Who Pays? New Report Exposes Purchasing Pressures on UK Manufacturers

On 25th February 2026, industry leaders, policymakers and manufacturers gathered for a pivotal meeting hosted by Transform Trade to confront one of the most urgent questions facing British fashion manufacturing: Who pays for unfair purchasing practices? Among those in attendance were Jenny Holloway, CEO of Fashion-Enter Ltd and Chair of the ATMF; Shockat Adam MP; Katherine O’Driscoll; Margaret Beales, author of the TACIT report for the Department for Business and Trade; and Mick Cheema of Basic Premier.

(Left to right: Katherine O’Driscoll, Margaret Beales, Jenny Holloway, Shockat Adam MP and Mick Cheema)

Renowned globally for its fusion of heritage craftsmanship and avant-garde creativity, the UK fashion industry is woven into the fabric of national identity. Beyond its cultural cachet, it is an economic powerhouse, contributing £62bn to the UK economy and supporting 1.3 million jobs. Yet beneath the gloss, the garment manufacturing sector is under sustained and mounting pressure.

The newly released report, Who Pays – Brand Purchasing Practices in UK Fashion Manufacturing, builds on prior research into manufacturers’ experiences in Bangladesh and India, turning the lens firmly onto the UK. Drawing on surveys and in-depth interviews with 48 clothing manufacturers across key regions and market segments, from speed-to-market suppliers to luxury producers.

The research reveals a systemic transfer of inappropriate commercial risk from brands and retailers onto manufacturers:

• 31% reported cancelled orders.
• 78% experienced brands refusing to cover the costs of last-minute changes to confirmed orders.
• 75% said brands did not adjust prices in line with minimum wage increases.
• 67% had quoted for large orders that were later reduced in size without unit price adjustments.
• 52% faced target pricing imposed without meaningful dialogue on actual production costs.
• 44% reported regular payment extension requests, with 10% experiencing delays of more than three months beyond agreed terms.
• 31% were penalised for late delivery when brand-instigated changes caused delays.
• 29% were pressed for post-contract discounts.

Individually, such practices may be dismissed as commercial negotiation. Collectively, they represent structural imbalance, one that undermines the sustainability and viability of UK manufacturing businesses and disadvantages responsible brands that seek to operate ethically.

The impact extends far beyond balance sheets. Manufacturers reported reducing worker hours (58%) following order cancellations, or increasing overtime (73%) to accommodate sudden, compressed deadlines. The volatility erodes workforce stability and places immense strain on factory operations.

Perhaps most concerning is the widespread lack of faith in existing routes for dispute resolution. Many manufacturers fear that speaking out, or formally challenging unfair treatment, could result in lost contracts and reputational risk. The power imbalance is acute, and silence often feels safer than accountability.

These experiences echo patterns documented globally. The difference is that this time, the spotlight is on the UK.

The report calls for decisive government action. Chief among its recommendations is the introduction of a Garments Trading Adjudicator, a proposal previously advanced by the Environmental Audit Committee. Modelled on the successful Groceries Code Adjudicator, such a body would provide independent oversight, confidential reporting mechanisms and enforceable standards, while maintaining retail competitiveness.

Additionally, the report urges the adoption of a Business, Human Rights and Environment Act, embedding mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence into UK law. The aim is not to burden responsible companies, but to level the playing field, ensuring that ethical operators are not commercially penalised for doing the right thing.

Hilary Marsh, Garment Policy Advisor, Transform Trade said: “This report is yet another piece of evidence of the practices that perpetuate across the global industry. Manufacturers in the UK, India, Bangladesh, and others across the world are reporting the same experiences. A Fashion Watchdog would ensure fair business practices for the sector. And a Business Human Rights Environment Act is integral for upholding international human rights standards and protecting our shared environment.”

For Jenny Holloway and fellow industry advocates, today’s meeting marked a significant step forward. She commented: “Today was a major step forward for UK manufacturers. The discussion laid bare the scale of financial harm factories are facing. Take Quiz, now in administration for the third time, where one manufacturer alone is owed £900,000 and is reportedly being offered just 10p in the pound. The impact on cash flow,  jobs and confidence is horrendous. This is exactly why we urgently need a Garments Trading Adjudicator to ensure fair purchasing practices and accountability across the sector.

“We are also calling on the Trades Union Congress and Community to work alongside The ATMF to push for public procurement contracts that prioritise trusted UK factories. With government-backed funding, the ATMF can act as a critical friend to Government – introducing a recognised kite mark for responsible manufacturers and helping to drive much-needed transparency across the supply chain.”

The UK fashion sector has the creativity, heritage and technical capability to thrive. The question now is whether its commercial frameworks will evolve to match its values. 

Link to the full report: Who Pays? Brand Purchasing Practices in UK Fashion Manufacturing