Making sure fashion, textiles and footwear can be traced back to their raw material origins has become increasingly essential under anti-greenwashing regulations and consumer pressures. After all, just showing where a product has been doesn’t prove where it, or its raw materials, originated.
Sourcing Journal spoke to Ana Hinojosa, executive director of government and regulatory affairs at Oritain, a leader in forensic origin verification, as well as Ben Tomkins, regional vice president Americas at Oritain, to share their views on the 7 rising risks driving demand for forensic origin verification.
“Physical, objective, scientific proof is crucial to ensuring materials are from where they say they are,” said Hinojosa, who has served more than 30 years as a regulator at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Related Stories
Here, why origin verification is no longer optional for modern supply chains, according to Hinojosa and Tomkins:
Regulations
The UFLPA was a pivotal moment in shifting the need for traceability from a nice to have to a business necessity, but it’s not just heating up in the United States. Canada now requires reporting on forced labor risks, Mexico has added new customs rules, and Australia, the UK and many within the EU mandate supply chain due diligence focused on origin and labor practices. New and impending regulations where proof of origin can give companies a compliance edge include the EU Digital Product Passport (DPP), the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the UK’s Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC), to name a few.
Some existing laws are also being repurposed. “Laws such as the False Claims Act have been in effect in the U.S. since 1863,” Hinojosa noted. “Geopolitical realities have driven government agencies to more proactively seek enforcement, and with greater incentives to cheat. Whether it is concerns of forced labor, evasion of anti-dumping or countervailing duties, or other illegal movements to hide the true origin of a raw material or finished product, the expectation of transparency and traceability in supply chains has only increased.”
“Given the pace with which these regulations have been enforced, there are a multitude of commodities than can be susceptible to closer scrutiny—minerals, timber, cotton, leather and so on—leaving most industries exposed in closing that traceability gap,” added Tomkins.
Ethical & Forced Labor Concerns
There’s been a push globally to increase monitoring and pressure on importers of foreign goods to comply with human rights protections, even for overseas manufacturing operations. It is no longer sufficient due diligence or reasonable care to submit a piece of paper saying “no forced labor” signed by suppliers. That’s where origin verification can play a critical role in determining where a fiber or material has originated. Take cotton as an example. Where this material was harvested is a pre-requisite to ensuring it has not come from a country or region that may be subject to using forced labor in the picking of this cotton.
Detentions
CBP detains shipments that cannot prove they were not made with materials from banned regions under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), putting the burden of proof on the importer. Recently, CBP and UFLPA stepped up enforcement efforts, yielding a 25 percent overall increase in the number of shipments detained between 2023 and 2024. The Apparel, Footwear and Textile category fared even worse, with a 33.4 percent detention increase over this period, according to CBP.
“The primary drivers behind the increase in detentions is information the government receives or develops about non-compliant importations,” said Hinojosa “Companies who have an ongoing risk mitigation program through origin verification avoid supplier misconduct and guarantee the government is aware that they are exercising reasonable care in ensuring compliance for any of their imported goods.”
CBP has also elevated its own capability to verify origin of goods, boosting investments and setting up isotopic testing labs across Georgia, California and New Jersey. “There is no stronger signal in our eyes than what importers should be following to exercise reasonable care and embed a comprehensive and robust due diligence approach,” said Tomkins. “CBP’s guidance highlights best practices for Importers of Record across entity screening and supply chain mapping, and recommends forensic/isotopic verification.”
Fraudulent and Inaccurate Documentation
Fraudulent claims, whether intentional or accidental via inaccurate documentation, are viewed equally by regulating bodies. While governments review certificates of origin issued by competent 3rd party or self-certifications from the importers themselves, they no longer have faith that declarations are sufficiently valid, as such paper documentation or supplier declarations can be misrepresented, misused or adulterated. Companies must know their supply chains and have methods to confirm the accuracy of the information provided by suppliers. Digital technology and dashboards provide visibility for companies, but they do not provide proof.
“This is where forensic science can fill the gap,” said Hinojosa. “Forensic science can provide objective evidence of origin of the raw materials and significantly reinforce any declarations submitted by the importer.” Maintaining a “trust but verify” practice can serve as a very powerful deterrent to vendor/supplier misrepresentation.
Less Robust Methods
Most companies want to do the right thing, whether it’s sustainability or human rights protection, and they will make changes to their procurement protocols to ensure compliance with the many regulations affecting their imported products. But less robust methods can be detrimental.
“Sometimes the manufacturer/supplier doesn’t understand the consequences of substituting less expensive raw material in pursuit of higher margins,” said Hinojosa. “But what looks cheaper upstream can render the finished goods non-compliant at the border.” Tomkins added that independent verification capabilities allow companies to ensure that they are getting the materials and goods they ordered, and that they can objectively demonstrate compliance.”
Tariffs
Tariffs are set to have a tectonic shift on global sourcing. The industry is already seeing certain countries become huge benefactors of brands shifting production from one country to another. Surges in demand can also lead to factories taking orders they might not have the capacity to fulfill, possibly leading to sub-contracting, onboarding new and unvetted suppliers, or sourcing in the open market—all of which open up huge risks.
Whereas other manufacturing countries looking to remain competitive amid huge tariff spikes may look to cut costs in other ways, recent tariff spikes also create new pressure for misdeclaration and rerouting, making objective verification more critical. Shifting manufacturing locations due to new trade agreements or tariff engineering, as well as fraudulent practices to take advantage of favorable tariffs, will require advanced technological solutions.
Transshipments also necessitate the need for origin verification. Importing goods into America used to follow standard country-of-origin rules, but that might be upended amid tariff-driven transshipments. U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently suggested that goods with more than 30 percent content from a third country (such as China), could be considered transshipped and assessed a 40 percent tariff, even if significant processing occurred elsewhere. The Administration has yet to clarify how CBP would enforce such a standard or whether formal rulemaking would follow, noted law firm ArentFox Schiff.
Consumer Pressure
Consumers are increasingly concerned about the practices of the brands they buy from, and regulators are watching closely for signs of greenwashing. Sustainability claims such as “regenerative” or “organic” relate to the location in which that fiber or material is being produced. If a company is unable to prove where that material comes from, all other claims risk being invalidated.
“If sustainability metrics such as water usage, carbon sequestration or other data-linked to impact are measured and contribute to a company’s 202X targets, this is a giant house of cards that can leave brands significantly exposed,” said Tomkins. “Oritain wants to help our partners have comfort in the claims they’re making and the data that is being validated so they can continue to demonstrate to their consumers the steps they’re taking to reduce their overall impact.”
To learn more about Oritain’s forensic origin verification, click here.
