“That’s all” – until it isn’t: lessons in supply chain risk from The Devil Wears Prada 2

In the opening moments of The Devil Wears Prada 2, Runway magazine faces an existential crisis.

A fast fashion brand it has endorsed is exposed for misrepresenting its manufacturing practices. Allegations of sweatshop labour follow. The reputational fallout is immediate and so too is the commercial impact, with key advertisers reconsidering their association.

A fictional scenario, but an increasingly familiar one. Greenwashing? In fast fashion? Groundbreaking.

The reality behind the runway

For international businesses (particularly in fashion, luxury and consumer goods), supply chains are inherently complex, often spanning multiple jurisdictions, tiers and counterparties.

What the film captures well is not deliberate misconduct, but misplaced reliance. A business trusting supplier assurances that later prove inaccurate.

In a regulatory environment where expectations of transparency and accountability are rising across jurisdictions, that reliance is increasingly difficult to justify, whether in the UK, Europe, or beyond.

The price of getting it wrong

Failures in supply chain due diligence cut across several areas of risk:

• Regulatory exposure

  Modern slavery legislation, mandatory corporate reporting and disclosure regimes and emerging due diligence frameworks (such as those developing across the EU) place increasing obligations on businesses to identify and manage supply chain risk.

  The UK regime under the Modern Slavery Act has historically focused on transparency and disclosure. In practice, however, there is increasing scrutiny of whether those disclosures reflect meaningful due diligence – including in relation to how businesses identify, assess and manage risks within their supply chains. A modern slavery statement in itself is not sufficient. There needs to be alignment with internal corporate governance and wider annual corporate reporting to be credible.

• Commercial and contractual risk

  Contracting parties are increasingly incorporating ethical sourcing commitments, audit rights and termination triggers into contracts. A failure to comply can have immediate commercial consequences.

  The key issue for businesses is ensuring that these commitments are aligned with what can realistically be delivered across the supply chain, particularly where suppliers are involved. If concerns arise, the exercise of audit or termination rights can have an immediate impact on contractual relationships and continuity of supply.

• Reputational and brand risk

  Allegations of unethical sourcing can rapidly erode goodwill and brand loyalty, often one of the most valuable assets for consumer-facing businesses, notably in the fiercely competitive fashion and luxury sector.

  This is especially acute where a brand’s positioning emphasises quality or ethical standards, as once credibility is called into question, it may be difficult to restore.

  From an intellectual property perspective, the implications can be significant. For example, trade marks derive most (if not all) of their value from the reputation they protect, meaning that damage to brand perception can reduce both their commercial value and their effectiveness.

For international businesses, these risks rarely arise in isolation. A single issue in one jurisdiction can quickly escalate into a cross-border problem. This reflects a broader commercial dynamic that of risk by association.

The reaction of Runway’s advertisers illustrates the wider impact. They are not directly implicated in the wrongdoing, yet their concern is immediate – reputational proximity.

This dynamic is increasingly shaping decision-making. Brands may choose to distance themselves from disgraced or questionable retail partners or platforms, distributors and licensees may reassess relationships, and investors may apply pressure.

These issues rarely stop with one party; they can quickly affect the wider network of commercial relationships.

Drawing the threads together

In The Devil Wears Prada 2, the problem is not that Miranda Priestly knowingly endorsed unethical practices. It is that she relied on assurances without verification or any form of due diligence.

For businesses operating across global supply chains, the lesson is clear: trust is not a substitute for diligence. When issues emerge, the consequences can be wide ranging, extending to contractual relationships, brand perception and, ultimately, enterprise value. By that point, the damage may already be difficult to reverse.

Especially for fashion brands, supply chain due diligence should be treated as a core element of brand protection with robust audit processes. Failing to verify supplier practices can expose businesses not only to regulatory scrutiny, but also to immediate reputational harm, the loss of commercial partners, and a weakening of the very IP rights on which the brand depends.