I just finished my lunch which I ate off a white ceramic plate. The small text on the bottom says ‘IKEA’ and ‘Made in Portugal’. I’m sure this plate has crossed countries, moved through countless hands, and is made of materials that came from forests I'll never see. But other than the Swedish brand name, and that it was made somewhere in Portugal, I know precisely nothing about it.

This isn't unusual. It's not even really a problem for me. But it seems strange. At EA I worked on building a data platform for ‘end-of-life waste data’ - what happens to packaging waste once you’re through with it - where does it end up? 

This is difficult information to find because products post-consumer are hard to track. We made best guesses based on country waste management systems, international and local trade flows, and research by Universities and governments, but it’s never going to be 100% accurate. 

I always assumed that the other side of the consumer would be easier - where the product actually comes from. That the brands who sell this stuff must know where the raw materials are found, what happens to it, and where it goes.  

Now I’m not so sure. And that might be a problem.

I’m wearing Uniqlo trousers, I wrote the idea for this post in my Traveller's Notebook that’s now open next to my Apple laptop, and I have a t-shirt that’s merchandise from Critical Role. 

For each item I can name the brand and the retailer, and if I look at it long enough I can probably find the label telling me the country of manufacture. But nothing about material sources or the supply chain.

As a consumer should I care where my products come from? Maybe. I’d say that depends on your means and your opinions, so let’s not get into that. 

But as a brand, a reseller, a marketplace, or a business that operates within supply chains - yes, you should. Not only is sustainability increasingly affecting consumers' buying behaviour but there’s plenty of legislation incoming that’ll mean you have to pay attention. 

Plus, I would say, if you’re selling products, you have a responsibility to make sure you’re not selling bullshit. But maybe that’s just me. Anyway.   

My search for origins

There’s an alternative universe out there where I became an investigative journalist. I love a good sting. So I’m going to put that hat on for a section or two and try to trace the products I mentioned earlier: my IKEA plates, my Uniqlo clothing, and my Traveller's Notebook. Maybe my initial hypothesis is wrong, maybe supply chains aren’t invisible. 

(Spoiler: I wouldn’t have published this if that was the case.)

IKEA: Progress through pressure

The first thing I found reading into IKEA, the Swedish furniture giant, was that it has faced significant scrutiny over wood sourcing practices, with three separate investigative reports raising concerns about the company's supply chains in Romanian forests. This pressure did drive action.

In January 2023, IKEA moved toward greater transparency with an industry-first global wood supply map that shares the origins of the wood in IKEA products. The company now discloses that the five countries that supply the majority of products and services to IKEA are China, Poland, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Nice. 

Yet even with this enhanced transparency, finding specific information about my ceramic plates was hard. IKEA's wood sourcing map doesn't cover ceramics, and the company's general supplier information lists more than 1200 furniture suppliers around the world, as well as 100 food product suppliers, and 275 transport service providers without product-specific breakdowns.

I think it’s a safe bet to say the data does exist -IKEA has a global team of approximately 40 wood supply and forestry specialists and comprehensive due diligence systems. I’m sure they have something similar for ceramics. But they’re not exposing it. 

Perhaps translating this into consumer-accessible information is hard? Or perhaps the data shows something they don’t want us to know? Hmmm. 

Uniqlo: Selective disclosure

Uniqlo offers a different transparency model. The Japanese retailer disclosed all of its major suppliers for the first time in 2019, and outsources the production of most products to partner factories in mainland China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India.

In August 2023, UNIQLO and GU online stores in some countries created a new item on individual product pages, titled "Impact on the planet and society." Currently, this displays information on where each product was produced.

This is good. They have the data and they’re listing it. However, the Fashion Transparency Index rates Uniqlo at 41-50% in the Fashion Transparency Index - a solidly middling result among major fashion brands.

The company's approach reveals both the possibilities and limitations of current transparency efforts. While I can now discover that my Uniqlo t-shirt was produced in Vietnam, Bangladesh, or China, finding details about the specific factory, working conditions, or material sourcing requires more detective work than I’m prepared to do. 

The below is the best I could find for my trousers. No links, no further reading, just, ‘Hey here’s some stuff, we’re trying to do more maybe, isn’t this a nice picture of a factory though?’

Traveller's notebook: Premium opacity

My Traveller's Notebook, manufactured by Traveler's Company (formerly Midori), offers a different model of disclosure. Rather than hiding origins, the company provides more specific geographic details: leather covers made by hand in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, while the notebook inserts use their original MD Paper, “manufactured in Japan”.

This is targeted transparency - the company discloses key manufacturing locations and emphasises material specificity “MD Paper designed for writing comfort, hand-cut leather, tin clasps”. But what about deeper supply chain elements: which Thai leather suppliers? What Japanese paper mills? Where do the raw materials originate?

Premium brands like Traveler's Company demonstrate how craftsmanship storytelling can provide meaningful transparency without any actual supply chain mapping. The Chiang Mai/Japan split offers some geographic specificity, while the emphasis on hand production and material heritage satisfies consumer curiosity.

This approach works for premium segments where consumers value craft narrative alongside or above transparency, but just wouldn't satisfy the systematic supply chain disclosure demands facing fast fashion brands.

Why supply chains are invisible

Okay so at least those three examples do have hidden supply chains. And although it is an assumption, I think it's a fair one, that I’d run into the same issues for most other brands. Why is this?

On the face of it I think it’s because supply chains are way more complex than most consumers realise. Likely deeper than I realise too in fact. Modern manufacturing involves global networks where a single product might source materials, manufacturing, and transport from dozens of countries before reaching your doorstep or your favourite shop.

And until recent history, why would brands bother exposing this data (more on this later?) I can think of four main reasons why supply chains are invisible:

Historical business models - Western fashion brands, often in collaboration with mainstream fashion brands, have maintained a distance between consumers and the individuals involved in the manufacturing process on purpose. This strategy, aimed at preserving the "fantasy" of fashion, has inadvertently created a lack of trust and accountability.

Information architecture limitations - Supply chain data often exists in isolated systems across different companies, countries, and regulatory frameworks. Connecting these data points requires significant investment in new technologies and partnerships. 

Commercial sensitivity concerns. Many companies view supply chain information as commercially sensitive, fearing that transparency might expose competitive advantages or reveal cost structures.

Branding - Countries offering the cheapest labour and materials don't align with the image most brands want to present. When House of Henmar analysed over 300 luxury brands, they found that even high-end labels like Louis Vuitton, Patagonia, and organic brands manufacture in China, yet most consumers are prejudiced against Made in China products.

Consumer conscience 

But things are changing. And while indeed like I said before I don’t want to talk about whether consumers should or should not care, a lot of them do. 

According to a 2023 Specright survey, 69% of consumers don't believe companies are accurately reporting on their sustainability goals, and 40% are not comfortable purchasing products from companies that are not actively working on sustainability goals. Yet the same research shows 71% of consumers planned to do more sustainable purchasing in 2024.

The fashion industry is the biggest perpetrator. A survey in 2021 by Avery Dennison found that 60% of fashion consumers want more transparency about the production journey of their clothes “so they can make ethical purchasing decisions”. 

Yet, the Fashion Transparency Index 2023 (latest) reveals that 250 of the world's largest fashion brands achieved an average score of 26% for transparency.

Combining these sources we get something even more telling. The 2021 Avery Dennison survey found that more than 40% of consumers in the U.S., more than 50% in Europe, and almost 70% of consumers in China want access to more information about how their clothes are made. Yet the Fashion Transparency Index 2023 shows that only 52% of major brands disclose their first-tier supplier lists. 

I.e. If you're lucky, the brand you buy your clothes from lets you know which country the factory that assembled/manufactured your clothes is in. And the deeper down the tiers you go the less information you’ll find. 

Why brands, resellers, and companies in the supply chains should care

But if consumers have a conscience, shouldn’t the people selling to said consumers care? As I said before, yes, I think so. The lack of traceability is increasingly a business risk. 

Fast fashion regulation is accelerating. France introduced its anti-waste law requiring fashion brands to inform consumers about the environmental impact of their products. 

The EU is developing textile regulations that will mandate detailed supply chain disclosure (the vision is for 2030 but hmm we’ll see). While California's SB 261 requires large companies to disclose Scope 3 emissions - which for fashion brands means tracking emissions throughout their entire supply chain. 

Companies that can't demonstrate supply chain knowledge will face significant financial risks and potentially lose market access.

Meanwhile, as alluded to before consumer behaviour continues shifting toward transparency. Research shows that companies with strong transparency initiatives saw an average 15% increase in market share between 2020-2023. Everlane's "Radical Transparency" initiative resulted in 40% year-over-year growth and 90% customer retention rate, whilst 58% of consumers report willingness to spend more money on products they consider sustainable or environmentally friendly.

Then there’s the issue of risk management. The 2021 Suez Canal blockage highlighted how little many companies actually know about their extended supply networks. You can't manage risks you can't see. 

Supply chain cybersecurity risk has escalated to a board-level concern as well, with the World Economic Forum's 2025 Global Cybersecurity Outlook reporting that large organizations face a 25% probability of experiencing a cyberattack with an average remediation cost of $4.9 million. 

The scale of the problem is expanding - Verizon's 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report shows that cyber incidents involving software vulnerabilities increased by 180% in 2023, with 15% of these breaches involving third-party suppliers. Yet only 27% of supply chains are regularly monitored and evaluated by their customers, creating vast blind spots in corporate risk management.

Finally, the EU's Digital Product Passport initiative, launching in phases from 2026, will require detailed digital documentation for products sold in European markets. Initially focusing on textiles, electronics, and batteries, these passports will mandate comprehensive supply chain data including material composition, manufacturing locations, and sustainability metrics. 

This isn't optional stuff - it's a regulatory requirement with significant market implications.

For supply chain companies specifically, this represents massive opportunity. The businesses that have their data, can access what’s upstream of them, and can provide it will simply be in a better position to capture market value. Transparency is rapidly becoming a necessity rather than nice-to-have, if you are transparent you tick a box heaps of folks currently don’t. 

Transparency is imperative

(Yea no one is surprised this is the conclusion heading here I know)

The vast majority of consumers have little meaningful knowledge about where their products come from, despite growing interest in transparency and sustainability, and I think it’s because brands and suppliers don’t yet see the problem. 

This isn't necessarily a crisis of consumer awareness. It's a failure of information architecture.

The data exists within company systems, regulatory frameworks, and certification bodies - it must. The consumer interest exists, with 58% of consumers willing to spend more money on products that are deemed sustainable or environmentally friendly. And the technology exists to connect these two realities as well.

What's missing is the systematic effort to bridge the gap between corporate transparency and consumer information needs.

The businesses that solve the practical challenges of supply chain transparency - making data accessible, interpretable, and actionable for consumers - will likely capture significant value in a market where supply chain is now a vital touchpoint in customer engagement.

The question isn't whether supply chain transparency will become standard, it’s which companies will be first and capture the advantages that come with genuine transparency. And I think once the work is done to make it happen, there will be advantages beyond ‘compliance’. 

For now though I’ll stick my IKEA plate in the dishwasher still knowing nothing about its true origins. But the data exists, the demand exists, and the technology exists. The only question is which companies will be first to connect them - and capture my all important patronage that transparency will bring.