State of origin
Regulators, retail partners and customs authorities are converging on the same demand: prove it. Oritain's Rebecca Brocato, Crystal Lam and Lucinda Garside set out what evidence now sits behind a credible origin claim and where a brand should start building it. Here are the highlights from their joint webinar - you can watch the entire session here.
The question behind the claim
Fashion retailers have spent years strengthening the language around their products. Australian cotton. Responsibly sourced materials. Ethical production. No forced labour.
These statements now appear across swing tags, product pages, sustainability reports and supplier commitments. They help shape brand positioning and influence purchasing decisions. But as scrutiny intensifies, the commercial value of an origin claim increasingly depends on a more difficult question: what evidence can the business produce to support it?
“The question isn’t what will the law make me do. It’s if someone asked us tomorrow to back up what we’ve said, what would we put in front of them?” says Lucinda Garside, who works with Oritain’s brand and retail partners across Australia and New Zealand.
For boards and executive teams, this is no longer a narrow sustainability issue. It reaches into product integrity, procurement, legal exposure, customs readiness, brand reputation and the resilience of sourcing operations. The challenge is particularly acute for Australian and New Zealand retailers: many design and sell locally, but depend on complex international networks to turn raw materials into finished garments.
A product may pass through a farm, gin, spinner, yarn trader, fabric mill, dye house, cut-and-sew factory and consolidator before it reaches a distribution centre. Each transfer introduces another point at which materials can be blended, substituted or recorded inaccurately. Even where suppliers are acting in good faith, the further a retailer sits from the source, the harder it can be to establish whether the fibre in a finished garment is the fibre described in its documentation.
"The challenge is no longer simply documenting origin. It's about demonstrating that origin."
Rebecca Brocato
The regulatory framework
The regulatory environment is moving towards greater accountability for how businesses identify, manage and respond to risks in their supply chains.
Australia’s Modern Slavery Act already imposes reporting obligations on qualifying organisations, while reform proposals have signalled a stronger emphasis on prevention and action. The proposed criminal offence for failure to prevent modern slavery would apply to companies with annual consolidated revenue above $100 million, with a complete defence for businesses that can show adequate processes and controls.
New Zealand has also considered modern slavery legislation. Its Modern Slavery Bill carries a matching $100 million threshold and has been reported back from select committee with amendments. The detail and status of these frameworks differ, but the direction is towards more substantive scrutiny of corporate due diligence.
For brands operating across borders, domestic requirements are only one part of the picture. Products may be designed in Australia, made using materials sourced elsewhere, manufactured in Asia and sold into markets with their own import controls and due diligence expectations. The same product can therefore be subject to several overlapping commercial and regulatory regimes.
Rebecca Brocato, Oritain’s chief government affairs officer, says the different pressures are increasingly converging around a common expectation. “Forced labour legislation, corporate due diligence requirements, customs enforcement, tariff policy and scrutiny of origin claims are increasingly converging around the same fundamental expectation. Businesses need to understand their supply chains and be able to substantiate the claims they make about them.”
The United States provides a clear illustration of how origin information can move beyond sustainability reporting and become a trade issue. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, customs enforcement measures and wider tariff settings have raised the stakes for importers. Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974 have connected forced labour import controls with broader tariff policy across a large group of economies, including both Australia and New Zealand.
US Customs and Border Protection has published specific guidance on isotopic testing, describing it as a potential tool for establishing the geographic origin of materials, encouraging importers to build it in early rather than wait until goods reach the border. For a global brand selling into the US, origin information can affect forced-labour due diligence, customs preparedness and the credibility of sourcing claims.
“For a global brand importing into the United States, origin information therefore has consequences far beyond a sustainability statement,” Brocato says. “It can sit at the intersection of forced labour due diligence, customs readiness, tariffs and the credibility of sourcing and origin claims.”
The strategic implication is not that every retailer must become an expert in every jurisdiction. It is that compliance cannot be designed as a series of disconnected market-by-market responses. “You only have one supply chain, and building a different compliance response for every market is going to create a lot of complexity,” Brocato says.
A consistent global approach is more practical: understand where products and materials originate, identify the points of greatest exposure and build an evidence base that can support the business across markets. As Brocato puts it, “The challenge is no longer simply documenting origin. It’s about demonstrating that origin.”
The visibility gap sits upstream
Most retailers have a relatively clear view of their direct suppliers. They hold contracts, conduct factory audits, issue supplier codes of conduct and collect declarations. These controls remain important, but they do not necessarily reveal what is happening further upstream, where raw materials are sourced, blended and processed.
Crystal Lam, Oritain’s senior business development manager, describes this distance as a structural weakness in fashion supply chains. “Distance is where the risk hides.”
“Most of what’s sold in Australia and New Zealand stores is designed here, made in Asia and then shipped back,” Lam says. “Sometimes that’s through four to five handovers from farm, gin, spinners, mill, cut and sew and then to an agent or consolidator. And every one of those handovers is a place where material can be swapped, blended, or topped up.”
In a 2025 sampling programme covering around 40 brands, 90% returned at least one result consistent with a high risk origin. A year earlier that figure was 64%.
The risk does not necessarily arise from deliberate misconduct. A mill may be short of stock and blend available fibre to meet an order. A subcontractor may be brought in during a production peak. A yarn may contain cotton from several countries, while the finished product is still accompanied by paperwork that refers to the original declared source. The documents may accurately describe what a supplier believes it has purchased, without proving what is physically present in the garment.
“It is not because anyone is hiding anything necessarily, but because a document can only tell you what someone wrote down, it can’t tell you what’s actually in that field,” Lam says.
That distinction matters for retailers making premium origin claims. Australia is a major producer of high-quality cotton, and local brands have good reason to value its provenance. But much of that cotton is exported as raw fibre, processed offshore and potentially blended with other origins before returning as finished apparel.
“Is the Australian cotton that you are paying a premium for still Australian cotton when it comes home?” Lam asks. The question goes to the heart of product integrity: a retailer may have a robust relationship with its garment manufacturer, but still lack direct evidence about the fibre used several tiers earlier.
The same issue applies when sourcing strategies shift. Diversifying manufacturing across Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh or other hubs may improve resilience and reduce dependence on a single production market. But changing the location of manufacture does not, by itself, establish the origin of the raw material. “The rerouting and relocating suppliers changes where the goods are made. It doesn’t change the need to prove where the cotton comes from,” Lam says.
Nor should risk be treated as the exclusive property of a particular country. Brocato cautions that “risk is not geographically defined”. Trading hubs, re-exports, blending and complex supplier networks mean that screening by country alone can create false confidence. The more useful approach is to understand the specific product and its route through the supply chain.
"Distance is where the risk hides."
Crystal Lam
The traceability question
Digital traceability platforms and supplier documentation have an essential role. They can record transactions, identify suppliers, map tiers and show the declared movement of materials through a production network. They help businesses understand where a product is supposed to have travelled.
But a digital record is only as reliable as the information entered into it. If the underlying declaration is wrong, incomplete or repeated without independent checking, the system may faithfully preserve an inaccurate account. Traceability can show the chain of custody as it has been recorded; it cannot always establish whether the physical material matches that record.
That is why Brocato argues for connecting existing controls rather than replacing them. Supplier declarations, transaction records, audits, traceability information and customs data should be brought together with independent checks of critical claims. “Traceability helps us understand where a product is supposed to have travelled,” she says. “Forensic origin verification analyses the product itself and assesses whether it is consistent with its claimed geographic origin.”
The distinction is complementary, not either-or. A retailer needs systems that map the supply chain and evidence that tests whether important claims about the material are credible. One without the other leaves a gap: a physical test without a sound reference and documented sample history may be difficult to interpret, while a detailed digital map cannot independently validate the fibre itself.
Forensic origin verification
One approach to that evidence gap is forensic origin verification, the field in which Oritain operates. Founded in New Zealand in 2008, the company applies forensic science to commodities including cotton, leather and timber.
Its cotton methodology is based on a natural property of the fibre: as a cotton plant grows, it absorbs elements and isotopes from the surrounding soil, water and environment. The combination creates a chemical signature associated with the place where it was grown.
“As a plant grows, it takes up elements and isotopes from its environment,” Garside explains. “From the soil, from the water, from the climate, from their altitude, that leaves a chemical signature in the fibre that is characteristic of where it’s grown.”
The process compares a sample taken from a supply chain with reference data built from material collected at known growing locations. Samples can be taken at different stages, from raw fibre and yarn through to fabric and finished garments. Blends with a minimum 20% cotton content are also testable, covering combinations with polyester, nylon, elastane, acrylic, wool and rayon. The analysis runs through ISO 17025 accredited laboratories. The company says the origin fingerprint remains in the fibre through common textile treatments, including dyeing and bleaching, allowing cotton to be assessed after processing.
The result is an assessment of whether the material is consistent with its claimed geographic origin. It is not, by itself, proof of the labour conditions under which the cotton was grown or processed, nor does it replace supplier due diligence, audits or remediation. Its value is as an additional evidence layer: a way to test a physical product against an origin claim and prompt further investigation where the evidence does not align.
For brands using Australian cotton claims, the quality of the reference data is central. Oritain says it has been building an Australian cotton reference database since 2017, using primary samples collected at source. As with any scientific method, the strength of the conclusion depends on the quality of the reference material, the sampling approach and the chain of custody. The broader lesson for retailers is that verification should be assessed on the rigour of its methodology and how it fits with the rest of the business’s controls.
“As a plant grows, it takes up elements and isotopes from its environment."
Lucinda Garside
A path to stronger assurance
The scale of global fashion supply chains can make comprehensive verification seem daunting. Lam argues against trying to test everything at once.
“You don’t need to verify everything everywhere all at once, and in fact, I would discourage it.” Instead, retailers can build a programme progressively, directing attention towards products, suppliers and materials where risk and commercial exposure are greatest.
A practical starting point is finished goods. Testing selected products from a distribution centre or store can establish a baseline and compare the physical material with the claims made by suppliers. It can also help prioritise where to look next, particularly for ranges carrying prominent origin claims or products exposed to heightened scrutiny.
The next stage is to move upstream to fabric and yarn mills. Once a retailer has a clearer picture of where questions are arising, it can focus sampling on mills, subcontracting arrangements or production lines with greater exposure. The objective is to identify where in the chain a discrepancy may have entered the product.
A third stage reaches the raw material itself: the gin, farm group or other source. Establishing a reliable origin reference at this level can strengthen checks further downstream and support ongoing monitoring as suppliers, seasons and sourcing routes change.
Lam describes this as a staged progression rather than a one-off compliance project. An initial year can focus on baseline testing in higher-priority areas and checking finished goods. A second phase can broaden coverage across suppliers, products and geographies, while introducing checks earlier in production. Over time, verification can become part of procurement and supplier management rather than a separate exercise undertaken only when a problem emerges.
The most effective programme will depend on the retailer’s own sourcing footprint, product mix, claims and risk appetite. A brand with a concentrated cotton range and a small supplier base will have different priorities from a large retailer sourcing across multiple categories and countries. What matters is being able to explain why particular products or suppliers have been prioritised, what the business has tested, what it has learned and how it has responded.
Evidence to executive onus
For the C-suite, the case for stronger origin assurance is not limited to avoiding a regulatory breach. A claim that cannot be substantiated can undermine consumer trust, strain wholesale relationships and expose a brand to allegations of misleading conduct.
Maximum penalties under Australian Consumer Law for misleading conduct now run to $100 million for companies, three times the benefit gained or 30% of adjusted turnover, whichever is greater. The increase took effect on 28 March 2026. A shipment held at a border can disrupt a season, tie up working capital and put margin at risk. The consequences can spread across legal, sustainability, sourcing, merchandising and communications teams.
Only 3% of consumers rate marketing claims as the most credible way to verify a product, reinforcing the case for evidence a retailer can stand behind.
The response therefore needs executive ownership. Legal and compliance teams can interpret obligations and claims risk; sourcing and procurement can map suppliers and build requirements into contracts; product teams can identify the ranges where origin is central to value; and sustainability teams can connect the evidence to reporting and remediation. Boards should be able to see not only the policies in place, but how the business knows those policies are working.
Importantly, an unexpected result should be treated as a signal to investigate, not an automatic verdict on a supplier or a country. The next steps may include checking sample integrity, reviewing transaction records, asking suppliers for clarification, tracing the relevant production stage and taking corrective action where necessary. The objective is to identify and address a problem before it becomes a public or operational crisis.
Brocato’s advice is to build the capability before it is urgently needed: “Build a supply chain strategy capable of standing up to global expectations. Understand your products from their point of origin. Connect traceability with independent evidence and build verification into your programme before you need it.”
For fashion retailers, the standard is shifting from having a policy to being able to demonstrate how it works in practice. Origin claims are no longer simply a story told on a swing tag. They are commitments that may be tested by customers, commercial partners, regulators and investors. The businesses best placed to meet that scrutiny will be those that can move beyond what their supply chain says is happening and establish what the product itself can prove.
Built with Shorthand