Italiano← Back
Fashion & textiles

The Digital Product Passport for fashion and textiles

A textile passport is assembled from information held by suppliers, in documents nobody designed for a machine to read. The obligation sits with the brand; the information sits with companies the brand cannot always name, and the textile supply chain is the hardest case the Regulation addresses.

Edoardo Rinaldi · Founder, Trama
Last updated: 26 August 2026

Where the difficulty sits

Publishing a passport is a solved problem: a record, an identifier, a resolver, a page. Assembling the data that goes into it is the part nobody has solved, and in fashion it is harder than in any other priority group.

A garment passes through spinning, weaving or knitting, dyeing and finishing, cutting and making up. Those stages sit in different companies, frequently in different countries, and a substantial part of the work is subcontracted onward by the supplier that holds the order. With the first tier the brand has a contract. The third it frequently cannot name.

The information is upstream, and it already exists

Composition, origin, treatments, substances, certification: the datapoints a textile passport will require are held by the party that made the material, not by the brand. They are recorded in documents that already circulate: bills of materials, delivery notes, test reports, GOTS, GRS and OEKO-TEX certificates. None of it has to be created; it has to be read out of a form no system can query. What those documents lack is structure. They arrive as PDFs, spreadsheets, scans and email attachments, in whatever format each supplier happens to use, and no two suppliers use the same one.

Suppliers will not adopt a portal

A mill supplying forty brands will not maintain forty portals, and a subcontractor with twelve employees has no one to assign to a new system. Any collection method that requires the supplier to install software, hold credentials or learn an interface stops at the first company with no commercial reason to comply. That leaves the channel the supply chain already uses for documents: an email, an attachment the supplier already has to hand, a reply that costs nobody a new procedure.

Confidentiality is a supplier's commercial position

A supplier is hard to replace precisely because its own supplier list stays with it. Asked to disclose that list to a customer so the customer can answer to an authority, a mill will decline, or delay, or send something approximate. An approximate answer inside a passport is worse than a missing one, because it is a declaration.

A collection method that puts every supplier's data in front of every other supplier goes unused. Each actor has to be able to contribute the part it holds without exposing it to the actors around it.

Seasons close, and batches cannot be reopened

Fashion runs on collections. A season's materials, mills and subcontractors change; the finisher who ran last season's order has other work in hand now, and the people who could have answered a question about a production run have moved on to the next one.

A datapoint fixed at batch level cannot be reconstructed after the batch has shipped. What is missing is the link between the document and the production run, not the document itself — and which data sits at which level is fixed by the requirements, not by the brand.

What was not captured while the season was open is not recoverable later, at any price.

What can be prepared before the delegated act

The final list of datapoints is not published, and no supplier can state it today. The sources are known regardless, and mapping them is what takes months: which tiers exist behind each material, which company holds which document, and in what form it arrives.

A brand that has mapped its tiers and structured the documents it already receives will be able to satisfy a datapoint list it has not yet seen. Whoever starts on the day of publication will be collecting history from suppliers who no longer hold it.

The timetable for fashion

The Ecodesign working plan for 2025–2030, adopted on 16 April 2025, identifies textiles as a priority product group. The delegated act is expected in 2027, with compliance following in late 2028 or 2029. Footwear is outside the scope of the first textile act. The dates that are already fixed are set out on the ESPR page.

Article 25 arrives before either date. It prohibits the destruction of unsold consumer products in the categories listed in Annex VII, which include apparel, clothing accessories and footwear, and it applies to large companies from 19 July 2026. The obligation is separate from the passport. The quantities it covers are recorded in the same production and logistics systems the passport will draw on.

Common questions

When will the Digital Product Passport apply to clothing?

The textile delegated act is expected in 2027, with compliance following in late 2028 or 2029. No date is fixed until that act is adopted.

Does the Digital Product Passport apply to footwear?

Footwear is outside the scope of the first textile delegated act. It is inside the scope of the Regulation itself, and inside the scope of the Article 25 ban on destroying unsold goods, which lists footwear in Annex VII.

Who has to produce the passport, the brand or the factory?

The economic operator that places the product on the European market. For a brand manufacturing through third parties, that is the brand. The factory holds much of the information. The obligation does not move with it.

What data will a garment passport need?

The definitive list comes from the textile delegated act and is not published. The Regulation provides for requirements covering durability, repairability, recycled content, substances of concern and supply-chain information. All of it sits upstream: bills of materials, delivery notes, test reports, certificates.

Will our suppliers have to install software?

They should not have to. Trama collects through the channel suppliers already use for documents: no account, no password, nothing installed on their side.

Can we start before the delegated act is published?

The datapoints are not final. The sources are known already. Mapping which tiers sit behind each material and structuring the documents already arriving takes months, and a deadline does not make it faster.

Does the passport expose our suppliers to competitors?

The Regulation provides for different categories of reader, and the access rule belongs to each datapoint. Information a market surveillance authority is entitled to see is not thereby published to consumers or to competitors.