A new survey of UK clothing manufacturers has heightened calls for regulatory oversight in the fashion sector, amid widespread reports of unfair purchasing practices by brands. Researchers warn that reforms must balance protecting suppliers with avoiding burdens that could deter orders.
The study, conducted by the University of Nottingham, the University of Leicester, and trade justice charity Transform Trade, found that unfair practices are pervasive across the UK apparel and textiles industry.
Key findings from the survey include:
- 31% of manufacturers reported cancelled orders
- 78% said brands did not cover costs for last-minute changes
- 75% reported prices not adjusted for minimum wage increases
- 67% had order volumes reduced after quoting
- 44% experienced payment extension requests; 10% had payments delayed by more than three months
- 31% faced late penalties caused by brand changes
- 29% reported post-contract discount demands
The impact on workers was stark: 73% experienced overtime spikes, 58% faced reduced hours, and 29% reported layoffs.
“Our research shows that current brand purchasing practices directly impact workers, resulting in precarious and insecure work across UK factories,” said Dr Sabina Lawreniuk, who led the evaluation. “Voluntary codes have proven insufficient. If we are serious about protecting workers and supporting a sustainable UK fashion industry, we need a Garment Trading Adjudicator to enforce fair practices across the sector.”
Manufacturers expressed little confidence in existing dispute systems, citing cost barriers and limited legal recourse. Only 22% considered the legal system viable, 21% saw court action as effective, and none trusted government or multistakeholder initiatives.
“We haven’t got the money to challenge disputes, and any legal comeback is way beyond our means,” noted survey respondents, underscoring the financial pressure on suppliers.
Professor Nikolaus Hammer emphasized the need to rebalance power between brands and UK manufacturers to support sustainable investment and employment. Researchers recommend establishing a Garment Trading Adjudicator, akin to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, to oversee industry practices.
Hilary Marsh, garment policy advisor at Transform Trade, added: “This report is just another piece of evidence of these practices that rule the industry. A Fashion Watchdog would enforce fair business practices for the sector.”
Industry voices broadly support oversight but caution careful implementation. Suzanne Ellingham, director of Source Fashion, highlighted the power imbalance favoring buyers, where 90-day payment terms and delayed payments leave factories financially exposed.
“While not all buyers are unscrupulous, enough are causing challenges to an already distressed manufacturing industry,” Ellingham said, stressing that fair pricing and prompt payment are critical.
Jenny Holloway, CEO of Fashion-Enter Ltd and chair of the Apparel and Textiles Manufacturers Federation (ATMF), echoed support for an adjudicator, pointing to supplier insolvency cases as evidence of vulnerability.
“We only have to look at the recent treatment of factories by Quiz Clothing’s administration,” Holloway said. “One factory was offered just 15p in the £, with £900k in unpaid invoices. This coercion of the supply chain has to stop.”
Holloway cautioned that policy design must balance enforcement with commercial realities to avoid overburdening factories. She urged the Labour Government to support public procurement contracts made in the UK, creating jobs, apprenticeships, and social value.
“Factories proved their worth during the Covid crisis by producing PPE for the NHS. It’s time to replicate that success and be proud to make public procurement contracts in the UK,” Holloway concluded.