Cotton Traceability Needs Better Gin Data and Stronger Farmer Relationships

Cotton traceability becomes most difficult where agricultural production meets textile manufacturing. A study from Cotton Diaries argues that brands need better information from cotton gins, alongside lasting relationships with growers and local partners, to understand supply risks and respond to conditions on the ground.

The findings are the fourth installment of the five-year WhoMadeMyCotton study, led by textile industry veterans Ani Wells and Anne Oudard. Its central point is practical: tracing a pair of jeans to one farmer often doesn’t reflect how cotton is grown and traded. Production is communal in many regions, with cooperatives, suppliers of farm inputs, traders, finance institutions and local organizations all involved.

That network makes a simple product-to-farmer link hard to establish. It also means a farmer’s name alone can reveal little about how cotton was produced or what might affect its supply. Oudard says that when the initiative began five years ago, asking where cotton came from was unusual in the textile industry, and companies often treated the question as too complicated to answer.

Traceability as supply intelligence

For fabric buyers, the value of traceability lies in what it helps them anticipate. The study points to falling cotton production in Türkiye, which some estimates put at up to 40% below previous levels. As production declines, some farmers are reconsidering whether to plant cotton. That can affect the volume available to textile buyers and, in turn, supply and prices.

Oudard says advance knowledge of those changes helps buyers understand what may reach their businesses before a shortage or other disruption becomes immediate. Field information can also show when continued production depends on support. One grower considering leaving cotton is also a pioneer in regenerative farming. If that grower stops planting, the loss could affect both supply and the wider adoption of those practices. Oudard says buyers may need to help ensure the farmer can continue the following year if they want garments made with that cotton.

This makes traceability more than a recordkeeping task or a story for marketing materials. The useful question is what the information tells a business about the people and conditions behind its sourcing, and whether the company can act on that understanding.

The cotton gin as a missing link

A key point in the supply chain is the cotton gin, where harvested cotton is processed into fiber for spinning into yarn. Gins connect agriculture with textile manufacturing and handle cotton as it is bought, processed and sold. Yet, Oudard says, many people in fashion and textiles don’t know what a gin does or recognize its place in the chain. That gap can sever the path between farm records and the material that enters fabric production.

The study identifies gins as a place where useful origin information may already exist. Depending on the region and business, records can include who delivered the cotton, farmer identities, its origin, volumes, quality and transaction details. Carrying that information forward as cotton changes hands could help companies trace its movement through later stages of production.

More consistent use of gin-level information could also reduce fragmented and costly tracing work, while giving companies a stronger basis for due diligence. The report does not suggest that every region or business has the same records. What can be captured will depend on local practices and the information available at each facility. Still, the gin offers a practical connection point between growers and the textile companies that need to understand their supply.

From names to relationships

Collecting data is only part of the work. Cotton Diaries calls for long-term relationships with farmers, cooperatives, ginners and local partners so companies can interpret records in context and respond as conditions change. Oudard describes this as “relational traceability.”

For her, knowing a farmer’s name is not enough. When brands treat individuals as the public face of a much larger production system, their stories can become a marketing device while the roles of other participants and the conditions they work in remain out of view. A name may identify a person, but it does not explain how cotton reached a gin, what challenges a grower faces or what might keep production viable.

Transactional records can show where cotton moved. Relationships help explain why those movements occurred and what may change next. That distinction matters for buyers making sourcing decisions: farm-level signals about production, quality or a grower’s plans can inform choices earlier than records that only confirm a completed transaction.

The study’s proposed approach combines both forms of knowledge. Better gin records can help carry origin information through the chain; sustained contact with people in the system can give that information meaning. Together, they offer brands a clearer view of supply conditions and a chance to respond before risks become harder to manage. For cotton buyers, the next useful step is to understand what information their ginning partners hold and how they can build lasting connections with the people behind it.