The push for complete visibility in fashion’s supply chain is shifting from an ethical aspiration to a financial and operational imperative, yet practical obstacles remain that make full traceability a distant goal for many actors beyond the factory gate.
Devendra Gupta, head of product at global certifier Oeko‑Tex, told FashionUnited that while technology has advanced, traceability has not become unequivocally easier because the bar keeps rising and requirements differ...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
widely between companies. According to Gupta, the number and diversity of actors, many of them smallholder farmers, informal collectors and low‑margin processors, create structural barriers: limited access to digital infrastructure, uneven technical literacy and the costs of implementing data systems are borne by participants with little capital to spare.
Industry reporting and research back this assessment. Analysis from TexpertiseNetwork argues that tools such as blockchain, big data and AI offer promise but cannot substitute for the labour‑intensive work of stitching together disparate data sources. A WTiN panel on digital manufacturing underlined how digital labelling and product passports could deliver farm‑to‑consumer traceability, yet panellists cautioned that implementation hinges on standardisation and cross‑sector coordination.
Gupta highlights the “digital‑physical gap” as a core challenge in rural sourcing areas. Intermittent electricity, poor mobile coverage and multiple, inconsistent record formats, from Excel sheets logged in different units to handwritten notebooks, make seamless data capture unreliable. He points to practical fixes already in use: offline‑first apps that synchronise when connectivity returns, group certification managers or cooperative data collectors who aggregate records for dozens of farmers, and simpler, harmonised templates that reduce the friction of reporting. TextileValueChain and GlobalTextileTimes both advocate hybrid approaches that combine existing analogue records with progressive digitalisation rather than insisting on immediate, end‑to‑end tech solutions.
Financial incentives are central to adoption. Gupta says price and financing are the primary motivators for farmers and informal workers: fairer purchase prices, better margins and preferential loan terms for businesses that can demonstrate traceable, audited ESG performance. He notes banks are increasingly offering improved lending conditions where sustainability data and third‑party assurance exist, an observation echoed by industry commentators who see regulatory drivers, such as extended producer responsibility regimes and emerging digital product passport requirements in Europe, pushing transparency into commercial necessity.
The informal economy complicates both ethics and traceability. Gupta estimates informal and home‑based workers account for a majority of activity in parts of the value chain, particularly in waste‑recovery and low‑tech processing. Formalising that workforce, he argues, is feasible where sufficient margin exists and policy incentives align; reporting from trade outlets suggests that targeted inclusion programmes, combined with brand commitments, can create routes to formal labour standards without destroying livelihoods.
On the question of verifying that a fibre in a finished garment truly originated from a named farm, the toolbox is varied. Gupta accepts that simple spreadsheets can be part of verified chains at small scales while more complex supply networks may require blockchain‑enabled platforms for immutable records. Academic research extends this view: a recent MDPI study outlines blockchain‑based frameworks tailored to apparel’s complexity but warns such systems must be integrated with on‑the‑ground verification to avoid turning traceability into a paperwork exercise.
Certification bodies differ in method. Gupta says Oeko‑Tex rejects mass‑balance models in favour of physical segregation where possible, using laboratory testing and strict warehouse controls to prevent commingling. Other schemes adopt mass‑balance as a transitional mechanism to scale sustainable fibre uptake; proponents argue it accelerates market demand while segregation capacity is built. The tension between those approaches illustrates the trade‑offs between rapid scale and strict physical traceability.
Across the sector commentators stress that audits alone are insufficient: a five‑day inspection cannot reflect daily operations. Gupta and others argue for triangulation, combining audits with continuous data feeds, lot‑level uploads, risk tooling and historical datasets to spot anomalies and direct oversight resources where they matter most. TexpertiseNetwork and WTiN have both identified digital product passports and continuous monitoring systems as critical to turning episodic assurance into ongoing risk management.
Ultimately, the consensus among practitioners and analysts is that traceability will only become widespread when commercial structures and regulatory demands make it indispensable. Gupta warns against assuming consumer preference alone will drive change; he says companies must align pricing, financing and capacity building so smaller suppliers and informal workers are not penalised by transparency. As trade publications and academic work conclude, a pragmatic, phased approach, mixing low‑cost digital tools, cooperative data collection, lab‑backed verification and targeted incentives, offers the best path to close the gap between sustainability rhetoric and verifiable practice in the parts of the chain furthest from the shop floor.
Source: Noah Wire Services
