think in this shifting tariff scenario where people are reacting on a daily basis to such-and-such a tariff in this sourcing country… that that would detract resources away from sustainability programs, from social responsibility programs, from compliance writ large,” he said. “But actually, what we’re finding is that most of our members are still doing that work because it’s not just a cost center.”

In O’Brien’s estimation, viewing investment in environmental stewardship and responsible labor as a line item on a balance sheet is “the wrong way to frame it in terms of your business operations.” Instead, he sees advancement in this area as “an operational advantage.”

“To the extent that you can get ahead of the compliance-regulatory landscape and have that system in place, that puts you in a better position” to whether the storm when it comes to tariffs, he added.

AAFA, which represents over 1,100 brands and retailers employing 3.6 million U.S. workers, has been counseling its members to work closely with their suppliers to ensure that new and forthcoming sustainability standards are met.

While these relationships were once distant and often controlled by third parties, many companies have put substantial effort into mapping their supply chains and not just identifying the players—but coming to know them personally—in recent years. This change was precipitated by shifts in both consumer expectation and governmental intervention, from more stringent import standards like the the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), signed into law in late 2021, to Europe’s long-discussed sustainability reporting standards, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2027.

According to O’Brien, it’s imperative to have both brands and suppliers “at the table,” discussing how to move forward with compliance both at home and abroad. “It’s important to understand from the supplier’s perspective, ‘What are the government systems I have in place? What is a realistic timeline for me to incorporate all the things you’re telling me I need to do, whether that’s decarbonize or do my chemical management, or deal with this growing issue of heat stress?’” he said.

Suppliers that have the support of brands on these issues will advance faster and become more attractive long-term partners. And in an era of total tariff instability, surety surrounding supplier relationships is a meaningful benefit for brands, which, over the course of the past year, have sought to tighten their sourcing portfolios while deepening relationships.

“It really positions you better to react to mercurial situations, particularly with tariffs,” O’Brien said. “If I understand my supply chain, that allows me to be much more flexible in my sourcing decisions. If I build these long-term partnerships, that then allows me to leverage them better,” he added. “Collaboration is key.”

Avedis Seferian, CEO of Washington, D.C.-based Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP), echoed the sentiment that ensuring sustainable sourcing is an area brands and retailers have become more hesitant to ignore in recent years.

“In the past, if something bad would happen, the compliance departments would be the ones that would bear the brunt of the tightening of belts; they would be decimated,” he said. “Now, the compliance departments are being cut back, but in proportion… So what we’re seeing is resources are being reduced, but across the board—not as it was 10 years ago.”

Today, compliance professionals are “central to the core business,” Seferian said, “and if the core business is suffering, everybody’s getting cut.”

Asked whether tariff-weary brands are prioritizing their bottom lines over social and environmental compliance, Seferian said, “It is a difficult question, but a fair question because the reality is that price sensitivity is just how capitalism works.”

But he cautioned brands against viewing investments in social responsibility, like engaging with auditors like WRAP, or adopting new traceability technologies, as onerous or optional.

“If you think of something as being purely a cost, then the natural human mistake is to say, ‘How can I minimize it?’” he explained. “Whereas if you think of something as an investment, then you actually think of the associated figure as a price that you pay” for benefits that ultimately make for a better business—“more peace of mind, more security, lower reputational risk—all things that are valuable and go to the bottom line.”

And if suppliers, in turn, continue to think about the responsibility of compliance as a burden or a margin-eater, then they will invest the bare minimum, and that will only serve to drive orders into the arms of better-prepared factories.

“If you think of it as an investment… ‘I can now get orders from higher-level clients. I can get much more long-term relationships. I have lower reputational risk—I’m a more attractive vendor,’” he said. “The price you pay for that audit is absolutely worth it because you’re getting a larger return on it.”