How to handle authorship issues in an international multidisciplinary collaboration?
Lots of folks around here seem to prefer these guidelines which are known as the Vancouver Protocol (quoting directly, here):


Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. 


These are among the strongest criteria, and I would suggest that many scientific publications fail to live up to them. Gift authorship and other sorts of additions to the author list are common. E.g., maybe you include the PI of a large grant as last author even if they only lightly supervised the work and did not read the final draft or write or revise any of the actual words.

At another extreme, the LHC project has a sort of communal authorship process that led to to a recent paper with more than 5000 authors. If you think this paper meets criteria 2 or 3 above, you are kidding yourself. Now, that whole community has agreed to this authorship mechanic, but it is substantially different from the Vancouver Protocol.

You need to ask yourself what the norms of your community are. Does your field have a professional society that has authorship guidelines or guidelines associated with its publications? If so, you can use those to bolster the arguments you want to make with your advisor. If not, you can look to other, similar areas and their approaches. In the end though, you may have to follow your advisor's lead until you are out on your own. This is not a hill for a grad student to die on, and postdocs and junior faculty may want to use caution.