Worker voice isn't a social add-on. It's a performance driver.
- ryangirman
- Nov 18
- 3 min read
Listening to Workers Isn’t Optional — It’s a Supply Chain Strategy
New research by Dylan Nelson and Nathan Wilmers offers something rare in the labor-practices space: causal evidence. Their study shows that when manufacturers actively use worker input in production decisions, productivity rises, wages rise, and the internal dynamics of the workplace shift in measurable ways.
For brands under growing HRDD and CSDDD scrutiny, this data should immediately register as strategic. Worker voice is not a peripheral social program. It is a performance driver — and a due-diligence asset.
(Study source: Nelson & Wilmers, Earnings Effects of Direct Worker Voice in Production, May 2025)
Worker Voice Creates Performance Gains You Can Feel Downstream
Nelson & Wilmers find that moving from low to high levels of worker-input use corresponds to substantial productivity gains — up to 15% depending on the specification (Table 3, pp. 19–20). These are not symbolic improvements. Productivity lifts translate into more stable production flows, fewer quality dips, and reduced firefighting around throughput constraints.
When factories operate more efficiently, downstream partners experience fewer surprises. Worker voice doesn’t just improve the floor — it improves the flow.
Worker Voice Is Now Evidence — Not Just Engagement
Under HRDD and CSDDD, the question is no longer whether a grievance mechanism exists, but whether workers actually use it and whether it leads to meaningful remedy. Audits cannot answer that. Worker-generated data can.
The study makes clear that workplaces where worker feedback is integrated into decision-making show distinct, measurable signals:
earnings increase (Table 2, p. 18),
turnover declines (p. 13),
and operational performance strengthens (Table 3).
These are the exact indicators regulators and stakeholders expect to see. Worker voice becomes not only a practice — but proof.
A Functioning Voice System Shifts Power, and That’s the Point
One of the study’s most striking findings is that increases in worker earnings persist even after controlling for productivity. In other words, the wage effect isn’t only about output — it reflects growing bargaining power when workers’ knowledge becomes indispensable to management (pp. 19–20) .
This is precisely the structural change many due-diligence frameworks aspire to: workers able to influence outcomes, assert rights, and negotiate remedy because the mechanism works — not because an audit checked a box.
Voice Without Use Is Noise. Use Is What Matters.
A key nuance in Nelson & Wilmers: it’s not the existence of channels that matters, but the use of worker input in actual production decisions. This distinction is crucial. Many reporting systems collect data; very few create feedback loops that alter managerial behavior.
The study shows that when voice mechanisms become operational tools rather than procedural artifacts, both productivity and earnings rise. This is the difference between passive “grievance pathways” and active, functioning worker voice.
For brands looking to evaluate supplier maturity, this is the metric that matters: Are workers’ insights shaping decisions?
Worker Voice Is the Earliest Warning System You Have
Audits see the past. Workers see the present. The study reinforces what many already observe in practice: frontline workers are the first to detect inefficiencies, deteriorating conditions, abusive supervision, wage inconsistencies, and safety shortcuts. These insights surface long before a non-compliance emerges in a report.
When factories rely on worker feedback to make operational decisions, these signals are captured early and acted on. That is risk mitigation at its most functional — and most cost-effective.
High-Voice Factories Are High-Value Partners
Taken together, the findings describe a workplace that looks markedly different: more productive, more stable, with higher retention and higher wages. These are not just worker outcomes — they are indicators of well-managed facilities.
For brands, these factories tend to be the ones that:
produce consistently,
manage volatility better,
absorb shocks more effectively,
and require fewer corrective interventions.
Worker voice is not a social add-on; it is a management competency. And in global value chains, management competencies cascade.
The Strategic Takeaway: Worker Voice Is a Capability, Not a Program
Nelson & Wilmers provide the empirical validation many practitioners have been waiting for: when worker voice is real — meaning actively used, respected, and integrated — factories perform better, workers earn more, and the system becomes more resilient.
For brands, that means worker voice should no longer sit in the CSR space.
It belongs in sourcing strategy.
In risk management.
In HRDD reporting.
In supplier-selection criteria.
Listening to workers isn’t good PR. It’s good operations. The brands that require it will be the ones positioned for resilience in the decade ahead.
