Cotton Supply Chain Faces Crisis as Farmers Get Marginalised and Certification Loses Impact

Your analysis shows only 17 companies sourcing more than half their cotton from certified sources, and many missing their own targets. What’s the real barrier here—cost, weak governance, or the lure of synthetics?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: While we have not conducted thorough interviews with all brands on the reasons behind the lack of cotton form certified sources in their collection, generally we know there are several main barriers:

• At the heart of the issue lies a deeply flawed and opaque supply chain. The journey of cotton from farm to garment is long and convoluted, often spanning multiple countries and involving numerous intermediaries. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for companies to trace the origin of their raw materials and verify sustainability claims. The risk of certified cotton being blended with conventional cotton is high, and without robust traceability systems, brands are hesitant to invest in premium-priced sustainable materials.
• This weak governance structure directly fuels the second major barrier: cost. Certified cotton, such as organic, inherently costs more to produce due to more sustainable farming practices, fair labour standards, and the rigorous certification process itself. In a price-sensitive market, the temptation to opt for cheaper, conventional cotton remains strong. The additional investment required to build and manage a transparent and traceable supply chain further adds to the financial burden, a commitment many companies are unwilling to make.

Compounding these challenges is the growing appeal of synthetic fibres. Materials like polyester and nylon offer a number of advantages for manufacturers, including lower costs, greater price stability, and specific performance characteristics like stretch and durability that are in high demand. For some companies, shifting to synthetics can appear to be a simpler and more cost-effective solution than tackling the deep-seated problems within the cotton supply chain.

Certification schemes were once considered the benchmark for sustainable cotton, but your report suggests they don’t tell the full story. Do you think certification has reached its limit as a driver of change?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: We believe certification schemes still have an important role and unique position within the value chain. We recommend certification schemes to involve farmers more into their work and to broaden and improve their impact by:

• Urgently facilitate retailers and brands partnering with smallholder cotton farmers so they significantly increase their financial investment in climate change adaptation.
• Adopt ambitious strategies, including price premiums and mechanisms, to guarantee living incomes for smallholder cotton farmers.
• Consider where your standard can adapt to cover under-represented sustainability issues (see the certification benchmarking for more information).
• Raise the bar on transparency: know exactly where your cotton comes from, demand your partners improve their impact and help consumers understand sustainability challenges in your supply chain.

The data points to fast-fashion giants like Shein accelerating a shift towards synthetics. How big a threat is this for smallholder cotton farmers, and can regulation or consumer activism realistically reverse it?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: The thread is evident especially looking at the pace that ultra-fast fashion giants are increasing their market share, normalising an even lower price and quality of products. We believe that regulation has an important role to play. We see that the EU is taking first steps to take away the competitiveness of ultra-fast fashion coming from China, but this will take time. Consumer activism is also important, but it may be more difficult to reach critical mass.

A few brands are experimenting with recycled cotton, but mostly in negligible volumes. Is recycled cotton a serious path forward, or more of a marketing device for brands to point to?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: At present, the use of recycled cotton is a clear case of "walking before we can run." Brands prominently label products with recycled content. These items, often containing a small percentage of recycled fibres, serve as tangible proof of a brand's commitment to sustainability. This allows companies to build a narrative of circularity and innovation, which is a powerful marketing device in today's climate of environmental awareness.

However, this marketing narrative often glosses over the significant challenges preventing recycled cotton from being adopted at scale. The primary obstacle is technical: the mechanical recycling process, which shreds pre- and post-consumer textiles back into fibre, is harsh. It shortens the cotton fibres, resulting in a weaker, lower-quality yarn. To create a durable and high-quality fabric, these shorter recycled fibres must be blended with stronger, virgin materials—typically virgin cotton or recycled polyester (rPET). This is why most "recycled cotton" products are, in fact, blends. Products made from 100% recycled cotton are rare and often lack the softness and durability consumers expect

Furthermore, the existing textile waste stream is incredibly complex. Most garments are made from fibre blends (e.g., cotton-polyester, cotton-elastane), and the technologies to separate these fibres on a large, commercially viable scale are still in their infancy. Dyes, chemical finishes, and contaminants like zippers and buttons further complicate the recycling process, adding costs and limiting the quality of the final product

While we believe that recycled cotton can play an important role in reducing the pressure on virgin cotton the transition towards a more sustainable future for cotton should go hand in hand with improving livelihood of farmers at the beginning of the supply chain.

Around 70% of the world’s cotton is produced by smallholders, yet their livelihoods barely figure in corporate sustainability reporting. How can rankings . Like this we aim to push brands to make farmers more visible and central to their strategies?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: That's the right question to be asking, and it gets to the very heart of why we create these rankings. It’s not just about data; it’s about leverage. A ranking is a powerful tool because it operates on a simple but profound principle: what gets measured, gets managed.

We push brands by changing the rules of the game. We are moving the goalposts from a narrow focus on certified materials to a holistic vision of sustainability where a prosperous farmer is the key performance indicator. It’s a slow and deliberate process, but by publicly measuring what truly matters, we make it impossible for brands to ignore the 70% of people who form the foundation of their entire industry.

In addition, we substitute our ranking with the cotton papers that delve deeper into various important subjects such as climate, living income and nature. These papers aim to create more understanding on the challenges that farmers face and provide tools to brands on how they can work with their value chain partners to tackle these challenges.

One of your strongest recommendations is for brands to overhaul procurement and pay fairer prices. Given fashion’s obsession with cutting costs, what would it really take for big brands to change how they buy cotton?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: It starts with brands establishing and committing to clear, time-bound, and measurable targets for sustainable cotton sourcing and significantly improve their performance in meeting these targets.

This should go hand-in-hand with brands evaluating and committing to improving on their purchasing practices using, for example, frameworks such as the The Common Framework on Responsible Purchasing Practices.

This is not something we expect brands to be able to take on alone. Brands should work together with their value chain partners and other stakeholders that can provide support and insights in this journey.

Your conclusion is stark: cotton is at a crossroads, with synthetics threatening to smother its potential. If brands don’t act, does cotton risk becoming a niche fibre—or can it still anchor a sustainable future for fashion?
Tamar Hoek and Annemiek Smits: The threat from synthetics is very real. For a brand focused on short-term margins, the allure of cheap, price-stable, and performance-ready polyester is incredibly strong. It presents an easier path than tackling the deep, systemic complexities of the global cotton supply chain. If we continue on the current trajectory, then yes, there is a genuine risk that the market share for cotton could significantly erode, pushing it towards the margins of the industry.

However, I firmly believe that cotton can and must anchor a sustainable future for fashion. It will not become a niche fibre, for one simple reason: its social and economic footprint is too vast. Over 100 million households, the vast majority of them smallholders in developing countries, depend directly on cotton for their livelihood. A mass exodus to fossil fuel-based synthetics would not just be an environmental choice; it would be a humanitarian catastrophe.

So, the choice is not just between two fibres; it's between two futures for the fashion industry.

One future is dominated by synthetics. It's a future that doubles down on our dependence on fossil fuels, exacerbates the crisis of microplastic pollution in our oceans and bodies, and decouples the industry from the land and the millions of people who cultivate its raw materials. It’s a sterile, industrial, and ultimately linear model.

The other future is one where we collectively invest in making cotton the sustainable, default choice. This is not about romanticising the past; it's about innovating for the future. We are already seeing the incredible potential of models like regenerative organic cotton, which not only eliminates pesticides but actually sequesters carbon in the soil, turning farms into a climate solution. We are seeing water efficiency improve dramatically through better farming practices. We are seeing how transparent supply chains, built on fair purchasing practices, can lift entire communities out of poverty.

This is where the role of brands becomes absolutely critical. They sit in the driver's seat. Their investment decisions signal to the entire market which future we are heading towards. If they continue to demand cheaper and faster, they will fuel the rise of synthetics. But if they use their purchasing power to invest in long-term partnerships with farmer groups, to help finance the transition to more sustainable practices, and to guarantee a fair price, they can secure a resilient supply of high-quality, sustainable cotton.

Ultimately, cotton’s greatest vulnerability—its connection to the soil and the millions of people who farm it—is also its greatest strength. It is a natural, renewable fibre that is central to a circular and regenerative vision for fashion. It can be a vehicle for profound social and environmental progress.

So no, cotton is not destined to become a niche. It is the battleground on which the future of sustainable fashion will be decided. And it’s a fight that, for the sake of both people and the planet, we cannot afford to lose.