For FASH455 class: When writing your blog comment, consider addressing the following aspects:
- Based on the videos, what have been the expected and unexpected impacts of tariffs on apparel-exporting countries?
- Based on the videos, what ethical challenges emerge in apparel sourcing and global trade? How do tariffs complicate or intensify these issues?
- What does “responsible apparel sourcing” mean when tariffs increase costs and competitive pressure? Is it still feasible? Why or why not?
- If you were a sourcing manager for a US-based fashion company, how would you redesign your strategy under higher tariffs? Why?
- Are tariffs an effective tool for improving labor or environmental standards? Why or why not?
Related reading: Evolving Patterns of World Apparel Trade amid Trump’s Hiking Tariffs (January 2026)
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 
When looking at Trump’s tariffs in 2025, one can use the factor-proportion theory to try to predict industry trends for the future. The factor-proportion theory is the theory that states capital-abundant countries should import labor-intensive products and vice versa. The US is a capital-abundant country that imports clothing, with the rise in tariffs, this theory shifts. When other countries’ labor-intensive commodities prices rise, they don’t provide as many returns, and this causes the capital-abundant country to produce its own labor-intensive commodities. In this case this is clothing, so if Trump continues with tariffs that raise the prices of clothing, can it be enough to cause the US to adopt more production in the US or more parts of the production cycle in the US?
The Factor Proportion Theory, which we discussed in class, is relevant to these videos. It says that countries with lots of labor have an advantage in creating goods that need a lot of labor, like clothes. On the other hand, countries with lots of capital, like the US, should focus on goods that need a lot of capital. We used this theory to explain why many clothing factories moved to countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and Lesotho, where there are many workers and wages are low. The videos clearly show the negative effects of a capital-rich country like the US using tariffs to mess up this natural division of labor. Countries like Lesotho, Vietnam, and Indonesia depend on serving the US market. After tariffs were put in place, Indonesia’s exports to the US dropped by 12%. Lesotho’s central bank had to lower its textile growth prediction by more than 10 percentage points. These are the types of results that the Factor Proportion Theory would expect when trade is disrupted. This situation raises questions about what responsible sourcing means. If I were a sourcing manager now, I would seriously think about diversifying suppliers. I wonder if moving orders from these weak countries to cut costs would make the ethical issue worse, since the factory workers in those countries ultimately suffer because of policy choices made in Washington.
One key concept from class that really connects to these videos is sourcing criteria and trade policy, which is basically how companies decide where to get their products based on cost, quality and access to markets. We’ve talked about how trade agreements, tariffs and rules of origin can change sourcing decisions because they shift costs and competitive advantages in global supply chains. The videos on Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Lesotho show this perfectly. U.S. tariffs cut demand for apparel exports, forced factories to downsize or pivot and hit smaller economies especially hard. In Lesotho, textiles make up 11% of GDP, but tariffs caused major layoffs, while Vietnam tried to turn more toward tourism. This shows that sourcing isn’t just about price it’s also about market access, geopolitical risk and ethical responsibility. For fashion companies, this means diversifying suppliers, supporting them through development and sticking to ethical practices even when costs go up. Relying on one country for large-scale production is risky when trade policies keep changing.
One key concept from class that relates to these videos is the factor proportion theory, meaning that countries export goods that use their most abundant production factors. In class we discussed that labor abundant countries have a comparative advantage in labor intensive industries like apparel.
These videos support this theory. Bangladesh and Lesotho compete on low-cost labor, with Bangladesh’s workforce being 90% women in garment factories driving its cost advantage while India seems to struggle to compete due to its higher cost of capital. Vietnam and Indonesia built their textile export sectors around abundant, low-wage labor tied to global supply chains.
Though, the factor proportion theory assumes stable market access, so when the U.S. tariffs disrupt that, labor countries have less authority. Their comparative advantage becomes almost irrelevant if buyers cannot afford to source from them. So, fashion companies should realize that sourcing from labor-abundant low-income countries carries higher political risk, and low ethical sourcing commitments.
A key concept from class is trade policy and tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods that raise costs for companies sourcing from other countries. These policies can influence where brands choose to produce their products and how global supply chains are formed. The videos show that tariffs have both expected and unexpected effects on apparel-exporting countries. While tariffs are meant to protect domestic industries, they often raise costs for fashion brands and push them to shift production to other countries. This can hurt workers in countries that lose orders, even if they depend heavily on apparel jobs. The videos also mention ethical challenges, since companies may relocate production to cheaper locations with lower labor standards to avoid tariffs. A key implication is that responsible sourcing becomes harder when tariffs increase pressure to cut costs. Brands may want to stay ethical, but higher costs can make them go with less regulated suppliers. If I were a sourcing manager, I would try to diversify production across multiple countries to reduce risk instead of relying on one location. This brings up the question of whether tariffs actually improve labor conditions, or if they just move problems to new places.
Your point about tariffs just moving problems to new places instead of solving them is really thought provoking! It made me think about how diversification can sometimes mean trading one ethical risk for another if brands are just chasing the next cheapest option. Do you think there’s a way for companies to diversify sourcing while still holding suppliers to consistent labor standards, or does cost pressure almost always win out?
These videos directly correlate to how different countries are forced to adapt and pivot to alternatives from the U.S becoming increasingly withdrawn from global affairs with the introduction of steep tariffs on the apparel and textile industry. This reminds me of the speaker, Nate Herman, when discussing what companies are doing to mitigate the effects of tariffs in terms of relocation he said how companies are struggling with uncertainty because the tariffs are so continuously ongoing and changing. Uncertainty has been a major theme in terms of tariffs in that it has caused apparel and textile companies to navigate difficult situations in pulling manufacturing from certain countries, decreasing factories within their supply chain, or decreasing/halting production altogether. This innately strains factories and in turn global economies that largely depend on the apparel/textile sector. For example, according to the videos Vietnam has pushed efforts now into tourism to combat the economic losses in the apparel industry. Additionally the third video depicts how tariffs have completely changed their business and how by increasing tariffs there is new geopolitical uncertainty and tension among international relations. These show how tariffs have caused mass uncertainty among fashion companies as well as economically, politically, etc. This poses major implications for leaders of apparel companies in that they have to make decisions in an environment constantly changing and against their interests. This creates such a hard economic landscape to navigate as even if relocation is successful one day, another tariff could be imposed that hinders that decision the next day. It raises concerns of how much tariffs are too many tariffs, and if they can be imposed so frequently what is their true purpose?
One key concept from our class that relates to this blog post is trade policy. In class, we’ve discussed that trade policy has changed so much this year, especially with tariffs. We discussed how things like an increase in tariffs can impact the company and supplier both, with companies in the US having to pay more to suppliers and suppliers getting less work due to companies not wanting to import.
In this blog post, we can see that the tariffs that Trump put are doing worse for others then better. In the video it says that manufactures in Indonesia said there could be a 20 to 30% decline in exports to the US within 1 to 2 years would could have massive financial consequences on them. Such as the country of Lesotho and their citizens not being a able to get work in the factories due to the increase in the tariffs by Trump.
With seeing how these tariff implications have affected not just the US but many international companies why is president Trump still trying to increase these? This makes people want to buy less here in the US as well due to prices of things going up. We talked many times in class and students have agreed that they tend to stop buying more clothes then usual due to the increase in pricing.
A key course concept from this month that is applicable to this blog post is trade policy, which can be defined as government measures such as tariffs, quotas, and trade agreements that regulate international trade. These policies influence where companies source their products, supplies moving across borders, and the cost of global supply chains. When applying this concept to the videos, it is seen that trade policy is important in determining sourcing and production decisions within the textile and apparel industry. It highlights how tariffs and shifting trade agreements push companies to relocate production to other countries that have more favorable trade policies, also known as diversifying. Manufacturers often move sourcing locations to avoid higher costs or mandatory policies and can benefit from changing sourcing locations. The constant change demonstrates how trade policy creates both regulation and opportunities which forces companies to remain flexible and diversify. A question to continue this blog discussion would be, how can companies build stable sourcing strategies in an environment that is constantly changing trade policies?