By Jeanine Ballone, CEO & Founder, World Collective
Everyone talks about DPP readiness like it’s a policy decision. It’s actually a data architecture problem that most suppliers can’t solve alone.
The fashion industry has spent the last two years preparing for Digital Product Passports. We’ve attended summits, studied regulatory frameworks, and debated implementation timelines. But we’ve been solving the wrong problem.
The bottleneck isn’t supplier willingness to comply, it’s the fundamental data infrastructure required to make compliance possible.
Here’s what no one wants to admit: When we ask suppliers for DPP-ready data, we’re asking them to produce information their systems were never designed to capture.
The Five-Tier Data Trap
Let’s be precise about what DPP compliance actually requires from a textile supplier. Not the aspirational version. The real, operational version.
Tier 1: Basic Fabric Information
- Fabric name, SKU, technical specifications
- Fiber composition, weight, width, construction type
- Product imagery
This sounds simple. It’s not.
Most suppliers maintain this information across disconnected systems, technical specs in one database, SKUs in another, imagery scattered across drives and email threads. Standardizing and centralizing it requires data normalization work that assumes resources most mills don’t have.
Tier 2: Fabric Production Data
- Facility name and location
- Processes performed (weaving, knitting, dyeing, finishing)
- Output fabric batch ID or reference
Here’s where it gets complicated.
“Output fabric batch ID” assumes the mill has a system that assigns unique, persistent identifiers to production runs and maintains those identifiers through finishing processes. Many mills track production by order number or date, not by batch ID that travels with the fabric through multiple processing stages.
Tier 3: Yarn Production Data
- Facility name and location (of the yarn supplier)
- Process performed (spinning/filament production)
- Batch link from raw material to yarn
- Output batch ID
This is where most traceability efforts die. Fabric mills don’t produce their own yarn, they source from yarn spinners who may serve dozens of mills. Those spinners often aggregate raw materials from multiple origins to achieve production efficiency. When we ask fabric suppliers for “yarn production facility and batch link from raw material to yarn,” we’re asking them to provide data their upstream partners don’t typically capture or share.
Tier 4: Raw Material Origin
- Material type (organic cotton, recycled polyester, etc.)
- Source facility and location
- Batch or lot ID
- Certifications (GOTS, GRS, FSC, etc.)
Now we’re asking suppliers to trace back through yarn spinners to raw material producers—cotton farms, polyester manufacturers, recycling facilities. This requires not just data from their direct suppliers, but data from their suppliers’ suppliers, maintained with batch-level precision across entities that may have no digital integration whatsoever.
Tier 5: Compliance Documentation
- Certification documentation (OEKO-TEX, GOTS, GRS, REACH, ZDHC)
- Transaction certificates proving certified materials in specific batches
- Chain of custody documentation
A supplier might legitimately use GOTS-certified organic cotton. But if they can’t provide the transaction certificate proving which specific bales went into which yarn lots, which went into which fabric batches, their fabric can’t be sold as GOTS-certified—even though it materially is. The documentation infrastructure to maintain certificate chain of custody doesn’t exist in most mills.
Summary: We’re not asking for five pieces of information. We’re asking for five layers of data architecture that require digital integration across independent entities in a supply chain that has operated for decades without it.
The Batch ID Problem: Why Traceability Breaks Down
The single biggest barrier to DPP readiness isn’t missing data, it’s the inability to link data across production stages.
Here’s what “batch linking” actually means: When raw cotton arrives at a yarn spinner with lot ID “ABC123,” and that cotton gets spun into yarn with batch ID “YARN456,” and that yarn gets woven into fabric with batch ID “FABRIC789,” there must be a digital system that maintains the connection: FABRIC789 → YARN456 → ABC123.
Most suppliers don’t have systems that create these persistent, linked identifiers. They have:
- Purchase orders that track what they bought
- Production schedules that track what they made
- Quality control logs that track what they tested
- Inventory systems that track what they shipped
But these systems don’t talk to each other in ways that create traceable lineage. The yarn supplier’s batch ID doesn’t automatically flow into the fabric mill’s production system. The fabric mill’s quality control database doesn’t reference the yarn supplier’s documentation. Chain of custody exists on paper, in email threads, in tribal knowledge—but not in linked, queryable, verifiable digital records.
Building this infrastructure isn’t hard because the technology is expensive. It’s hard because it requires:
- Changing how production is organized
- Redesigning how inventory is managed
- Restructuring how quality data is captured
- Convincing upstream suppliers to implement compatible systems
- Training personnel across multiple departments
- Maintaining documentation discipline in real-time, not retroactively
This touches every function in a manufacturing operation and requires behavior change from people who’ve done their jobs effectively for decades without it.
The Tier 3 Black Hole: Where Supply Chain Visibility Dies
If there’s a single point where DPP readiness efforts collapse, it’s Tier 3—yarn production.
Most fabric mills don’t spin their own yarn. They source from specialized yarn spinners who achieve efficiency through scale and aggregation. Those spinners serve multiple mills, blend raw materials from various sources, and optimize production by combining compatible lots.
This creates an information asymmetry problem: The fabric mill needs batch-level traceability from raw material to yarn to fabric. The yarn spinner’s business model is built on aggregation that makes batch-level segregation expensive and operationally complex.
When a brand asks a fabric mill: “What’s the raw material origin for this fabric, with batch ID linked through yarn production?” they’re asking the mill to provide data the mill must get from the yarn spinner—who may not capture it, may not store it in accessible formats, and may not have commercial incentive to provide it for free.
Some yarn spinners will respond to customer requests for traceability data. Many charge premiums for segregated production runs. Some simply can’t provide it without restructuring their entire production system.
This isn’t a fabric mill problem. It’s an ecosystem architecture problem. And individual mills can’t solve ecosystem architecture problems alone.
The Certification Documentation Gap: When Truth Isn’t Enough
Here’s a scenario that plays out constantly: A fabric mill sources GOTS-certified organic cotton yarn from a certified spinner. The yarn is legitimately organic. The spinner is legitimately certified. But when the mill tries to sell the resulting fabric as GOTS-certified, they can’t—because they don’t have the transaction certificate proving which specific bales went into which yarn lots.
The problem isn’t fraud or negligence. It’s documentation infrastructure.
GOTS certification requires unbroken chain of custody documentation from certified farm to finished product. Each transaction needs a scope certificate proving certified material moved from certified entity to certified entity. These certificates must reference specific batch or lot numbers. They must be stored, organized, and accessible for audit.
Most mills have some of this documentation. They have it in:
- Email attachments from suppliers
- Paper certificates filed by order
- PDF folders organized by date
- Quality control binders stored in production offices
- Accounting systems that track invoices but not certificates
What they don’t have is centralized, digitized, batch-linked documentation that can be instantly retrieved and verified. When an auditor or brand asks: “Show me the transaction certificate for the organic cotton in batch FABRIC789,” the mill knows it exists somewhere—but locating it requires someone manually searching through files, matching dates to orders, cross-referencing with supplier records.
The sustainability claim is true. The documentation infrastructure to prove it doesn’t exist.
Why “Just Buy Traceability Software” Doesn’t Work
The market’s answer to DPP readiness has been: implement traceability software. Dozens of vendors offer platforms that promise to track materials from farm to finished product, digitize certificates, and generate DPP-compliant reports.
This sounds logical. It doesn’t work—or at least, it doesn’t work at scale for the suppliers who need it most.
Here’s why:
Software doesn’t create data that doesn’t exist.
If a yarn supplier doesn’t provide Tier 3 facility information and batch IDs, no amount of sophisticated software at the fabric mill level solves the problem. The software can only organize and link data that actually gets entered.
Software requires behavior change to function.
Traceability platforms work when every person in the production process—receiving raw materials, scheduling production runs, conducting quality checks, packaging finished goods, enters accurate data in real-time with proper batch references. This requires training, process redesign, and sustained operational discipline.
Software assumes upstream integration.
For batch linking to work, the fabric mill’s system needs to integrate with the yarn supplier’s system, which needs to integrate with the raw material producer’s system. In reality, these entities use incompatible systems (or no digital systems at all), making true data integration nearly impossible without massive coordination investment.
Software costs money suppliers don’t have budgeted. Enterprise traceability platforms charge per user, per facility, or per transaction. For a mid-size mill, implementation costs can run $50,000-$200,000+ before factoring in training, integration, and ongoing maintenance. That’s capital most suppliers haven’t allocated because, until recently, there was no commercial return on the investment.
The result: Mills buy software that sits partially implemented, data entry stays inconsistent, upstream suppliers don’t integrate, and the mill still can’t produce DPP-compliant documentation when brands request it.
This isn’t a software problem. It’s a coordination problem. And coordination problems at this scale require infrastructure, not individual technology purchases.
The Timeline Reality No One Talks About
Let’s be honest about how long DPP readiness actually takes, not in the consultant pitch deck, but in operational reality.
Phase 1: Basic Fabric Information (2-4 weeks)
- Consolidate fabric specifications from multiple systems
- Standardize naming conventions and SKUs
- Organize product imagery
- Create searchable digital catalog
This is achievable quickly if the mill has dedicated resources. For most, it happens in parallel with ongoing production, which means it takes longer than it should.
Phase 2: Traceability Foundation (2-4 months)
- Document Tier 2 facility information (already known)
- Collect Tier 3 facility information from yarn suppliers
- Organize certifications and compliance documentation
- Establish communication protocols with upstream partners
This is where supplier motivation hits operational friction. Yarn suppliers don’t respond to data requests immediately. Documentation is scattered. Someone needs to project-manage the collection and organization while production continues.
Phase 3: Batch-Level Tracking (6-12 months)
- Implement or upgrade digital systems for batch ID assignment
- Train personnel on real-time data entry protocols
- Establish batch linking processes across production stages
- Negotiate traceability requirements with yarn suppliers
- Test and validate data accuracy
This is where most suppliers stall. It requires capital investment, operational disruption, upstream cooperation, and sustained organizational commitment. There’s no shortcut.
Phase 4: Compliance Documentation Systems (3-6 months, parallel with Phase 3)
- Centralize and digitize existing certificates
- Implement documentation management systems
- Establish certificate request and storage protocols
- Create audit-ready filing structures
- Train purchasing and quality teams on requirements
This can happen in parallel with Phase 3 but requires dedicated resources and process discipline.
Phase 5: Visual Documentation (Ongoing)
- Capture production stage photography
- Organize imagery by batch or order
- Create storytelling assets for brands
This is the easiest phase, but only if the other phases are functional.
Total realistic timeline for full DPP readiness: 12-18 months for suppliers starting with minimal infrastructure.
The industry has been acting like this should take 3-6 months. It doesn’t. And pretending it does just sets suppliers up for failure and frustration.
The Infrastructure Imperative: Why This Requires Industry-Level Solutions
Here’s what the last-mile data problem reveals: Individual suppliers cannot solve ecosystem-level infrastructure deficits on their own.
A fabric mill can’t force its yarn suppliers to implement traceability systems. A yarn spinner can’t force cotton farmers to provide batch-level origin documentation. No single entity in the supply chain has the leverage, capital, or commercial incentive to build the coordination infrastructure required for DPP compliance at scale.
This is why World Collective’s approach to DPP readiness is fundamentally different from existing solutions.
We’re not selling software. We’re not offering consulting. We’re not even providing the certifications—those come from established third-party bodies like GOTS, GRS, and OEKO-TEX who have the expertise and authority to verify claims.
We’re building the infrastructure that makes supplier data accessible, searchable, and usable for brands who need verified, compliant partners.
Here’s what that actually means:
Centralized data infrastructure: Instead of every brand requesting the same information from suppliers through custom questionnaires and every mill responding with incompatible formats, we provide the platform where suppliers organize their five data tiers once—and brands can access it instantly.
Phased data collection pathways: We don’t expect suppliers to have full batch-level traceability on Day 1. We create clear phases (basic information → traceability foundation → batch linking → compliance documentation) with realistic timelines and support at each stage. Suppliers progress at their own pace, but the pathway is standardized.
Network-level coordination: When multiple mills in a region work toward DPP readiness simultaneously on our platform, they create collective pressure on shared yarn suppliers to provide Tier 3 data. Infrastructure investments compound across networks in ways individual efforts never can.
Verified transparency that carries commercial weight: When a supplier completes their DPP data profile on World Collective—with third-party certifications verified and documentation accessible—it becomes a meaningful signal to brands. It’s not about our badge or stamp; it’s about creating a single source of truth that reduces procurement risk and eliminates redundant verification.
Economic viability at scale: By providing the platform infrastructure and standardizing the data pathway, we enable suppliers to become DPP-ready without six-figure software implementations or consulting engagements. The platform makes data organization achievable; third-party certifiers verify the claims; brands get the confidence they need.
Why This Matters Beyond Compliance
The DPP data problem is revealing something more fundamental than regulatory requirements: The fashion industry’s supply chains are built on information asymmetry, and that architecture is collapsing.
For decades, procurement has functioned through intermediaries, aggregators, and information arbitrage. Brands didn’t need to know where yarn came from because mills handled that relationship. Mills didn’t need to know which cotton farm supplied their yarn because spinners managed that. Everyone operated within their tier with limited visibility up or down the chain.
DPP requirements don’t just ask for transparency—they require information architecture that eliminates the opacity that made traditional supply chains function.
This is why the resistance is so deep. We’re not asking suppliers to share data they have. We’re asking them to restructure how they operate, who they partner with, and what information they maintain—all while continuing to deliver on-time production at competitive prices.
The suppliers who solve this first don’t just achieve regulatory compliance. They build competitive moats. Because once you have:
- Batch-level traceability systems
- Integrated documentation management
- Upstream supplier coordination
- Real-time data capture processes
- Verified third-party certifications accessible in one place
You can respond to brand requests in hours instead of weeks. You can prove sustainability claims instantly. You can command premium pricing for verified compliance. You become the obvious choice for brands navigating an increasingly complex procurement landscape.
This is the last-mile problem: The final distance between traditional supply chain operations and DPP-ready infrastructure is the hardest to cross—and the most valuable to solve.
The Path Forward: Infrastructure, Not Individual Heroism
The fashion industry has a choice in how it approaches DPP readiness:
Option 1: Fragmented, individual efforts where each supplier independently tries to implement traceability systems, negotiate with upstream partners, organize documentation, pursue certifications through multiple third-party bodies, and hope they’re building what brands and regulators will actually require. Brands, meanwhile, send the same questionnaires to hundreds of suppliers and manually verify the same certifications over and over. This is expensive, slow, and likely to result in incompatible solutions that still don’t deliver interoperable data.
Option 2: Centralized infrastructure where the pathway to organizing DPP data is clear, the requirements are consistent, the implementation is phased and supported, suppliers maintain their certifications with established third-party bodies, and all of this information lives in one accessible place where brands can source with confidence.
World Collective is building Option 2. We’re the platform where DPP-ready data lives. Third-party certifiers verify the claims. Brands access verified suppliers. And the entire industry moves toward compliance without reinventing the wheel thousands of times over.
DPP readiness isn’t a supplier problem. It’s a data architecture problem. And it requires infrastructure-level solutions, not individual heroism.
The suppliers who recognize this—and the brands who source from our platform of verified, data-ready suppliers—won’t just survive the transition. They’ll define what comes after.
Ready to solve the data problem?
World Collective’s DPP readiness infrastructure provides the platform for suppliers to organize their data, connect with third-party certifiers, and become accessible to brands who need compliant partners.
-----
Jeanine Ballone founded World Collective to build the infrastructure for global materials commerce. She believes the future of fashion depends on solving coordination problems, not just technology problems.
