Feedback collated by Global Textiles Transparency Governance (GTTG), a multistakeholder project to improve transparency in the industry, suggests the current system actively disincentivises the collection of honest, high-quality supply chain data. Auditors, unions, organisations and workers may face personal or economic reprisals if they offer up data that reflects poorly on manufacturers, GTTG found. It added that regulators’ focus on quantity — rather than quality — of data has been known to encourage people to falsify numbers to meet targets. In October 2024, GTTG published its ‘Playbook for Shared Data Systems’, the findings of which are informing the UNECE’s research into how to simplify the requirements for brands.
A lack of standardisation also plagues supply chain reporting. Not only do different certifications and regulations require impacts to be measured in different ways, making comparison and broader applicability of the data impossible, but terminology varies widely too. Suppliers, factories and organisations can be labelled differently across systems while the multiple tiers and processes within the supply chain are not uniformly referenced.
Furthering the problem is fashion’s competitive nature: both brands and traceability platforms tend to resist sharing information with rivals. But such a confused approach further increases workload, says Christian Hudson, chair of the UN Centre for Trade Facilitation’s team of specialists on ESG data in value chains, because if people aren’t using the same metrics and measures there is simply no interest — or point — in sharing data.
Finding a way forward
Several recent initiatives and pilots have sought to tackle these challenges. In December, the Apparel Alliance — made up of Cascale, Textile Exchange, Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation (ZDHC) and the Apparel Impact Institute — published the ‘Supply Chain Taxonomy’. Aiming to establish a uniform classification system in the textile supply chain, it breaks down which actors, processes and products sit within each supply chain tier.
The alliance consulted with stakeholders such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), the United National Environment Programme (UNEP), UNECE, manufacturers and brands to build the taxonomy. “Until now, there hasn’t been a consistent lexicon, and this tries to put consistency in place,” says Browne.
With a common taxonomy, different platforms and systems can begin to harmonise, paving the way for interoperability — the concept behind another recent Textile Exchange initiative. Building on Textile Exchange’s TrackIt system, which electronically tracks the chain of custody of certified materials (Global Recycled Standard and Recycled Claim Standard), a new multi-party traceability system is being piloted in 2025. TrusTrace is among the technology partners for the pilot, alongside Peterson Technologies, Retraced and TextileGenesis. “The idea is to test interoperability between our systems, between competitors, so in the end a brand can see the certified materials moving through the whole system in one single place,” says God.
