Apparel brands still don’t give suppliers sufficient notice periods and lead times. A due diligence approach should include better long-term planning and collaboration with suppliers.
Many brands now speak confidently about responsible business and supply chain resilience. But those ambitions are harder to deliver when purchasing practices remain short-term. Planning and forecasting continue to be among the biggest points of friction between buyers and suppliers, and the consequences extend well beyond operational inefficiency.
Recent Better Buying surveys show this clearly. As one manufacturer noted: “There was absolutely no visibility or production forecasting by the buyer … they place last minute orders and we have to accommodate.” That kind of instability creates pressure throughout the supply chain, particularly where suppliers are already operating with limited margins and little room to absorb disruption.
The latest Cascale Better Buying Purchasing Practices Index (BBPPI), which captures anonymised supplier feedback on buyer purchasing practices, points to continued weaknesses in 2025 across several purchasing categories. Planning and forecasting remain key areas of concern, with notable regional variation. At the same time, wider macroeconomic pressures, including new US tariffs affecting finished goods, materials and components, are adding further uncertainty and reshaping sourcing decisions.
That matters because shifting sourcing strategies and rising commercial pressure can increase the risk of unintended impacts on workers, suppliers and environmental performance. Responsible purchasing practices are therefore not separate from due diligence. They are one of the mechanisms through which companies can anticipate and manage supply chain risk.
Planning and forecasting decisions carry particular weight in apparel and footwear. Seasonal demand, long lead times and fragmented supply chains mean changes made upstream can quickly affect production schedules, labour conditions and factory stability downstream.
The BBPPI data illustrates the point. On average, only 34.5% of soft goods suppliers are receiving forecasts 120 days in advance. Repeat participants scored higher, with one company reaching 45.1% through a more advanced planning approach. The gap suggests that better performance is possible, but not yet widespread.
Regional supplier lead times. Source: Cascale’s BBPPI 2025
Weak forecasting does not only create operational inefficiency. It can also undermine responsible sourcing efforts. When demand changes late, suppliers are often left to manage compressed timelines, fluctuating volumes and cost pressures. Over time, these conditions can contribute to wider social and operational risk.
This is why planning cannot sit within one function alone. Merchandising, sourcing and supply chain teams all shape production conditions, even when the consequences are felt furthest upstream for tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers. Poor audit or assessment outcomes are not always isolated compliance failures. In some cases, they reflect commercial decisions made much earlier in the process, often across multiple licensors, retailers and sourcing markets.
A significant impediment to improving processes is that suppliers do not always feel able to say when buyer processes are creating problems. Fear of losing business can limit honest feedback, particularly when the commercial relationship is already imbalanced.
In practice, this means suppliers often prioritise continuity and cost competitiveness, even when timelines are unrealistic or forecasts unreliable. Buyers, meanwhile, may continue to renegotiate prices, shift sourcing strategies, introduce new tech packs or place last-minute orders without fully accounting for the downstream impact. In that environment, risk is often transferred rather than resolved. Amid tariffs, a new race to the bottom emerges.
This is where confidential supplier feedback mechanisms become important. Cascale’s BBPPI is one mechanism through which suppliers can share anonymised views on buyer practices at no cost. By aggregating feedback across planning, forecasting, costing, sourcing and order management, it offers a clearer view of how internal buyer decisions materialise as risk across the value chain while protecting relationships.
As the tool has scaled, the ability to segment data regionally is more illustrative. Regional segmentation also matters. Supplier conditions, sourcing models and operational pressures vary across markets, and more granular analysis can support more effective dialogue between buyers and manufacturers.
Progress remains limited. The 2025 BBPPI benchmark shows that only 43.2% of soft goods suppliers report that buyers are covering the cost of compliant production. But those companies that do engage, plan ahead and share risk across the supply chain see results according to the Better Buying data.
Moving from discussion to impact requires companies to embed clearer planning and responsible purchasing practices into day-to-day decision making.
Here are four practical next steps companies can take.
1. Strengthen planning and forecasting practices
Provide suppliers with earlier and more reliable forecasts, and align merchandising, sourcing, and supply chain teams around realistic production timelines. This includes considering advance payments (including post–ex factory while goods are in transit), seasonal level loading, and covering the costs of compliant production upfront to reduce downstream risk for suppliers.
2. Align internal decision-making across departments
Responsible purchasing practices cannot sit within one function alone. Planning, design, costing and sourcing teams must work together to ensure commercial decisions support responsible supply chain outcomes. Responsible purchasing practices cannot sit within one function alone. Planning, design, costing and sourcing teams must work together to ensure commercial decisions support responsible supply chain outcomes.This can be enabled through mechanisms like manufacturer balanced scorecards that incorporate sustainability metrics, and guardrails such as requiring sustainability team approval before issuing POs to new factories based on social and environmental risk.
3. Create safe channels for supplier feedback
Suppliers often hesitate to raise operational challenges directly with buyers. Structured and confidential feedback mechanisms — such as anonymized surveys, third-party platforms (e.g., Better Buying), regular supplier roundtables, and independent grievance channels — can help surface issues before they escalate into operational or social risks.
4. Use industry benchmarks to measure progress
Participating in industry initiatives enables companies to gather confidential supplier feedback, understand how their purchasing practices compare with peers, and identify practical areas for improvement.
Responsible purchasing practices require collaboration across the value chain, but they also create the conditions for greater resilience and trust. The opportunity now is for industry leaders to translate these principles into everyday purchasing decisions, starting with better planning today.
To participate in the 2026 BBPPI survey, please see more here.
This article draws on discussions from a jointly held webinar with Innovation Forum, Better Buying, Soorty Enterprises, Crescent Bahuman, and Eileen Fisher, which allowed for candid conversations on reshaping purchasing. We’ll be continuing discussions off-the-record at the upcoming Sustainable Apparel and Textiles Conference USA. For details of the upcoming 2026 forum click here. Use code CASCALE10 for a discount.
This content was originally published on Innovation Forum as part of a collaborative blog series.
In this guest blog, Jayanth Kashyap, investment lead at Good Fashion Fund, outlines the industry’s structural gaps and how Cascale’s “Source of Good” podcast dives deeper.
For years, industry focus was on cost, speed, and efficiency. That hasn’t gone away, but it’s no longer enough.
Facilities are improving energy efficiency and reporting is more consistent, yet policy remains a critical unlock for embedding climate performance into operational decision-making.
