Two Pathways to ‘No’: Context‐Conditioned Sufficient Pathways to Formal SBTi Non‐Engagement Among Apparel and Footwear Suppliers in Bangladesh and China

ABSTRACT The apparel and footwear (A&F) industry accounts for up to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, much of it arising from supplier activities. While leading brands increasingly commit to science‐based targets (SBTs), formal engagement with the Science‐Based Targets initiative (SBTi) remains limited among suppliers, especially in key sourcing hubs. This study examines why suppliers in Bangladesh and China have not formally engaged with the SBTi despite external pressure and how this non‐engagement varies across institutional contexts. Rather than treating national context as an independent causal factor, the research employs a most similar systems, different‐context design to analyse how the same innovation attributes operate within different governance environments. Using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) framework and crisp‐set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on 27 interviews with Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, this study identifies sufficient pathways involving perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability associated with formal SBTi non‐engagement. Results indicate context‐dependent non‐engagement logics: in Bangladesh, low perceived relative advantage within dense compliance systems; in China, either low perceived compatibility with mandate‐driven routines or high observability, a paradoxical pathway in which visible benefits coexist with non‐engagement. These findings suggest that DOI attributes are not universal drivers of supplier engagement but governance‐conditioned decision filters. This study contributes to supplier climate governance by showing that formal SBTi non‐engagement reflects context‐conditioned sufficiency, equifinality and causal asymmetry rather than merely cumulative barriers. It offers diagnostic insights for advancing climate action within global value chains, without making claims about overall global climate governance outcomes.