We convened consumer goods professionals in sustainability, sourcing, and policy to unpack how the changing trade landscape is reshaping supply chains, and what it means for resilience, sustainability and preparedness.
Last week we sat down with a group of 30 sustainability, sourcing, and public affairs leaders from across the consumer goods industry to work through a question that is getting harder to answer: how do you keep supply chains both resilient and responsible when the ground underneath them keeps shifting?
We’re grateful to everyone who joined and spoke candidly. Conversations like this only work when people are willing to say what they’re actually grappling with, and this one delivered.
The starting point was our recent report on the new trade landscape. Trade fragmentation, geopolitical tension, and a fast-thickening layer of sustainability regulation are reshaping how consumer goods move around the world. Companies are responding the way you’d expect — diversifying and regionalizing where they source — but that response carries its own cost. Every new supplier, every new region, adds complexity, and complexity tends to erode the one thing everyone in the room said they need more of: visibility.
That was the first thread worth pulling on. Resilience and sustainability are often treated as separate agendas, one about protecting the business and the other about protecting people and the planet. The discussion made clear how false that separation has become. Both depend on the same foundations — visibility into where things are made, trusted data you can actually act on, traceability deep into the supply chain, durable supplier relationships, and coordination inside your own organization. Get those right and you’re better placed on both fronts at once. Get them wrong and you’re exposed on both fronts — to disruption and to sustainability risk.
Regulation is what fuses the two together. Due diligence requirements, forced labor import controls, and product-level rules increasingly tie sustainability performance directly to market access. A supplier’s capacity and stability are no longer a values question anymore. They help determine whether goods clear customs. That shift changes the internal conversation, and several participants described how they’re using it to protect sustainability budgets when trade costs are climbing. The framing that lands with leadership isn’t sustainability as a standalone program. It’s sustainability as risk management and business continuity — the cost of inaction modeled out to the end of the decade, the disruption avoided, the energy and commodity exposure reduced. Framed that way, it competes for resources on the same terms as everything else.
The hardest part of the discussion was about trust, and it’s where the consumer goods industry still has the considerable work to do. Many facilities who adopt unified frameworks like the Higg Index see thousands in annual cost-savings. And the manufacturers who don’t are carrying an extraordinary audit load. Suppliers can face well over two hundred audit days a year with significant duplication across customers and requirements. Participants pointed to a broader challenge: brands frequently request data without sufficient clarity on how it will be used or without closing the loop with suppliers. The result is fatigue at exactly the point in the chain where we most need capacity for genuine improvement. When a supplier spends its year being audited rather than improving, everyone loses. There was a clear appetite in the room to find and eliminate the redundant asks, and that felt like one of the more actionable outcomes of the day.
Preparedness came up repeatedly, and not only on the industry side. Many companies are still building the IT infrastructure and standardized data practices that the evolving regulatory requirements will demand, and sustainability teams often lack the data sophistication their trade compliance colleagues already have. At the same time, participants highlighted the importance of clear implementation guidance and greater recognition of credible frameworks and data systems that already exist within the industry. Better dialogue between policymakers and industry would help reduce duplication and drive more effective implementation.
This brought us to what may be the most important theme of the afternoon: acting alone isn’t enough. Individual companies lobbying in isolation won’t produce coherent, workable policy. Participants saw value in earlier engagement in the legislative cycle, coordinated representation at a senior level, and alignment with established international frameworks such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations guidelines. The appetite for a more unified industry voice — one that can advocate for greater coherence across jurisdictions and help avoid a patchwork of conflicting or duplicative requirements — was one of the clearest signals we took away.
None of this is Cascale’s to solve alone, and that’s rather the point. Our role is to convene the pre-competitive space where this kind of honest exchange can happen, to steward the shared frameworks that enable more consistent and comparable data, and to help members turn common ambition into measurable progress on the priorities that matter most: climate and decent work. We came away from the roundtable with sharper questions and a shared sense of direction, including work on how to bring business value and sustainability impact into closer alignment rather than treating them as neighboring but separate concerns.
To everyone who gave their time and their honesty, thank you. The new trade landscape isn’t going to get simpler. But the conversation last week left us more confident that the industry can meet it — resilient and responsible, together.
Cascale, Policy Hub, and SLCP’s recent policy briefing call offered clarity on incoming EU sustainability policy.
Based in Brussels, I have seen firsthand how European policy discussions move from technical debates to practical considerations for global companies, supply chains, and the people working across them, often well beyond Europe’s borders.
Today, EU sustainability policy continues to evolve across reporting, product requirements, circularity, human rights, and supply chain due diligence. One thing is certain: it’s a complex planning environment for consumer goods companies. Different policy files may move through different timelines, but many point toward a shared expectation: companies need stronger systems, better data, and clearer internal coordination to understand and respond to sustainability risks and impacts.
This was the focus of Cascale’s July EU Policy Briefing for Cascale Members, where we convened Corporate and Affiliate Members with experts from Cascale, the Social & Labor Convergence Program (SLCP), and Policy Hub to discuss what companies should be watching and preparing for next.
The EU policy agenda continues to shape expectations across many parts of business. Reporting developments, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), the Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard for non-listed SMEs (VSMEs), and the Omnibus I package, are influencing how companies understand and communicate sustainability performance. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and related product sustainability developments, such as the Digital Product Passport (DPP), point toward more structured product-level sustainability information. Human rights and due diligence developments, including the EU Forced Labor Regulation and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), reinforce the need for credible supply chain visibility and risk management. Circularity and consumer information measures, including the Circular Economy Act, Waste Framework Directive, national EPR developments, and the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, are shaping expectations around product responsibility and claims.
Taken together, these developments show that sustainability policy is increasingly connected to how companies collect data, design products, engage suppliers, assess risk, and communicate progress.
For many companies, this means the internal response cannot sit with one team alone, as I noted in my previous blog piece. Reporting requirements may involve sustainability, finance, legal, and data teams. Product sustainability policy may require input from design, sourcing, product development, and technical teams. Due diligence and forced labor expectations may require closer coordination across human rights, compliance, sourcing, and supplier engagement functions. Circularity and consumer information requirements may also involve marketing, public affairs, and legal teams.
The companies best positioned to respond will be those that can translate policy developments into coordinated internal action.
EU policy discussions are dynamic. Some requirements may be revised, clarified, delayed, or implemented in phases. That uncertainty can make planning difficult, especially for companies operating across multiple markets and complex value chains.
Still, waiting for every detail to be finalized can create its own risks. Many of the capabilities that support policy readiness are useful across multiple regulatory pathways. Reliable data, clear governance, value chain visibility, and supplier engagement will remain important even as specific timelines or technical requirements shift.
Readiness does not require companies to predict every final outcome. It requires building systems that can adapt as expectations become clearer.
For consumer goods companies, that preparation is especially important because EU policy developments can influence global supply chains, including manufacturers and suppliers outside Europe. New reporting, product, due diligence, and circularity expectations may lead to new information requests, stronger documentation needs, and closer engagement between brands, retailers, manufacturers, and other value chain partners.
A credible approach to readiness should account for those practical realities. Companies need to understand what information they may need, where that information will come from, how it will be used, and how to engage suppliers in ways that support better outcomes rather than simply shifting administrative burdens down the value chain.
A crowded policy landscape can be difficult to navigate alone. Companies need timely information, but information alone is rarely enough. They also need opportunities to understand what developments may mean in practice, where uncertainty remains, and how peers and partners are thinking about similar challenges.
That is where our member engagement plays an important role.
For Cascale Corporate and Affiliate members, policy briefings provide access to expert interpretation, practical discussion, and direct Q&A with policy and subject-matter experts. They also create space to connect policy developments to the realities of operating across global value chains — from data and tools to supplier engagement, internal planning, and collective action.
This kind of engagement supports Cascale’s broader work across climate and decent work. As policy expectations evolve, Corporate and Affiliate members need to understand how emerging requirements connect to the systems and partnerships that support credible sustainability action.
Feedback from the recent webinar highlighted the value of helping Corporate and Affiliate members connect developments across different policy files and understand practical implications for their business operations.
As the EU policy landscape will continue to evolve, Cascale will continue supporting Corporate and Affiliate members through timely policy updates, expert engagement, and spaces for collective discussion — helping companies navigate uncertainty with greater clarity and confidence. By attending briefing calls, Cascale Corporate and Affiliate members help identify what to watch, where to focus attention, and how to prepare more effectively.
Cascale Corporate and Affiliate Members: Watch the recording of the EU Policy Briefing and continue the conversation in the Policy & Public Affairs Knowledge Hub on Cascale Connect.
Interested in Cascale membership? Learn how Cascale helps Corporate and Affiliate members stay ahead of regulatory developments through policy insights, practical guidance, stakeholder engagement, and coordinated advocacy that helps bring member perspectives into relevant policy discussions.
This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, compliance, or professional advice.
The EU’s new rules on environmental claims are approaching. Here’s what companies should do now to prepare.
Greenwashing faces a real opponent in the form of European legislators. With consumers increasingly looking for more sustainable products, the way companies communicate environmental performance has been top of the EU policy watchlist for some time.
Alongside relevant country-specific legislation, Cascale’s public affairs team has been following both the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT) and the Green Claims Directive quite closely. While the two are related, they serve different purposes. The ECGT restricts certain misleading or vague environmental claims made to consumers, while the Green Claims Directive was intended to introduce detailed rules on how environmental claims should be substantiated and verified.
Yet while this year ECGT moves to implementation, after the Commission announced its intention to withdraw the proposal, the Green Claims Directive is still stuck in Council. There is currently no clear timeline for whether, or in what form, it may move forward. Even so, companies can take several practical steps now to strengthen readiness.
Don’t delay action. Entering into force September 27, 2026, ECGT will introduce new restrictions on misleading environmental claims. Their immediate priority will be to map all existing environmental and climate claims that companies doing business in the EU have made to consumers.
Brands should convene colleagues across marketing, legal, and product teams to flag any high-risk wording, and vet all packaging, advertising, websites, labels, and product descriptions to ensure compliance with the new rules.
Broad, generic environmental claims without appropriate substantiation will become significantly more restricted under the ECGT. Companies should steer clear of vague claims like “climate neutral,” “carbon positive,” “zero impact,”or “environmentally friendly.” In line with other generalizations, a company cannot market an entire product as “made with recycled material” if only one aspect (such as packaging) contains recycled material. Where recycled-content claims are intended for consumer-facing communications, companies should obtain clear information from suppliers on the scope and percentage of recycled content.
Companies should also exercise caution when making comparative environmental claims. Comparing products based on environmental or social characteristics or circularity aspects such as durability, reparability, or recyclability is increasingly common, but could mislead consumers if comparisons are unclear, incomplete, or not properly substantiated.
Manufacturers should ensure they have appropriate technical evidence supporting recycled-content claims, durability testing, environmental performance claims, and warranty terms. Retailers, traders or resellers are generally responsible for passing on information received from producers, although they are not expected to actively verify or seek information that has not been provided.
Ultimately, the ECGT is not a product disclosure framework — it is a consumer protection and marketing law. Its objective is to ensure that consumers receive accurate and reliable information when making purchasing decisions.
The ECGT represents a sharp shift in how companies communicate environmental performance to consumers. While it introduces broad restrictions on misleading environmental claims, it leaves an important question unanswered: how those claims should be substantiated. That was the role envisaged for the proposed Green Claims Directive, though its future remains uncertain.
In light of this regulatory gap, standardized methodologies and credible sustainability data become increasingly valuable. Tools such as the Higg Index can support companies in strengthening the data, governance and measurement systems that increasingly underpin environmental claims. The adoption of the Apparel & Footwear PEFCR also demonstrates continued EU efforts to promote greater methodological consistency in measuring product environmental performance.
Regardless of the future of the Green Claims Directive, the direction is clear: companies should expect increasing scrutiny of environmental claims and continue strengthening the governance, data, and substantiation processes that support consumer-facing communications.
Cascale Corporate and Affiliate Members can continue exploring these developments during the EU Policy Briefing for Cascale Members on July 20. The member-only session will cover key EU policy updates across corporate sustainability reporting, product sustainability, human rights and due diligence, circularity, and consumer information — including how these developments may affect internal planning, data needs, supplier engagement, and value chain readiness.
Interested in accessing member briefings, expert insights, and opportunities to engage with peers across the consumer goods industry? Learn more about Cascale membership.
Disclaimer: This information is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.
Better labor outcomes require more than new legislation. Discover why implementation — not regulation alone — is key to lasting change across global supply chains.
When people talk about labor issues in global supply chains, the conversation almost always comes back to regulation.
New laws. New reporting requirements. New due diligence obligations. The assumption often seems to be that more regulation naturally leads to better outcomes for workers.
I’m not convinced it’s that simple.
That’s not because regulation doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. Good regulation establishes clear expectations, creates accountability, and helps level the playing field. It can raise standards across industries and send a strong signal that exploitative practices have no place in global trade.
But legislation is only the beginning. Real progress depends on what happens after a law is passed.
Too often, we celebrate the announcement of new legislation as though the problem has been solved. In reality, implementation is where the hard work begins.
Take for example, the European Commission’s recent publication of the implementation guidance for the EU Forced Labour Regulation. It includes the new single portal – a national portal system set up by EU member states to provide single entry points for EU funds managed by national and regional authorities.
This shows how governments are now moving from adopting legislation to operationalizing it.
Governments need the resources to enforce new rules. Businesses need clarity about what is expected of them. Suppliers need time, investment, and support to adapt. Workers need access to effective remedies when standards aren’t met. Without those pieces, even well-intentioned regulation risks becoming another compliance exercise rather than a catalyst for change.
There’s another question I think we should be asking more often: what behaviors are we trying to encourage?
Much of today’s regulatory discussion understandably focuses on penalties. Non-compliance needs consequences. But if we only design systems around punishment, we miss an equally important opportunity to reward progress. Companies investing in stronger due diligence, better purchasing practices, improved working conditions, and long-term supplier relationships should see that effort recognized. Countries strengthening their labor frameworks should have confidence that meaningful progress counts for something. The most effective policy environments don’t simply identify failure. They create incentives for continuous improvement.
That principle becomes even more important when supply chains span dozens of countries, each operating under different legal systems and regulatory expectations.
One of the greatest challenges facing businesses today isn’t the volume of regulation. It’s fragmentation. Different definitions. Different reporting requirements. Different evidence standards. Different enforcement mechanisms. Every additional layer adds complexity, particularly for suppliers already serving multiple global brands. Time that could be spent improving labor conditions is instead diverted toward demonstrating compliance with a growing number of overlapping requirements.
Greater alignment doesn’t mean lowering standards. Harmonized approaches can make higher standards easier to implement consistently and at scale.
Labor issues aren’t solved by regulation alone because they were never created by regulation alone. Commercial relationships matter, and so do purchasing practices, transparency, and trust. Collaboration between governments, industry, civil society, and workers isn’t optional; it’s how standards actually take hold. None of this replaces regulation, but regulation can’t replace it either.
Now let’s look at the steps forward. Within Cascale’s policy and public affairs team, we monitor and analyze the policy demands on industry while also playing an active role in shaping guidance. Across several recent policy pieces – such as forced labor regulation or Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) – regulators increasingly appear to be asking companies not just for documentation, but for credible evidence that due diligence is working. This is an important shift. And it’s one that validates that the industry is moving beyond compliance check-box exercises and towards meaningful outcomes.
For the industry, turning these legal frameworks into operational reality requires moving away from theoretical compliance checklists and focusing on practical execution. What does real implementation look like on the ground?
One example is standardized data integration. When a facility uses a single, verified assessment framework (like the Higg Index or SLCP) to capture working conditions, and that data is mutually accepted by multiple global brands and regulatory bodies. It redirects resources directly into workplace improvements.
Another example is capacity building. When new climate adaptation laws demand that factories mitigate heat stress to protect worker health, passing the law doesn’t lower the temperature on the factory level. Better implementation means brands, manufacturers and impact capitals are motivated to co-invest technical energy and engineering audits, installing energy-efficient cooling systems and driving practical factory-level action.
The most successful approaches combine clear legal expectations with practical implementation, meaningful incentives, and shared responsibility across the value chain. The real question isn’t whether regulation is good or bad — that’s yesterday’s debate. It’s what kind of regulatory environment actually changes behavior: one that encourages improvement, supports implementation, reduces unnecessary complexity, and creates the conditions for collaboration alongside accountability.
Because regulation isn’t the destination. It’s one of the tools that helps us get there.
It’s a defining moment for global due diligence and sustainability reporting, especially in the APAC. Cascale’s new report details the state of play.
The global apparel industry is entering a defining policy moment.
Governments are introducing new sustainability disclosure requirements, evolving labor standards, and climate-related regulations at a pace that reflects growing ambition. This momentum matters.
And it’s why Cascale recently released its “2026 Global Due Diligence and Sustainability Reporting Legislation” that examines 21 critical pieces of legislation across Europe, the United States, the broader Americas, and Asia-Pacific. This region-by-region picture of current and upcoming obligations also shows the relevance of the Higg Index suite of tools in helping companies meet today’s data demands.
With the right governance systems, performance measurement practices, and policy guidance, companies can be proactive in evolving business landscapes.
Based in Hong Kong, I am privileged to be close to the action. APAC sits squarely at the center of global apparel and footwear manufacturing, and the policies adopted across the region will determine whether the industry can meaningfully deliver on global climate and decent work goals.
But ambition alone is not enough. The current trajectory risks creating a fragmented compliance landscape that overwhelms manufacturers, sidelines small and medium-sized enterprises, and prioritizes paperwork over actual progress. As Europe and the United States continue to shape many of the global sustainability rules, APAC is increasingly the region responsible for implementing them at scale. If global systems cannot work together, supply chains will slow under the weight of duplication, complexity, and competing standards.
To bridge the gap, Cascale’s APAC Policy Member Expert Team (MET) successfully launched the APAC Policy Priorities Paper. We highlighted four core regional priorities of harmonization, interoperability, climate incentives, and overlooked decent work challenges, serving as the essential “policy bridge” that turns high-level global policy into operational manufacturing reality.
The industry’s biggest challenge is no longer whether sustainability data exists — it is whether digital data systems can communicate across borders. Europe’s Digital Product Passport requirements, China’s Social Compliance 9000 for Textile and Apparel Industry (CSC9000T) framework, India’s environmental and social corporate governance (ESG) disclosure rules, and other national systems are evolving independently. Without technical interoperability, manufacturers serving multiple markets will face duplicative reporting obligations and conflicting methodologies. This creates operational inefficiencies that slow implementation and increase costs across supply chains.Manufacturers already manage overlapping audits, customer questionnaires, emissions reporting requests, and due diligence assessments. Facilities producing for multiple brands are often asked to provide nearly identical information in different formats and under slightly different criteria. The result is an administrative burden that diverts resources away from emissions reduction, worker wellbeing, and operational improvements.
As enforcement deadlines for regulations such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) approach, many brands are responding with what could be described as a “flight to compliance.” Orders increasingly consolidate around large suppliers with dedicated compliance teams and sophisticated reporting capabilities. While this may reduce short-term risk for brands, it creates long-term risks for the industry. We captured some of this SME nuance in the report. SMEs form the backbone of APAC’s manufacturing economy, supporting employment, entrepreneurship, and regional development. If smaller suppliers are pushed out because they cannot absorb the growing complexity of fragmented compliance systems, the industry risks weakening the very supply chain ecosystem it depends on.
The solution is not to slow ambition or reduce accountability. The industry needs stronger coordination between policymakers, manufacturers, brands, and solution providers to create greater alignment across systems and requirements.What the sector lacks is not regulation, but a unified implementation layer. Harmonized measurement frameworks and interoperable data systems can reduce duplication while maintaining transparency and enforcement. This is where industry collaboration becomes critical. Shared approaches – and frameworks such as the Higg Index – can help manufacturers measure once and report many, reducing administrative burden while improving consistency and comparability across markets.
APAC has a historic opportunity to lead the next phase of sustainable supply chain transformation. The region is no longer simply reacting to policies developed elsewhere. It is increasingly defining how sustainability goals are operationalized in practice.Success will depend on whether governments, brands, and manufacturers can align around practical implementation. Predictable policy signals, interoperable reporting systems, and coordinated standards will enable facilities to invest confidently in decarbonization, energy transition, workforce resilience, and operational improvements.If the industry can move beyond fragmented compliance toward coordinated implementation, APAC can become the model for how global supply chains translate ambition into measurable impact.
And in this policy state of play, Cascale is uniquely positioned to support brands, retailers, and manufacturers in preparing for, and adapting to, this fast-evolving regulatory landscape. And where noted in the report, the Higg Index provides support and a foundation for mobilizing key social and environmental data points.
Cascale analysis examines evolving legislation across key global markets and highlights where the Higg Index may support readiness efforts.
Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Oakland (CA) – May 20, 2026: The global regulatory landscape for sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence is becoming increasingly complex as governments worldwide continue shifting from voluntary guidance to mandatory requirements. To help companies in the consumer goods value chain navigate these developments, Cascale has released a new 2026 Global Due Diligence and Sustainability Reporting Legislation Report, analyzing the most relevant adopted and emerging laws related to human rights and environmental due diligence and sustainability reporting.
The report examines 21 legislations across Europe, the United States, the broader Americas, and Asia-Pacific, offering companies a region-by-region overview of current and upcoming obligations. It also identifies where the Higg Index suite of tools may help companies strengthen data, governance systems, and performance measurement practices that are increasingly expected by regulators, investors, business partners, and consumers.
While some regulatory frameworks have narrowed in scope in recent years, including revisions to the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the broader global trajectory continues toward greater transparency, more rigorous sustainability disclosures, and stronger due diligence obligations.
At the same time, countries including Canada, Australia, and jurisdictions across the United States and Asia-Pacific continue strengthening climate reporting, human rights due diligence, and supply chain transparency requirements, often aligning with international standards such as the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct.
For companies operating global value chains, these changes are creating growing pressure to understand not only what is mandatory today, but also where regulation is heading and how expectations differ across markets.
“The regulatory landscape is no longer moving in one direction — we’re seeing the EU narrow parts of CSRD and CSDDD at the same time as markets like Canada, Australia, and parts of Asia-Pacific continue strengthening sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements. That creates a genuinely complex operating environment for companies managing global value chains,” said Gabriele Ballero, manager, public affairs, Cascale. “What this report makes clear is that companies cannot approach this through fragmented, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction compliance strategies alone. The real challenge is building governance systems, data capabilities, and due diligence practices that work across multiple frameworks at once. Companies that invest early in that kind of operational readiness will be far better positioned to absorb what’s coming next.”
The report emphasizes that while the Higg Index tools are not compliance instruments, they may help companies access credible, standardized, and scalable data that supports preparedness for emerging legal obligations and broader sustainability strategies.
The analysis maps legislative requirements against relevant sections of the Higg Index, helping companies identify where they may already have access to information that can support due diligence processes, risk assessments, governance practices, environmental performance tracking, and sustainability disclosures.
“Companies increasingly need robust data that can support both operational improvements and external disclosure expectations,” said Maravillas Rodriguez Zarco, vice president, tools & data, Cascale. “By helping organizations connect regulatory expectations with practical implementation tools, this report highlights how standardized approaches and credible data systems can support continuous improvement across complex global value chains.”
The report identifies several major trends shaping the future of corporate sustainability regulation:
The report also assesses how legislation aligns with Cascale’s strategic pillars and core areas of work, including fair purchasing practices, streamlined audits, supply chain decarbonization, and foundational environmental performance.
Designed for both Cascale members and non-members, the report serves as a practical reference guide for apparel, footwear, textiles, and adjacent consumer goods companies seeking to better understand evolving sustainability obligations across jurisdictions.
The report also clarifies that the Higg Index overlap assessment is intended to identify where relevant information may exist within the tools and does not constitute legal advice or guarantee compliance.
“Asia-Pacific is home to some of the most complex and critical nodes in global apparel and footwear supply chains, and the regional regulatory landscape is becoming significantly more demanding. Major markets, including Japan and several others, are adopting mandatory climate disclosure frameworks aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards like IFRS S2 — and that’s just one part of a broader shift. What we’re hearing from members across regions is that policy ambition needs to be matched with practical implementation pathways, ” said Howard Kwong, senior manager, public affairs APAC, Cascale. “The direction is clear worldwide: expectations for transparency, accountability, and measurable sustainability performance continue to grow. Companies that begin strengthening governance, data systems, and risk-based due diligence practices now will be better equipped to respond — wherever they operate.”
Cascale’s 2026 Global Due Diligence and Sustainability Reporting Legislation Report focuses on adopted and mandatory legislation, or legislation expected to become mandatory in the near future, related to sustainability reporting and human rights and environmental due diligence. Legislative proposals, voluntary frameworks, and international guidelines are referenced separately to provide additional context.
The analysis focuses primarily on apparel, footwear, textiles, and adjacent consumer goods sectors, where the Higg Index is most established, while also recognizing broader relevance across global value chains.
Media Contact: Forster Communications, cascaleforster@forster.co.uk
This analysis examines evolving legislation across key global markets and highlights where the Higg Index may support readiness efforts.
Please fill out the form to download the publication
New report issued by Cascale and Worldly shows how evolving regulations, including textile EPR, are increasing pressure on companies to strengthen traceability, reporting, and data alignment across value chains.
Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Oakland (CA) – May 13, 2026: Cascale and Worldly have released a new policy deep dive examining how evolving sustainability regulations are increasing demand for more standardized, interoperable data across global value chains. Using the expansion of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, particularly for textiles, as one example of this broader shift, the analysis explores the implications for the apparel, textile, and wider consumer goods industry.
As governments introduce and expand sustainability regulations across product policy, disclosure, and lifecycle accountability, companies are facing a more complex and fragmented compliance environment. In the European Union, developments such as the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are raising expectations for product-level transparency, lifecycle accountability, and consistent reporting systems. Similar momentum is building globally, with new and emerging EPR schemes taking shape across North America, Asia, and other regions.
While EPR has traditionally focused on packaging and plastics, its extension into textiles reflects a broader shift toward lifecycle responsibility — linking product design, material choices, and end-of-life outcomes with regulatory and financial implications.
“Textile EPR is one clear example of how rapidly the regulatory landscape is evolving, and companies are being asked to manage increasingly complex requirements across multiple jurisdictions,” said Gabriele Ballero, public affairs manager at Cascale. “For Cascale members and the wider consumer goods industry, this is a strong signal that the conversation is shifting from reactive compliance to more strategic, system-level approaches. The focus now needs to be on aligning how data is collected and used across value chains so it is consistent, comparable, and can be reused across different regulatory requirements. Companies that invest in this kind of alignment will be better positioned not only to respond to regulation, but also to reduce duplication, improve coordination, and make more informed decisions.”
“Companies are under growing pressure to report on regulatory requirements with consistent, actionable data,” JR Siegel, vice president of sustainability at Worldly, said. “Scalable technology and aligned data frameworks are essential. By connecting product and facility-level insights in one platform, we can help businesses streamline reporting, improve data quality, and better integrate sustainability into core business decision-making.”
As regulatory expectations become more connected and data-intensive, shared frameworks and methodologies become increasingly important. Cascale and Worldly help organizations navigate this complexity through tools and methodologies, such as the Higg Index. By supporting standardized data collection, verification, and analysis at both the product and facility level, these tools can help translate fragmented regulatory requirements into actionable insights and more efficient implementation.
In tandem with existing frameworks, Worldly’s Product Impact Calculator also helps brands meet France’s Affichage Environmental eco-labeling requirement. Brands have already used it to model impact for more than 400,000 products, with all eight mandatory data parameters already captured in the platform, so companies can act now without building new data pipelines.
While the expansion of EPR introduces new reporting and operational demands, it also presents an opportunity. Investments in data systems and supply chain visibility can improve internal decision-making, reduce duplication, and strengthen readiness for evolving regulatory and market expectations.
As regulatory requirements continue to evolve, including through the expansion of textile EPR schemes, Cascale and Worldly encourage companies to take a proactive approach by strengthening data capabilities, aligning with industry frameworks, and preparing for a more connected and data-driven regulatory landscape.
Media Contact: Forster Communications, cascaleforster@forster.co.uk
This policy deep dive from Cascale and Worldly examines how evolving sustainability regulations are increasing demand for more standardized, interoperable data across global value chains.
Please fill out the form to download the publication
In this guest blog, Shein Han, director, compliance and sustainability, GG International Manufacturing, describes why manufacturers need the right financial incentives to decarbonize effectively.
The question comes up again and again: What should governments and industry stakeholders prioritize first for decarbonization?
As a fashion manufacturer based in Seoul, South Korea, I see how policy, financing, and implementation challenges come together in real time. In the APAC region, each country is taking a unique approach to a greener economy. These are encouraging signals, but manufacturers across the region are still facing major barriers to action.
As an Editorial Member of Cascale’s APAC Policy Member Expert Team, contributing specifically to the incentives agenda, I see a number of overlapping challenges. Fragmentation, limited interoperability, insufficient incentives, and underrepresentation of decent work issues – Cascale’s recent APAC Policy Priorities paper captures all of these issues.
Amid competing customer demands and faster turnaround times, there is little leeway for manufacturers to invest the time, energy, or resources to decarbonize their facilities. The reality is that decarbonization is simply too expensive for APAC manufacturers, especially SMEs, to tackle alone. For many SMEs, decarbonization is not a strategic choice but a financial constraint, where even well-intentioned efforts are limited by access to capital. That is exactly why incentives are critical.
Decarbonization is not a willingness issue. It is a financing issue.
Without a support mechanism such as loans or blended financing, companies cannot invest in renewable energy or low-carbon equipment.
This is one of the reasons why decarbonization incentives are a key priority in the APAC Policy Priorities Paper. The paper recognizes that many suppliers and SMEs face significant barriers due to high costs and limited access to finance, and calls for targeted support mechanisms, including subsidies, preferential financing, and investment in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies. The stated goal is to make the transition more practical, more scalable, and more inclusive across the supply chain.
Also, most decarbonization efforts today are still project-based. What we need is a system-based approach across the supply chain from now on. This is why we need to invest in expanding infrastructure, more coordinated support, and policy conditions that help solutions scale.
Incentives are also very critical. However, incentives without execution or without reliable data or without verified data are not enough on their own. We need a clear implementation framework to scale the incentives.
If I had to choose one action item for decarbonization, it would be linking financial incentives directly to the verified data. This could include preferential financing for facilities with verified emissions data, tax incentives tied to measurable reductions, or blended finance mechanisms that reduce upfront capital investment for renewable energy adoption. For example, factories with verified Scope 1 and 2 emissions data could access preferential financing rates or performance-based incentives tied to demonstrated reductions. This creates both accountability and motivation. Without such incentive mechanisms, scaling will be difficult.
If we want decarbonization to move faster across APAC, we need policies and financing approaches that reflect how manufacturers actually operate. That starts with making support accessible, practical, and tied to real progress.
Curious to learn more? Explore the full APAC Policy Priorities Paper and, for members, continue the conversation through the recent webinar featuring insights from APAC Policy MET members.
