The appendix provides additional information for each part of the “Results of the Study” chapter. Focusing on:

• How to read the associated figure tables
• Relevance of the analysis topic (e.g. fibre and material use cases)
• What is included in the analysis topic
• What is not included in the analysis topic

PART 1: FIBRE AND MATERIAL USE CASES

How to read figure 2 “Fibre and Material Use Cases”

• On the Y axis to the left you have the “Tracer Category”, “Sub Category”, and “Tracer Technology”
• On the X axis above you have the fibre/material types:
  • “Plant-based natural fibres”
  • “Man-made cellulosic fibres”
  • “Animal fibres”
  • “Synthetics”
• The cells correspond to the colour code and text in the key on the right
• The focus is on the claimed use cases of the tracers per fibre/material type based on the following classifications:
  • No claimed evidence that the tracer has worked effectively on the associated fibre/material type
  • Technical feasibility: Claimed theoretical evidence that the tracer COULD work effectively on the associated fibre/material type
  • Operational feasibility: Claimed practical evidence (e.g. pilots and/or partnerships) that the tracer HAS worked effectively on the associated fibre/material type
  • “N/A” Not applicable for the tracer (due to restricted scientific capabilities of application/detection, and/or outside the business model of tracer company)
  • “…” No response, or still waiting on a response

Relevance of “Fibre and Material Use Cases” analysis

• TRACEABILITY FEASIBILITY PER FIBRE/MATERIAL TYPE

Suppliers, manufacturers, brands, retailers, and ecosystem stakeholders can understand which tracer technologies have claimed to be effective on which fibres, and the technical and operational feasibility of use with those fibres. This is useful for users focusing on specific fibres in their supply chain, helping to understand which tracers hold technical feasibility (theoretical capability), and/or operational feasibility (practical and proven experience of implementation) for the associated fibre type. From this visibility, users can then dive into the tracer technologies that are applicable to them (see Appendix also for analyses per tracer company).

• RELEVANCE FOR CERTIFICATION OF TEXTILE EXCHANGE’S STANDARDS

For Textile Exchange’s standards and certification bodies, this analysis informs which tracer technologies are relevant for standards (i.e. organic cotton for the Organic Content Standard and recycled cotton and polyester for the Recycled Claim Standard and Global Recycled Standard).

What is included in “Fibre and Material Use Cases” analysis

• MOVING FROM TECHNICAL TO OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY (PROVEN IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE WITH STAKEHOLDERS)

In addition to the technical efficacy of the tracer technologies, this analysis provides insight into operational feasibility, or logistical and change management experience implementing the tracers on relevant fibre/material supply chains through pilots and partnerships.

• RECYCLED FIBRE TYPES INCLUDED

There is insight to gain understanding which tracer companies have had practical experiences implementing their tracer technologies on recycled fibre supply chains, applying the additive tracers, or carrying out micro-particle analysis following a mechanical/chemical recycling process. Alternatively, to gain insight of claims made of whether additive tracer substances can sustain effectively through chemical and mechanical processes, please stay tuned for the next update of the Textile Tracer Assessment for added tracer capabilities

• MATRIX MAPPING OF TRACERS’ TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES PER FIBRE/MATERIAL TYPE

See Figure 5 to understand which tracers claim to work well with which fibres, based on feedback forms and questionnaires to create a matrix visualisation.

• INTERIM CONCLUSIONS

Based on the claims made by the tracer companies, aggregated conclusions and key takeaways have been scoped per tracer category (forensic tracers, additive tracers).

What is not included in “Fibre and Material Use Cases” analysis

• SPECIFIC ANALYSIS PER SUPPLY CHAIN TIER

Although the analysis brings visibility to the claimed performance of the tracer technologies per fibre/material type, it doesn’t evaluate the tracers’ application and detection performance in relation to specific tiers of the supply chain (Tier 4 – 0). In other words, evaluating where in the supply chain the tracer technologies can be applied and detected effectively and bring traceability of information. For this analysis please see Part 2 and 3.

• PRIORITISING WHICH TRACERS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE

As a desktop research assessment, this analysis does not evaluate or rate the effectiveness of tracers individually. Rather, it maps capabilities based on claims made by the tracer companies, and highlights aggregations and patterns scoped within the tracer categories (forensic tracers, additive tracers). With so many variables to consider to test the feasibility and efficacy of the tracer technologies on different supply chain journeys, “Part 1: Fibre and Material Use Cases” section holds ambiguity of results and analysis due to research methodology scope restrictions.

PART 2: SUPPLY CHAIN COVERAGE: APPLICATION

How to read Figure 6

• On the Y axis to the left you have the “Tracer Category”, “Sub Category”, and “Tracer Technology”
• On the X axis above you have the variables:
  • “On/Off-site detection”
  • “Tier 4 – 0” of the fashion and textile supply chain
• The cells and the shapes correspond to the key to the right of the table
  • To focus on the application processes, read from the “Application Key” (purple triangle and circle shapes):
    • The decision points are split into
      • Claims made on technical and operational feasibility of application at the associated supply chain step
      • Claims made on whether the tracer can be applied “At or After” the associated supply chain step, or whether it can be applied “Only AT” the associated supply chain step
• Please be aware that the blue colour coding is focusing on the detection process of the tracers rather than the application process.

Relevance of “Supply Chain Coverage: Application” analysis

• INSIGHT INTO THE APPLICATION PROCESSES ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN FLOOR

Readers of this report  can understand in a consolidated space the application processes of the tracers technologies, and the logistical, operational and stakeholder engagement requirements needed to effectively implement additive tracers.

• UNDERSTANDING WHERE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN THE TRACER CAN BE APPLIED (TIER 4 -0)

Provide insight into the burden and requirements in applying additive tracers within the fibre/textile supply chain.

What is included in “Supply Chain Coverage: Application” analysis

• MATRIX MAPPING OF TRACERS’ APPLICATION CAPABILITIES PER SUPPLY CHAIN TIER

See Figure 6 for a visual benchmarking of application capabilities per additive tracer technology, per supply chain step.

• INTERIM CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS AGGREGATIONS

Based on the claims made by the tracer companies, aggregated conclusions and key takeaways have been scoped per tracer category (forensic tracers, additive tracers), and their sub-tracer categories. See aggregated analysis below.

What is not included “Supply Chain Coverage: Application” analysis

• FORENSIC TRACERS ABSENT FROM ANALYSIS AS NO APPLICATION PROCESS

This section of analysis is more relevant for the application mechanisms of additive tracers (synthetic/artificial DNA, ink/rare-earth material fluorescents, and optical fingerprints) category. Forensic  tracers are exempt from application as they don’t apply any physical tracer to the fibres, textiles or product. Their forensic process usually is off-site, away from supply chain operations (See Part 3).

PART 3: SUPPLY CHAIN COVERAGE: DETECTION

How to read figure 7

• On the Y axis to the left you have the “Tracer Category”, “Sub Category”, and “Tracer Technology”
• On the X axis above you have the variables:
  • “On/Off-site detection”
  • “Tier 4 – 0” of the fashion and textile supply chain
• The cells within the matrix table correspond to the colour coding, shapes and descriptions within the key on the right of the table
  • To focus on the detection process, read from the “Detection Key” (blue colour coding cells):
    • The decision points are split into
      • No claimed evidence that the tracer can be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information at the associated supply chain tier.
      • Technical feasibility: Claimed theoretical evidence that the tracer could be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information at the associated supply chain tier.
      • Operational feasibility: Claimed practical evidence (e.g. pilots and/or partnerships) that the tracer can be detected effectively and/or provide traceability of information at the associated supply chain step.
• Please be aware that the purple circles and triangles are focusing on the application process of the tracers rather than the detection process.

Relevance of “Supply Chain Coverage: Detection” analysis

• TIER SPECIFIC DETECTION PROCESSES:

For additive tracers (which all have on-site detection capabilities) this analysis looks at claims made on the technical and operational feasibility of detecting the tracers effectively at the various supply chain tiers. This allows ecosystem stakeholders to understand if on-site detection processes are tier specific due to the tracers capabilities. For forensic tracers, the matrix visualisation (see Figure 6) is not relevant as their detection processes are off-site. Of more interest for forensic tracers is the analysis on the sub-element queries.

• IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE:

This analysis also attempts to bring visibility to the experience of the tracer companies implementing the detection process on the supply chain floor. In order to detect a tracer effectively, accompanying detection technologies need to be implemented with supply chain partners. Therefore effective change management is needed to fully engage the supply chain in the implementation of detection processes on the production floor.

• USEFULNESS OF DETECTING MIXING AND BLENDING/FIBRE QUANTIFICATION:

Key is also to understand the extent to which tracers can quantify different fibres when mixing and blending occurs. This allows the user to identify fabrics and products that have non-verified fibres within. And can be useful for sustainability standards and certification requirements which have a minimum percentage of organic/recycled material (e.g. GRS/RCS)

What is included in “Supply Chain Coverage: Detection” analysis

• MATRIX TABLE OF TRACERS’ DETECTION CAPABILITIES PER SUPPLY CHAIN TIER

See Figure 7 for a visual benchmarking of detection capabilities per tracer technology, per supply chain step.

• INTERIM CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS AGGREGATIONS

Based on these claims made by the tracer companies, aggregated conclusions and key takeaways have been scoped per tracer category (forensic tracers, additive tracers), and their sub-tracer categories. See aggregated analysis below.

Shortcomings of “Supply Chain Coverage: Detection” analysis

• DOESN’T ANALYSE TRACER EFFICACY THROUGH FIBRE SPECIFIC MANUFACTURING PROCESS

This enquiry topic doesn’t bring visibility to the efficacy of the additive tracers through the various fibre specific Tier 4 and Tier 3 supply chains and associated manufacturing processes. The definition boundaries of Tiers within this matrix table are ambiguous to the fibres they cover. Please see Figure 5 Fibre Use Cases for better segmentation per fibre type for tracer’s claimed capabilities.