In conversation with Just Style, Gemma Lynch, Chief Customer Officer at Oritain, discusses findings of the company’s 2026 Global Supply Chain Intelligence Report, why supply chain risk has reversed after years of progress, and the importance of physical verification as an additional layer of assurance.
Oritain launched its inaugural 2026 Global Supply Chain Intelligence Report this year. Tell us about the report.
Gemma: Our report is a combination of four independent research studies. Our five-year Market Insights Programme gave us a proprietary dataset of over 5,000 analyses of garments at the retail front. We surveyed over 2,500 consumers on their perceptions of origin and purchase behaviour, ran deep-dive interviews and surveys with suppliers to understand their operations and priorities, and also surveyed industry executives and key leaders in the space to really understand what brands are doing. So the combination of all of these critical data sources gave us some incredible insights into what is happening within the industry at a very high level.
The data shows prohibited-cotton risk reversing after years of decline. What is driving that?
Gemma: We took cotton, the world’s most widely traded natural fibre, as our spotlight commodity to show how risk actually behaves once it moves through complex, high-scrutiny supply chains. Every year as part of our Market Insights Programme, we collect a thousand cotton garment samples across 40 brands from retail shelves and analyse whether they contain cotton consistent with origins prohibited by global legislation and many brands’ sourcing policies. We’ve conducted this research annually since 2020, creating a unique view of how prohibited-cotton risk is changing over time. By analysing the cotton within the garment itself, we generate evidence based on the product, providing an additional layer of assurance alongside traceability and documentation.
That raw data underlies every other angle in the report, and this year it shows a sharp reversal after three years of progress, with 90% of brands analysed showing at least one garment containing cotton consistent with prohibitted cotton. There are several factors at play. Broadly, there has been a significant amount of production increase over the last 18 months in some of the prohibited cotton origins. And while brands have tried to move their tier-one sourcing out of China, they have gone to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, and we’ve seen from trade data in the report that product is moving in the form of yarn or fabric into those manufacturing hubs. That still leaves you at risk when you import into the US or Europe, with the prohibited cotton finding its way into those regulatory environments. Put that alongside what’s going on with tariffs and disrupted supply chains, it’s a really big reversal, and a warning shot for everyone to reconsider where they’re putting their efforts in terms of traceability.
At the same time, consumers are becoming more sceptical of sustainability and origin claims, with only 3% of consumers trust marketing claims. Are the channels brands have invested in heavily, their own messaging and documentation, the ones consumers trust the least?
Gemma: Consumers have got much more sophisticated over time. There is a lot more information available on brands and supply chains now, given the internet, AI and everything else that brings things to the surface almost immediately. That puts brands in a tricky spot. There is real reputational risk in making a claim you cannot support, but there is also a cost to not making a claim at all, since you lose the marketing value of it.
The way through is to make sure you actually understand your supply chain, so you have the confidence to bring a claim back or analyse whether you can put it out there in the first place. That means going deeper than the top level, deeper than brands and tier ones, all the way down through the tiers and working within a network of your supply chain.
55% of consumers say they regularly question whether a leather product is genuine. Why does leather draw that level of suspicion compared with other materials?
Gemma: Leather supply chains are often highly complex, with materials moving through multiple processing stages and jurisdictions before reaching the end product. As complexity increases, it becomes more challenging to maintain confidence in origin claims through documentation alone. Hides pass through multiple hands, processing stages and countries, and visibility is strong at tier one but starts weakening very quickly beyond that, as brands have well-established relationships with direct suppliers. Soon those connections thin out fast. Documentation plays an important role, but it does not always give confidence in the origin of the raw material once hides start moving through intermediaries, and that’s the missing piece, not because anyone is necessarily doing anything wrong, but because the system gets more complex very quickly.
If brands want to layer on an origin claim, responsible sourcing claim or claim linked to specific sourcing standards, they cannot make that claim unless they can actually verify where the product is coming from. This is where forensic verification helps validate what brands are being told, overlaying hard evidence on top of whatever traceability is already in use.
What’s happening on the regulatory and legislative side that brands should be aware of?
Gemma: The regulatory landscape has shifted dramatically with the US’s Section 301 tariffs targeting countries that inadequately enforce forced-labour import prohibitions. In response, a lot of countries are moving to tighten their own rules rather than risk the tariff exposure. We also have the EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR) taking effect in December 2027, and products made with forced labour will be pulled from shelves and destroyed, even the ones already in stores.
One of the things that stood out is that most US and UK brands are tracing their cotton supply at high rates, and yet some are still being called out or landing in legal hot water. Where is the gap, and what does the industry need to be doing differently?
Gemma: Physical verification is the missing layer in many traceability systems today. Existing traceability gives important visibility, but it takes forensic analysis to go further, validating origin claims at the product level and confirming that source materials are exactly what they are claimed to be. Visibility is good, but only verification gives you confidence. That’s what brands need to be putting on top of the tracing they have already done, because the standard is already set by the regulators themselves. If your verification of origin still rests on paperwork while theirs rests on forensic science, you are behind before you even start.
The report talks about a trusted ecosystem, one built on verified buyers and suppliers rather than any single tool. How does your membership model bring that to life?
Gemma: Trust comes from an ecosystem, connected by credible, independent evidence rather than just good intentions or documentation. Our Membership is designed to connect brands, manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers with the same source of truth. Membership combines forensic origin verification with contextual insights, improved data access and specialised services to help organisations make sourcing, compliance and risk decisions with greater confidence. We are already working with more than 1,800 of the world’s leading retailers, brands, manufacturers, and suppliers to build this trusted ecosystem and engage in a network of resilience. When trust is verified rather than assumed, it creates stronger partnerships and a more reliable trade environment for everyone involved. Mapping and AI show where a product should have come from, but only verification gives you confidence over its true origin, and that confidence only holds when it’s built across an ecosystem, not delivered by any single tool.
