Day: February 10, 2016

An interesting BBC article describes the global journey of a Marks and Spencer (M&S) wool suit:

1. The suit was designed by M&S in-house team in UK
2. Wool that makes up the suit came from Australia
3. Raw wool was shipped from Australia to China for topping.
4. Wool top was shipped from China to Italy for dying
5. Dyed wool was shipped from Italy to Romania to be spun into yarn
6. Yarn was shipped to Yorkshire, UK to be woven into cloth
7. Cloth was shipped from Yorkshire, UK to Cambodia to be made into finished suit
8. Finished suit was shipped back to UK to be sold at M&S retail stores

As noted by the article, such a global-based production model for M&S’s suit is increasingly typical in UK. What makes the issue controversial, however is that, the suit is labeled as “100% British cloth”. As “defined” by M&S, “British cloth means it is woven, dyed and finished in the UK”.

Similar debates also exist in the United States. In the past, even if a garment was cut and sewn in California but made of imported items, the tag still had to say, “Made in USA of imported fabric, zippers, buttons and thread.” But a new law which takes into effect on January 1, 2016 allows California manufacturers to attach the “Made in USA” label as long as no more than 5 percent of the wholesale value of the garment is made of imported materials.

Discussion questions:

1. What are the driving forces behind apparel companies’ global-based production model?
2. Is the clothing label “Made in ___” outdated in the 21st century?
3. Do you support the new law which allows apparel labeled “Made in USA” to contain certain value of imported material? Why? Do we need such a regulation at all? Why or why not?