Here’s a novel idea: What if giant fashion brands didn’t derive a profit from pay increases for the underpaid workers making their clothes that are meant purely to bring their incomes up to a living wage?

That radical notion appears in a new joint report by the Boston Consulting Group and Global Fashion Agenda, a fashion body focused on sustainability, that offers a comprehensive look at the industry’s performance on social and environmental issues. It concludes that a number of changes are necessary to safeguard the wellbeing of those in fashion’s vast supply chain as well as the long-term health of the industry itself. Many of these changes require rethinking basic assumptions underlying the way most brands operate, among them the typical markup structure that determines how worker wages get translated into a share of a garment’s final price tag.

At present, brands bundle labor costs together with all the other expenses involved in producing a garment. To that total amount, they apply their markup, which covers their costs and adds in a profit, to arrive at the sales price of their products. Any increase in labor costs gets multiplied, which can raise the final price of a garment significantly.

The report offers the example of a t-shirt produced in India, and shows how the final price tag changes if current wages—based on the country’s legal minimum—increase to the amount experts consider (pdf) to be a living wage, meaning one that meets the basic needs of a worker and his or her family. In this case, doubling the wage adds just €1.34 ($1.46) to the labor cost per t-shirt, but raises the store price of the shirt by €6.75. (VAT in the chart below is Europe’s value-added tax.)

Read more: A living wage for garment workers doesn’t have to mean much higher prices for shoppers — Quartz