{"id":5774,"date":"2025-08-26T17:20:07","date_gmt":"2025-08-26T15:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/magazine.lineapelle-fair.it\/?p=5774"},"modified":"2025-09-01T15:49:19","modified_gmt":"2025-09-01T13:49:19","slug":"too-many-suffocating-inefficient-the-supply-chain-is-overwhelmed-by-audits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/magazine.lineapelle-fair.it\/en\/green-corner-en\/too-many-suffocating-inefficient-the-supply-chain-is-overwhelmed-by-audits\/","title":{"rendered":"Too many, suffocating, inefficient: the supply chain is overwhelmed by audits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Data and requests of all kinds. Continuous audits that become more annoying than efficient. In the name of ‘transparency’, which \u2013 as has been dramatically revealed in recent months \u2013 has many dark sides, the supply chain needs ‘harmonisation of regulations and standardisation of systems’ in order to truly be a healthy competitive tool<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

by Massimiliano Viti<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When you ask a long-standing luxury subcontractor what has changed in their relationship with their customers, in most cases, they will mention the increase <\/strong>in requests <\/strong>for data<\/strong>, certifications <\/strong>and continuous audits <\/strong>to which their company is subjected. These requests and procedures are considered necessary by the brands and are included in the “Transparency” chapter of the relationship between the brand itself and its supplier (except, as evidenced by the cases of illegal hiring practices discovered in Italy, that the more complicated the luxury supply chain becomes, the more the brands’ demands for transparency become opaque, to say the least).<\/p>\n

To each its own<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Each brand, even if controlled by the same parent company, has its own criteria to follow when conducting audits, its own approach to request templates and its own software platform on which suppliers must upload data and documentation. First-tier suppliers <\/strong>are held responsible for the uploading of data by second-tier suppliers, and so on. In some cases, the requests are, so to speak, rather intrusive <\/strong>and require, for example, the submission of payslips or the DURF (Documento Unico di Regolarit\u00e0 Finanziaria), the Single Document of Financial Regularity. Some even seem to have the objective of exposing the process by which the subcontractor calculates the price of the product\/service (source: fasonista.it)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Less efficiency, more costs<\/strong><\/h3>\n

And while the demands of fashion and luxury companies appear justifiable in order to maintain an adequate and reliable supply chain, on the other hand, the manufacturing chain is overwhelmed by<\/strong> a flood of requests to be fulfilled, which translates into a loss of efficiency <\/strong>and increased costs<\/strong>. Many micro-businesses lack the necessary human resources, skills, or tools to meet these demands. They are therefore forced to rely on expensive external consultants to avoid the risk of being left out of the system and thus losing their jobs.<\/p>\n

Complexity breeds complexity<\/strong><\/h3>\n

“Most suppliers don’t even answer all the questions because they don’t have the data or the capacity,” Anja Sadock <\/strong>(marketing manager for the TrusTrace<\/strong> traceability platform) confirms to Vogue Business<\/a>. “The data load is becoming unmanageable. If we don’t have high-quality data, we will make analyses based on incorrect assumptions. One of the most painful points is that all brands interpret regulations slightly differently. <\/strong>Most of the brands we work with don’t just want to be compliant; they have higher ambitions in terms of sustainability, so they need additional standardised data. <\/strong>All of this contributes to the complexity.” TrusTrace experts confirm that suppliers feel overwhelmed <\/strong>by brands’ data requests.<\/p>\n

The same information, in different formats<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Many of these requests concern the same information<\/strong>, but in different formats<\/strong>, so companies in the supply chain are often required to fill out extensive spreadsheets, submit documentation manually, and respond to surveys. In addition, the deadlines set by their customers are often too tight. All this comes at a cost that is borne entirely by the suppliers. “There is an imbalance of power, <\/strong>with suppliers having to absorb the costs of compliance requests without brands sharing the responsibility,” says TrusTrace.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, brands are generally sympathetic to these challenges, but many of them do not have a unified system <\/strong>and, despite public commitments, do not have verified data beyond the first level. <\/strong>It is clear that there is a need for harmonisation <\/strong>of regulations and standardisation <\/strong>of brand systems, which should collaborate with suppliers rather than simply controlling them. In this regard, Anja Sadock suggests following the example of the banking system.<\/p>\n

Facts, not mountains of paperwork<\/strong><\/h3>\n

“The quality of work, the sustainability of production and the well-being of employees should be demonstrated by facts<\/strong>, not by mountains of documents,” notes Michela Bassetti<\/strong>, CEO of Solettificio Coba<\/strong>, an Italian company (based in the Marche region) that is sometimes audited twice a week<\/strong>. “It’s an unsustainable commitment in terms of human and financial resources,” explains Bassetti, who proposes a single annual audit by third parties, valid for all brands. Or a global certification that companies can provide directly to customers, without having to repeat the same process several times. The real challenge appears to be transforming supply chain control from a bureaucratic burden <\/strong>into a competitive advantage. <\/strong>Yes, but how?<\/p>\n

Read also:<\/strong><\/p>\n