Author: Sheng Lu

Professor @ University of Delaware

Textile and Apparel Industry Stakeholders Comment on Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariffs”

Background: Pursuant to the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum and the Presidential Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) solicited public comments on the proposed “Reciprocal Tariffs” from February to March 2025. Below is a summary of comments submitted by stakeholders in the textile and apparel industry.

The United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), whose members include many leading U.S. fashion brands and retailers, opposes raising tariffs and argues for lowering tariffs on textile and apparel products where the U.S. imposes a higher tariff rate than its trading partners. According to USFIA, higher tariffs on apparel and textiles would disproportionately impact lower-income U.S. consumers:

  • “A true ‘reciprocal’ trade policy would lower tariffs on the products of trading partners that maintain lower tariffs than the United States.”
  • “We recommend that the most successful policy to achieve trade reciprocity would be for the United States to lower the tariff rates of products for which our trading partners apply lower tariff rates. For consumer products such as textiles and apparel, this would help combat inflation and assist consumers who struggle to afford basic necessities.”​

The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), representing U.S.-based “apparel, footwear and other sewn products companies”, opposes broad tariffs on apparel, footwear, and textiles. It is of concern to AAFA that the apparel and footwear sector already faces some of the highest tariffs in the U.S., and tariffs are a “hidden, regressive tax that falls harder on lower-income Americans.” Even worse, AAFA worries that higher tariffs would benefit “Illicit traders” and tariff threats would undermine the regional textile and apparel supply chain in the Western Hemisphere:

  • “Illicit traders are better positioned to escape paying proper duties or any duties at all. Higher tariffs end up maximizing the profit and market access they can gain at the expense of legitimate shippers.”
  • “Recent tariff threats particularly on our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are especially concerning as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) review is about to begin. Canada is a key export market for U.S. made apparel and footwear while Mexico is a major source of a wide variety of apparel, including denim imports. Not only does the threat of tariffs cast uncertainty but it also undermines future investment and nearshoring opportunities.”

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), representing U.S. textile mills, supports targeted tariffs against “unfair trade” but opposes penalties on Western Hemisphere trading partners:

  • “We strongly recommend that the Trump administration take a targeted approach to raise tariffs on specific countries that disrupt markets through the use of blatantly unfair and often illegal trade practices, while simultaneously operating in home markets that remain mostly closed to our products.”
  • “We must preserve and strengthen existing trade relationships with U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) countries in the Western Hemisphere that offer valuable markets for U.S.-made textiles.”
  • “We strongly believe that reciprocity should not mean a race to the bottom with lower tariffs on imports from other countries into our market. Rather, reciprocity should hold bad actors accountable for systemic unfair trade practices that have hurt domestic manufacturers.”
  • “We urge the Trump administration to take several actions immediately to make textile and apparel trade more reciprocal and to support the domestic industry…Aggressively raise tariffs on imports of textile and apparel products from China and other trade predators in Asia…Close the de minimis loophole for all countries…”

SMART (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association), representing businesses engaged in the collection, reuse, conversion, and recycling of textiles and other secondary materials, advocates for addressing trade barriers that affect U.S. secondhand clothing exports. SMART also opposes CAFTA-DR members using the “yarn-forward” rules of origin for imports of secondhand clothing (HTS 6309) from the U.S. under the agreement.

National Retail Federation (NRF), generally representing all types of U.S. retailers, opposes broad-based tariffs, arguing that they increase consumer costs, disrupt supply chains, and hurt retailers. NRF supports targeted measures against unfair trade practices but warns against policies that could lead to unnecessary retaliation from U.S. trading partners.

  • “We believe that high, across-the-board tariffs will undermine the economic growth signaled by the other features of the president’s agenda and have lasting negative consequences for consumers and workers. If the goal of reciprocal tariffs is to enter into negotiations to remove barriers to trade, this will unlock economic growth and reduce prices for consumers. However, if the goal is primarily to raise tariffs, then the opposite is true.”
  • “There are plenty of areas where U.S. tariffs are actually much higher than our trading partners, for example, especially when you look at U.S. tariffs on low value apparel and footwear. These regressive tariffs hurt low- and middle-income consumers the most.”
  • “The administration should also consider the potential for retaliation from our trading partners on any reciprocal tariffs that are established. We are already witnessing our trading partners respond to strong tariff actions by the administration. This will further impact our farmers and manufacturers who are looking to gain access to those foreign markets.”
  • “We need to focus on key high-priority sectors where it makes sense to return manufacturing home or areas where there is strategic competition. High tariffs on everyday household goods, which could raise consumer prices, should not be the focus of such a policy.”

Parkdale Mills, a leading producer of spun yarns based in North Carolina, expressed concerns about “unfair trade practices” from its Asian competitors. Parkadel also calls for closing the “De minimis” loophole.

  • “Each week millions of pounds of product move through our free trade agreement partner countries illegally causing significant damage to the domestic textile industry. Non qualifying goods are shipped using false HTS codes, False Certificates of Origin, and illegal inputs to circumvent the required duty for US entry.”
  • “Section 321 De Minimis (imports)…are shipped into the US each day without inspection or any type of customs enforcement causing millions in lost revenue and again, thousands of lost jobs. This loophole must be closed.”

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Ally Botwinick, Textile Assistant at The Kasper Group, about Textile Raw material Sourcing and Management

About Ally Botwinick

Hi! My name is Ally Botwinick, and I am a University of Delaware alum who studied Fashion Merchandising and completed the 4+1 master’s program in Fashion and Apparel Studies. I am currently working as a Textile Assistant at The Kasper Group in NYC. The Kasper Group is a portfolio of global fashion brands such as Nine West, Anne Klein, Kasper, Le Suit, and Jones New York. I work on fabric sourcing and production for the Jones New York brand as well as denim fabrics for all brands within the Kasper Group.

Note: During her studies in the FASH 4+1 program, Ally participated in several research and experiential learning projects. She co-authored Explore PVH Corporation’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Strategies, published in Just-style, a leading industry publication focusing on apparel trade and sourcing. Her master’s thesis, which examined US retailers’ merchandising strategies for clothing made from recycled textile materials, was published in the International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education. Ally was also a UD summer scholar and a key member of the FASH students team that helped Macy’s develop a vision of its sustainable apparel sourcing strategy (see featured UDaily story and Yahoo).  Additionally,  Ally was a policy intern for the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) in Washington, D.C. in the summer of 2022.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are those of Ally Botwinick and do not reflect the views or positions of her employer or any affiliated organizations.

Sheng: What are your main responsibilities as a textile assistant? What does a typical day look like? What aspects of the job do you find particularly interesting or unexpected before taking on the role?

Ally: My main responsibility as a Textile Assistant is to help buy and keep track of all fabric orders for Jones New York as well as denim for multiple brands within the Kasper Group. Jones New York has both a mainline division, which is sold at retailers such as Macy’s and Dillard’s, as well as an off-price division called Jones New York Signature which is sold at off-price retailers such as TJ Maxx, Marshall’s, Burlington, Ross, etc..

During a typical day, I communicate with textile mills/factories overseas about fabric approvals or rejections based on fabric color, quality, and hand feel. For each fabric order that we place, we have the mills submit fabric references to our New York office for review. Each morning, I process these submissions and work with my team to release comments to the mills. The color must match the color standard we send them at the beginning of production. The fabric quality must match the fabric standard that we approved upon booking the fabric.

We keep track of all these approvals and rejections in what is called a fabric WIP (work in progress) chart, where we keep track of each order for each season and division. This WIP chart includes key fabric information, price, production timelines, and fabric submit status, among other order details. Creating and updating these fabric WIPs is something I do continuously throughout the day as I receive updates from mills and factories.

I frequently work with cross-functional partners, like members of the design, production, costing, and color teams, and touch base about any changes to design boards, production schedules, costing, or color issues that may arise.

One of the most interesting aspects of the job is the number of teams that collaborate on a daily basis, especially when there are updates made to the fashion collection, such as changes to color names, production units, production schedules, fabric details, and costs.

Sheng: In general, what factors should be considered when selecting textile raw materials, such as fabrics, in product development and sourcing?

Ally:Some important factors to consider when selecting fabrics are hand feel (whether the fabric feels soft, dry, smooth, rough, etc…) and price.  We want to ensure the fabric provides comfort to the consumer and that it will drape well according to the garment design. We work very closely with the design and costing teams when sourcing fabrics as we must ensure fabrics are functional, stylish, on-brand, and meet margin goals.

We highly consider the fiber content as well. Fiber costs can be influenced by a multitude of factors, even including the weather or occurrence of natural disasters which can affect supply and demand. We also closely monitor cotton traceability as there are forced labor concerns with cotton grown in parts of China. We require each mill supplying fabrics made with cotton to submit a cotton traceability certificate for us to track the cotton’s origins. This way, we can ensure no cotton is being produced in association with forced labor.

Sheng: What are the main processes involved in selecting and sourcing textile raw materials like fabrics?

Ally:At my company, the Fabric Research & Development team is more involved in finding new fabrics, whereas my team is more involved in fabric buying and production. The design and R&D team usually hand off the desired fabrics to us after sourcing, and we go ahead and buy the fabric. We buy fabric yardage according to the number of units (garments) in the collection, accounting for the different sizes and colorways.

However, we do occasionally get involved in the sourcing aspect as well. When we source fabrics, we consider the factors I mentioned such as cost, quality, and fiber content. We also think about how we may want to elevate and bring newness to the brand.

When adding certain washes or finishes to fabrics, the appearance can change, so this is something we consider as well. When purchasing a new novelty fabric such as a new jacquard, velour, or cross-dye, we expect the mill to tell us if there is a certain inherent characteristic we should know about prior to booking. For example, a mill might tell us the fabric is known to flare a bit, and this is hard to control, or it tends to shrink a little when washing. This way, we can decide whether the fabric is acceptable based on our needs. If we decide to purchase, we then collaborate with internal cross-functional partners about creating a level of tolerance accounting for these inherent characteristics.

Upon booking any fabric, we always require mills to fill out a fabric detail sheet with information such as cuttable width, weight, price, MOQ (minimum order quantity), lead time, etc… and we have them send us a fabric header which becomes our fabric standard. The design team will also request a sample garment to ensure the fabric is suitable for the garment. All these processes are essential for booking fabric.

Sheng: Where do textile raw materials typically come from, or which countries or regions mostly supply textile raw materials for US fashion companies today?

Ally:Some of the top countries supplying fabric for U.S. fashion companies include China, Vietnam, South Korea, and India. Also, from my observation, Asia plays a significant role as a leading textile raw material supplier for many leading U.S. apparel brands and retailers.

Sheng: From your observation, how has sustainability influenced the selection and sourcing of textile materials for fashion companies? What emerging trends are worth watching?

Ally:From my observation, sustainability is becoming more and more important to brands and consumers alike. Recycled polyester is on the rise as more consumers are paying attention to the materials in their clothing and trying to lessen their environmental impact. Recycled polyester seems easier to incorporate rather than, say, recycled cotton, which is harder to trace back to the source and has quality concerns. I see recycled materials on the rise in my company, and as someone who wrote my master’s thesis on this topic, it is very exciting and encouraging to see.

Sheng: Based on your experience, can you offer any advice to our students regarding preparing for a career in the fashion apparel industry? What could they do at UD?

Ally:Some advice I would give to students preparing for a career in the fashion industry is to think about what classes at UD most intrigued and inspired them. There are so many different career paths within the fashion industry, whether it be design, product development, sales, merchandise planning, costing, garment sourcing, fabric sourcing, merchandise buying, etc… Whatever you are most passionate about, go after it. Also, keep an open mind. You may find a great opportunity that you hadn’t previously considered, and you may end up loving it. There is so much to be learned in any given role, especially when starting out. Throughout my role, I have learned not only the ins and outs of the fabric production cycle, but also the entire garment life cycle. I can see how all the teams within my organization work together to achieve a common goal.

UD has so many amazing resources to utilize for planning your future career. First, take advantage of the career center by meeting with a career counselor and updating your resume and LinkedIn. Next, consider doing a research project with a professor on a topic you are passionate about. There are so many professors in the fashion department who would be happy to chat about research opportunities, and having this experience can really help you stand out during the job search and interview process. Internships and retail experience are also great ways to gain work experience while in school. Lastly, lean on your network. If an alum you know has a career that sounds interesting to you, reach out to them and ask them for a quick phone call to learn more about it. It is great to build your network and learn more about different potential career paths. Overall, my greatest advice is to truly enjoy your college years- they go by so fast. Make the most of your time at UD, pursue your passions, and remember that exciting opportunities lie ahead!

–The End–

Apparel Import Tariff Rates around the World (updated March 2025)

Apparel products are often subject to high tariffs for various reasons. In developed countries such as the United States, apparel has long been considered an “import-sensitive” sector, with relatively high tariff rates imposed primarily to “protect” specific domestic interest groups with political influences.

However, as importers, not exporters, pay the tariffs, heavy import duties have been a significant concern for US fashion companies for decades. According to data from the US International Trade Commission (USITC), in 2024, apparel (HS chapters 61 and 62) accounted for about 2.5 percent of total US imports but contributed approximately 15.6 percent of total tariff duties. Likewise, US fashion companies paid $11.9 billion in tariffs on apparel imports in 2024, an increase from $11.6 billion in 2023. The average applied tariff rate for apparel items reached 14.6% in 2024, a notable increase from 13.7% before the imposition of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese products. Additionally, due to retail markups, every $1 in tariffs could result in a $1.50 to $2 increase in the final retail price.

Meanwhile, developing countries, especially those least developed, also often impose high tariffs on apparel—either to protect their nascent domestic industries from import competition or to generate government revenues. For example, in Africa, the apparel import tariff rate commonly exceeds 35% as of 2023 (the latest data available).

In February 2025, President Trump announced the imposition of a so-called “reciprocal tariff,” aiming to  “match” the tariff rates that other countries impose on US exports, thereby promoting “fairer trade practices.” However, the details of the “reciprocal tariff” idea remain highly uncertain.

In theory, if strict “tariff matching” is required on a product-by-product basis, US apparel imports from most leading sourcing destinations—particularly those in Asia without a free trade agreement with the US–would face a significant increase in tariffs. Similarly, beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) could face a similar issue, as AGOA is a trade preference program that does not provide duty-free market access for US products in Africa. If apparel exports from AGOA-member countries to the US were subjected to the same 35%+ tariff rates that US products currently face in their markets, it would be a devastating scenario.

By Sheng Lu

(note: this post is not open for comment/discussion)

How Tariffs Affect U.S. Apparel Import Prices and Retail Prices? Evidence from Monthly Trade Data (2015-2024)

According to the “America First Trade Policy” released in January 2025, the Trump administration aims to leverage tariffs to achieve various policy objectives, from reducing the U.S. trade deficit to countering “unfair” trading practices.

On February 1, 2025, the Trump Administration further announced the implementation of a 25% punitive tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, along with an additional 10% punitive tariff on goods from China, in addition to the existing duties. With over 98% of clothing sold in the U.S. imported from abroad, U.S. fashion apparel companies are likely to be among the hardest hit by the tariff increase, particularly since Mexico and China are two of the leading apparel-sourcing destinations for the country.

This study aims to explore the dynamic relationship between U.S. apparel import tariffs, U.S. apparel import prices, and U.S. apparel retail prices. Since tariff rates, import prices, and retail prices are interrelated, a vector autoregression model (VAR) was used to analyze their interactions. The analysis was based on monthly data from January 2015 to November 2024 (latest data available), including:

  • U.S. apparel tariff rate (data source: USITC; tariff rate=value of calculated duties/custom values)
  • Price index of U.S. apparel imports (data source: St. Lous Federal Reserve; January 2015=100)
  • Price index of U.S. apparel retail price (data source: St. Louis Federal Reserve; January 2015=100)
  • Index of U.S. apparel retail sales (data source: St. Louis Federal Reserve; January 2015=100)
  • Consumer Price Index for all U.S. urban consumers (data source: St. Louis Federal Reserve; January 2015=100)

The results show that:

First, from January 2015 to November 2024, the average U.S. apparel tariff rate ranged from 12% to 17%. The fluctuation of the tariff rate during that period was primarily caused by the U.S. imposition of Section 301 punitive tariffs on imports from China, along with fashion companies shifting their sourcing from China to other countries, including members of U.S. free trade agreements.

Second, the average price of U.S. apparel imports rose by approximately 6% from January 2015 to November 2024, which aligns with the U.S. apparel retail price increase of 4%. However, this increase was significantly lower than the 34% rise in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the same period. This pattern shows that despite overall inflation and higher operational costs, apparel exporters and U.S. retailers remained cautious about increasing prices due to intense market competition.

Third, the impulse response function (IRF) indicates that a positive tariff shock (i.e., a tariff increase) would lead to a rise in the U.S. apparel retail price. However, the magnitude of this effect is moderate, with the impact being most felt two months later. Specifically, a one-standard-deviation increase in tariffs would result in a 0.16 standard deviation increase in retail prices during Period 3. In other words, the price effect of the tariff increase typically appears in about two months. However, U.S. fashion retailers usually do not transfer the entire burden of tariffs to consumers, likely because of fierce competition in the market.  

Fourth, the impulse response function (IRF) indicates that a positive tariff shock (i.e., a tariff increase) would lead to a slight decline in U.S. apparel import prices. This price decrease would also persist for about three months. Specifically, a one-standard-deviation increase in tariffs would result in approximately a 0.01 standard deviation decrease in apparel import prices through Period 4. This result aligns with previous studies indicating that following the implementation of Section 301 punitive tariffs in 2018, some Chinese exporters agreed to reduce their selling prices to keep sourcing orders.

Fifth, the impulse response function (IRF) further shows that a positive tariff shock (i.e., a tariff increase) could hurt U.S. apparel retail sales in the short to medium term. Specifically, a one-standard-deviation increase in tariffs would lead to approximately a 0.82-2.33 standard deviation decrease in U.S. apparel retail sales from Period 3 through Period 5. This result may be driven by higher selling prices, suppressing consumer spending on clothing.  

Additionally, the variance decomposition analysis reveals that, in the short to medium term, about 50% to 80% of the variation in U.S. retail prices is explained by its own past values, underscoring the persistence of retailers’ pricing practices. Meanwhile, U.S. apparel retail sales account for about 27% of the changes in U.S. apparel retail prices. In comparison, apparel tariff changes explained only about 5% of the retail price fluctuations. In other words, market factors, particularly consumer demand, play a more significant role in shaping fashion companies’ pricing decisions than tariffs.

In summary, the study’s findings confirm the interconnections between apparel tariff rates, U.S. apparel import prices, and U.S. retail prices, although these relationships turn out to be more complex and nuanced than previously suggested. It is important to note that only apparel imports from China were subject to tariff increases during the examined period in this study. If tariffs were to increase on apparel products from a broader range of countries during Trump’s second term, the economic impact on U.S. apparel retail prices could be much more significant and persistent.

By Sheng Lu

Gap Inc.’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Base: 2021-2024

Gap CEO talks tariff impacts (Feb 2025)

Established in 1969, Gap Inc. is a leading American clothing retailer that operates several prominent brands, including Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, and Athleta, catering to diverse consumer segments.

The following analysis is based on Gap Inc.’s publicly released factory list. Only factories identified as producing “apparel” products were included in the analysis.

First, like several other leading U.S. fashion companies, Gap Inc. maintained a geographically diverse global sourcing base but reduced the number of factories it sourced from between 2021 and 2024. Specifically, as of October 2024 (the latest data available), Gap Inc. sourced apparel from 24 countries, an increase from 21 countries as of March 2021. Gap Inc.’s apparel sourcing reached almost all continents, including Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa.

However, between March 2021 and October 2024, Gap Inc. decreased the number of apparel factories it contracts with from 548 to 502, a reduction of 46. Most of the cuts occurred in China (down 40 factories), Vietnam (down 32 factories), and Cambodia (down 8 factories).  This pattern aligned with the findings of other industry studies, which indicate that many U.S. fashion companies, particularly larger ones, are consolidating their vendor base to prioritize operational efficiency and strengthen the relationships with key vendors.

Second, Gap Inc. has significantly reduced its reliance on China and actively explored emerging sourcing destinations in the rest of Asia, Central America and beyond. According to Gap Inc.’s 2023 annual report (the latest available at the time of writing), its two largest vendors represented approximately 9 percent and 7 percent of the total dollar amount of the company’s purchases. In value terms, in 2023, approximately 29 percent of Gap Inc.’s products were sourced from Vietnam, followed by Indonesia (18 percent).

While China remained the largest source of U.S. apparel imports according to official trade statistics, China now plays a relatively minor role in supplying finished garments for Gap Inc. As of October 2024, the company sourced apparel from 36 factories in China, representing just 7.2 percent of its total apparel sourcing base, making China only the sixth-largest supplier after Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. In an interview conducted in early 2025 (the video above), Gap Inc.’s CEO disclosed that less than 10 percent of the company’s products are sourced from China.

On the other hand, between March 2021 and October 2024, Gap Inc. expanded its sourcing network beyond the traditional top three (China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh), with significant growth in other parts of Asia and Central America, led by India (added 8 more factories) and Guatemala (added 9 more factories).  In 2022, Gap Inc. pledged to source around $150 million in apparel products each year from Central America by 2025.

Third, Gap Inc.’s apparel sourcing base varies by product category. For example, approximately 45% of the company’s contract factories producing denim and woven bottoms were located in Vietnam and Bangladesh, likely due to the availability of cotton and a relatively abundant low-cost labor force. In contrast, factories in Sri Lanka primarily manufactured intimates, performance wear, and swimwear (IPSS) for Gap Inc. Meanwhile, half of the company’s sweater factories were located in China, largely due to the complex manufacturing process and raw material requirements for these products. Additionally, India played a critical role as a sourcing base for Gap Inc.’s woven apparel.

Furthermore, Gap Inc.’s contract garment factories worldwide vary in size, reflecting the company’s diverse sourcing needs. Specifically, in Asia, garment factories in China are typically small or medium-sized, with fewer than 1,000 workers (94.3%). In contrast, nearly 80% of Gap Inc.’s contract garment factories in Bangladesh have more than 1,000 workers, with similar patterns observed in Vietnam (48.7%), India (50%), Indonesia (63.2%), and Pakistan (57.1%). This pattern aligns with other industry studies suggesting that U.S. fashion companies source apparel products from China primarily for orders with relatively small minimum order quantities (MOQs) and those requiring a great variety.

Meanwhile, most garment factories in Central American countries producing products for Gap Inc. have fewer than 1,000 workers, such as Guatemala (100%), Nicaragua (71%), Haiti (67%), and El Salvador (100%). A similar pattern is observed in other regions, such as Egypt (67%) and Turkey (82%). This result suggests that Gap Inc. may still need to rely on Asia to fulfill orders for large-volume items, as it takes time to expand production capacity in other regions.

by Sheng Lu

Used Clothing Trade Debate Continues in Kenya (updated March 2025)

A new study by the Changing Markets Foundation suggests severe negative environmental and social, economic impacts of used clothing exports to Kenya. However, the Textile Recycling Association, based in the UK, argues strongly in favor of the benefits of the used clothing trade.

Concerns about the used clothing exports to Kenya (viewpoints from the Changing Markets Foundation)

  • Data from the United Nations (UNComtrade) shows that Kenya’s used clothing imports surged by over 500% from 2005 ($27 million) to 2021 ($172 million).
  • An overwhelming volume of used clothing shipped to Kenya is waste synthetic clothing, a toxic influx creating devastating consequences for the environment and communities. It is estimated that over 300 million items of damaged or unsellable clothing made of synthetic or plastic fibers are exported to Kenya each year, where they end up dumped, landfilled, or burned, exacerbating the plastic pollution crisis.
  • Interviews with used clothing traders in Kenya show that 20–50% of the used clothing in bales they purchased was unsellable due to being damaged, too small, unfit for the climate or local styles, and sometimes even with clothing that is covered in vomit, stains or otherwise damaged beyond repair.
  • European sorting companies often skimmed off high-quality used clothing for resale in the local EU market. They exported the lower-quality and lower-graded ones to developing countries like Kenya.
  • It remains challenging to recycle synthetic clothing as it often contains harmful additives or other materials that make the recycling process difficult or impossible. Additionally, the quality of the recycled synthetic fibers is typically lower than that of the original fabric (i.e., using virgin fiber).

Defend the used clothing exports to Kenya (viewpoints from the Textile Recycling Association, TRA)

  • Sorting, trading and selling used clothing “directly employs two million people in Kenya alone , with tens of millions employed globally and supporting many more employment positions in ancillary sectors.”
  • “Used clothing and textiles collected in the UK, should go through a detailed sorting process and can be sorted typically into 130 plus re-use and recycling grades and sometimes this can be more than 200 grades. In the sorting process each garment is picked up and individually assessed by highly trained experts*.  The good quality re-useable products are segregated from the recycling grades.” [*According to Changing Markets Foundation’s report, about 36 million pieces of used clothing were exported from the UK to Kenya in 2021; All EU countries exported about 112 million pieces to Kenya]
  • “It is the buyers in these countries (note: countries like Kenya) that dictate the flows of (used clothing) textiles and which import the goods into their countries.”
  • “TRA members are required to ensure that only good quality re-usable clothing products are sold onto countries in Africa and other non-OECD countries.   Recycling grades and other non-textile/clothing items have to be removed… However, the majority of countries are not subject to the same tight restrictions on trading as the UK..  This is to the extent that some countries allow unsorted used textiles containing a complete mix of re-usable items, recycling grades, and waste to be sold into African countries as a product.” “The qualities of (used clothing) items originating from different countries is likely to vary significantly.”
  • “Kenyan’s buy more than 10 times as much used clothing from China than they do from the UK.”

Discussion questions proposed by FASH455 class:

  • #1 What is your stance on the used clothing trade? Should the government impose more export or import trade restrictions on used clothing?
  • #2 After considering both sides of the debate, what is your decision regarding donating used clothing? What factors influenced your choice?
  • #3 Any other thoughts or comments on the used clothing trade debate?
  • #4 As we learned in class, developing countries like Kenya are supposed to rely on making and exporting labor-intensive garments to develop their economies. Can importing used clothing lead to similar economic growth? Any evidence that can support the argument?
  • #5 What are the ethical issues involved in the used clothing trade? Should government policies play a role in regulating these ethical concerns?
  • #6 Could restricting the used clothing trade discourage fast fashion and reduce textile waste generation? Why or why not?
  • #7 Should developed countries like the U.S. voluntarily restrict used clothing exports to lessen the economic and environmental pressures on developing countries like Kenya? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a policy?
  • #8 Based on the reading, what critical questions remain unanswered, and what further studies could be conducted to gather valuable information for informed decision-making on regulating the used clothing trade?

(Note: For students in FASH455, please answer at least two of the questions above. Be sure to mention the question number in your response, but there is no need to repeat the question.)

Additional reading:

VF Corporation’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Base: 2023-2024

VF Corporation (VF) is one of the largest apparel companies in the US, with an estimated global sales revenue to exceed $10 billion in 2024. VF owns several well-known apparel and outdoor performance brands, including The North Face, Timberland, and Icebreaker. VF also has a global presence. According to its latest annual report, in Fiscal 2024, “VF derived 52% of its revenues from the Americas, 33% from Europe, and 15% from Asia-Pacific.”

The following analysis is based on VF’s publicly released supplier list. Only factories identified as producing “apparel” products and related textile raw materials are included in the analysis.

First, while VF maintained a geographically diverse global sourcing base, it reduced the number of factories it sourced from between 2023 and 2024. Specifically, as of Q3 2024 (the latest data available), VF sourced apparel from 36 countries, the same number as in Q1 2023. These countries spanned almost all continents, including Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa. Similarly, over the same period, VF sourced textile raw materials for apparel production—including factories producing polymers—from approximately 30 countries.

However, between Q1 2023 and Q3 2024, VF reduced the number of apparel factories it contracts with from 463 to 426. The number of textile mills VF contracts also declined, from 665 to 546. This pattern aligned with the findings of other industry studies, which indicate that many U.S. fashion companies, particularly larger ones, are consolidating their vendor base to reduce sourcing risks and enhance operational efficiency.

Additionally, VF’s annual reports indicate that no single supplier accounted for more than 6% of its total cost of goods sold during Fiscal Year 2024, the same as in 2023, but lower than 7% in Fiscal Year 2021.

Second, in line with macro trade data, Asia served as VF’s largest apparel sourcing base in Q3 2024, led by China (23.1 percent) and Vietnam (11.5 percent). Specifically, as of Q3 2024, approximately 55.3 percent of VF’s garment factories were located in Asia, an increase from 48.8 percent in Q1 2023. Meanwhile, VF is also adjusting its apparel sourcing strategy within the Asia region. For example, between 2023 and 2024, VF decreased the number of garment factories it worked with in China (down 5), Bangladesh (down 12), and India (down 17), while adding more contract factories in Vietnam (up 36), Cambodia (up 7), and Indonesia (up 4).  The pattern indicates that while VF may attempt to reduce its “China exposure,” it also actively seeks new sourcing opportunities within Asia. 

Conversely, in Q3 2024, around 21.2 percent of VF’s garment factories were based in the Western Hemisphere, a decrease from 27.0 percent in Q1 2023. In most situations, VF worked with about 10-20 garment factories in each Western Hemisphere country. Furthermore, from 2023 to 2024, VF cut the number of garment factories in Mexico (down 16) and the United States (down 10), indicating that expanding near-shoring and on-shoring was not the company’s preferred strategy in the current environment. 

Third, compared to garments, VF’s supply of textile raw materials relies even more heavily on Asia, especially China. Specifically, as of Q3 2024, approximately 83.5 percent of VF’s textile raw material suppliers were located in Asia, the same as in Q1 2023. Notably, China represented nearly half of VF’s textile material suppliers in Q3 2024, including 41.2 percent of textile yarn and fabric mills and 50.9 percent of trim mills. Although VF reduced the number of textile mills in China from Q1 2023 to Q3 2024, China’s share of VF’s total textile raw material supplier base remained the same. Overall, the pattern aligns with previous research suggesting that finding alternative sourcing bases for textile raw materials outside of China and Asia will be more difficult and time-consuming for US fashion companies, considering the capital-intensive nature of making textile products.

Fourth, VF’s contract garment factories worldwide varied in size, reflecting the company’s diverse sourcing needs. Specifically, in Asia, garment factories in China typically were small and medium-sized, with 11-100 workers (43.9 percent) or 101-500 workers (33.7 percent). In contrast, nearly 90 percent of VF’s contract garment factories in Bangladesh had more than 1,000 workers, with similar patterns observed in Vietnam (52.2 percent), Cambodia (50.0 percent), Indonesia (63.2 percent), and Pakistan (100 percent). These findings suggest that VF may use China as a sourcing base for relatively small, diverse orders while relying on other Asian countries with lower labor costs for high-volume production.

Meanwhile, in the Americas and Africa, VF’s contract garment factories in Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, Kenya, and Jordan included more large-scale operations with over 1,000 workers. These locations could serve as emerging alternatives to sourcing from Asia, especially for specific categories. In contrast, VF’s contract garment factories in Mexico, the US, and Guatemala featured many medium and small operations, which are more likely to fulfill replenishment orders or produce specialized products.

by Sheng Lu

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Hannah Laurits, Fabric Lab Textile Coordinator at Swim USA, about Fabrics and Apparel Sourcing

About Hannah Laurits

Hello! My name is Hannah Laurits, and I am currently working as a Textile Lab Fabric Coordinator at Swim USA. I graduated from the Master of Science program in Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware in 2024. Through the program, I had the opportunity to work on various research projects, ranging from adaptive apparel to sustainable textiles. During my time at UD, I also had the privilege of teaching Fash133 Foundations for Fashion Innovation, which was an incredibly rewarding experience.

In addition to my master’s degree, I hold a Bachelor of Science in Apparel Design and Fashion Merchandising from the University of Delaware. Throughout my academic journey, I completed internships related to textiles and sourcing, which played a significant role in shaping my career and led me to my current position at Swim USA. I am passionate about the intersection of textile innovation, sustainability, and sourcing, and I’m excited to share insights from my experiences in the industry.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are those of Hannah Laurits and do not reflect the views or positions of her employer or any affiliated organizations.

Sheng: What are your main responsibilities as a fabric lab textile coordinator? What does a typical day look like? Which aspects of the job do you find particularly interesting or unexpected before taking on the role?

Hannah: As a Fabric Lab Textile Coordinator, I work to ensure that the fabrics that go into our products meet both our internal quality standards as well as the standards of our customers and the global textile industry. In the lab, we mainly focus on quality control, which includes ensuring that the fabrics we use in production meet specific quality standards.

In my role, a typical day may include visually and/or digitally reviewing colors to ensure that they align with our established standards. Additionally, each day consists of a variety of testing and analysis of results to ensure that they meet brand requirements. I also assist with raw materials development, particularly in the areas of color and fabric testing for various brands. One key aspect of my work is analyzing testing data to identify risks, areas for improvement, and potential delays in production. The best part of my role is the variety of tasks I’m involved in, the opportunity to work on multiple brands, and the extensive cross-functional collaboration I get to participate in. From color matching and testing to analyzing data and working directly with various teams, no two days are ever the same. The level of collaboration across departments has been extremely helpful, allowing me to learn from different areas of the business and broaden my skill set.

Sheng: In general, what factors should be considered when selecting fabrics in product development and apparel sourcing?

Hannah: When selecting fabrics for product development and sourcing, there are many factors to consider, including but not limited to cost, quality, durability, color and dyeing process, fiber content, intended use, sustainability, lead times, availability, and compliance with regulations. In my role, understanding the fabric composition, color, and dyeing process, as well as the intended final use is essential. Different fibers and dyestuffs have inherent properties that can affect the fabric’s appearance and colorfastness, so it’s crucial to understand how they will perform in the final product. This knowledge helps determine whether achieving a specific color while maintaining the desired quality is feasible. By carefully considering these factors, we ensure that the product meets both aesthetic and performance standards.

Sheng: Part of your job involves testing fabrics. What needs to be tested, and what are the main issues involved in the quality control of fabrics?

Hannah:A large part of my role involves testing fabrics to ensure they meet the required standards. There are a variety of tests that need to be completed, and they generally fall into two main categories: color fastness and physical properties. Color fastness testing is conducted to ensure that the fabric retains its color and/or does not run when exposed to various factors, such as washing, sunlight, or exposure to chlorine. Physical property testing helps ensure that the fabric will meet the required performance standards. This includes testing for qualities like weight, stretch, and dimensional stability. These tests are essential to make sure the final product fits well and performs as expected for the consumer.

Sheng: From your observation, how has sustainability impacted the selection and sourcing of textile materials for fashion companies? How is “sustainability” assessed for fabrics? What emerging trends are worth watching?

Hannah: Sustainability is a major focus in the textile and apparel industry, continuously evolving and shaping how fashion companies approach textile research, development, and sourcing. There is a noticeable shift towards prioritizing eco-friendly materials and minimizing environmental footprint. Sustainability can be assessed in many ways in fabrics throughout a fabric’s entire lifecycle – from raw material sourcing to end-of-life disposal. It is important to consider not only the environmental impact but also the social and ethical aspects of fiber cultivation and fabric production, ensuring that workers’ rights are also prioritized. From what I have observed in the market, the most accessible and widely adopted sustainable fabrics tend to be recycled, organic, or plant-based materials. However, there are many other emerging trends worth watching. These include waterless or low-water dyeing technologies, eco-friendly finishes and treatments, regenerative agriculture, and innovative fiber development. 

Sheng: Following up on the previous question, is it true or a myth that sustainable fabrics are typically more expensive and increase production costs? If so, how can companies balance sustainability with cost-effectiveness?

Hannah:While sustainable fabrics can sometimes be more expensive, it’s not always the case. Factors such as higher initial investments in sustainable technologies, costs of production, the smaller scale of production, and the costs associated with certifications can make sustainable fabrics more costly. However, it is still possible for companies to balance sustainability with cost-effectiveness. Sustainable practices often bring long-term benefits, such as risk reduction, improved durability, and increased brand value. Further, as more brands shift towards and invest in sustainable material innovation, we can expect these fabrics to become more affordable and available over time.

Sheng: Based on your experience, can you offer any advice to our students regarding preparing for a career in the fashion apparel industry? What could they do at UD? What is the benefit of getting a master’s degree in fashion and apparel?

Hannah: My advice to students is to get involved as much as possible. Internships are a great way to gain hands-on experience. If internships aren’t available, networking and learning from professionals in the industry are invaluable. At UD, there are numerous opportunities to take advantage of, like research projects, clubs, and career fairs to build connections and expand your knowledge. I have found that a master’s degree in Fashion and Apparel has provided me with a strong foundation which has helped me secure a career and be successful in the industry. I often find myself referring to course topics and key skills I learned in graduate school such as data analysis.

Additionally, if any students soon graduating are interested in Swim USA, below is information from our HR department on how they search for talent. “For entry-level roles, we typically use Handshake as a great way to reach upcoming graduates or recent alumni. I would advise them to register and look at opportunities there. If they haven’t already, they should also ensure their LinkedIn profile is up to date and has a nice professional picture. Start following companies that you might be interested in, like SWIM USA, to see new or open roles first. They are also welcome to follow our Swim USA careers page for more information.”

–The End–

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Jillian Silverman, Associate Trim Specialist at Lands’​ End, about Textile Raw Materials and Apparel Sourcing

About Jillian Silverman

Jillian Silverman is an Associate Trim Specialist at Lands’ End, based in Madison, Wisconsin. She earned an Honors degree in Fashion Merchandising with a minor in Environmental Humanities from the University of Delaware in 2016. She later completed her Master’s degree in Fashion and Apparel Studies in 2018, focusing on sustainable material development. Her research, which explored the use of mushrooms as a primary material for footwear, gained national media attention. As a graduate instructor, Jillian taught an undergraduate sustainability course at UD. She continues to share her expertise on textile sustainability as an adjunct professor, teaching several courses in the FASH graduate certificate program for sustainable apparel business.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are those of Jillian Silverman and do not reflect the views or positions of her employer or any affiliated organizations.

Sheng: What are your main responsibilities as a trim specialist? What does a typical day look like? Which aspects of the job do you find particularly interesting or unexpected before taking on the role?

Jillian: I manage the trims for all our apparel categories, which include hard trims like zippers and buttons and soft trims like thread and interlining, just to name a few. I work with our designers to find out their trim needs and any inspiration, our sourcing team to learn where the garments will be manufactured and any cost, quantity, or lead time considerations, and our global trim suppliers (primarily Asia-based) to select existing trim qualities or bring new ones to fruition. I never realized the intricacies of all the different trim types, and I have learned a lot on the job and still learn as I go! I really enjoy sitting between the creative side, particularly with custom trims, and the more logistical side of things. The different teams often have competing priorities, so while that makes it challenging to juggle, the problem-solving aspect keeps things interesting.

Sheng: In general, what factors should be considered when selecting trims and other textile materials in product development and sourcing?

Jillian: One of the big challenges right now is vendor and garment production location and how that relates to material production locations. With the new administration’s push for tariffs, we’ve been trying to quickly pivot away from China, but many of our raw materials still come from China, so it’s not so simple to move production away without having new challenges with transporting materials and the resulting cost and time delays.

In general, our biggest considerations when selecting materials are aesthetics and performance, cost, lead time (how long it takes to get samples and/or bulk production made), and MOQ (minimum order quantity). We also have to consistently reevaluate our supplier base to make sure we have the right partners who offer what we need at the right place, time, and cost. Speed is becoming more important, so the quicker we can have materials made and transported to our factories, the faster we can start selling those products.

Sheng: Based on your observations, how has sustainability influenced the selection and sourcing of textile materials for fashion companies? How is “sustainability” assessed for trims and other textile materials? What emerging trends should we keep an eye on?

Jillian: Sustainability considerations can be more proactive or reactive depending on the company and the issue at hand. For example, we phased out any PFAS from our supply chain to be in compliance with regulations that were coming. Other initiatives may be to reach certain sustainability goals, like ensuring that a specific percentage of polyester is recycled or using organic or BCI (Better Cotton Initiative) vs. conventional cotton, both of which are transitions we’re working to make. For outerwear, we’ve been using a lot more synthetic insulation, which is generally cheaper, more ethical, and offers easier care to our customers compared to down, so that’s a great option across the board, but many swaps are not so simple; switching to materials with a higher recycled content is often more expensive and less readily available. It can also be hard to quantify what is more “sustainable” about an item, so we look for documentation that supports it wherever possible.

Sheng: How do fashion companies today communicate the sustainability attributes of their apparel products? Is specifically mentioning keywords such as “sustainability” and “low impacts” in labels the most common practice?

Jillian: This has been an interesting topic of discussion lately since at a larger company, the people writing product copies for the website may be fairly removed from the product teams who know the ins and outs of their items and materials and what makes them special. Another challenge is that customers may not recognize the industry terms for things like branded fibers or certifications, so while those are more specific and quantifiable than terms like “sustainable,” they may be lost on the end consumer. I think it’s nice to offer both the more simplified language to get the customer to read further and then to try to break out what makes the item fit that label (e.g., water-saving dyeing method, a certain number of recycled bottles in the insulation, etc.).

Sheng: Following up on the previous question, is it true or a myth that sustainable textile materials are typically more expensive and increase production costs? If so, how can companies balance sustainability with cost-effectiveness?

Jillian: I’ve unfortunately found this to be true in many cases, but as the demand increases, many suppliers are beginning to make these switches automatically and often cost-neutral to their customers. The more brands ask for these changes, the more motivated suppliers are to invest in technology, certifications, etc.. We have to weigh whether or not we can use the more sustainable option without negatively impacting the other business needs, as well as gauge what our customer really cares about. It would be great to use more ethical materials and processes across the board, but we often use a phased approach to transition to more recycled content, for example, over time as we deplete existing stocks or focus on certain programs and styles like our more eco-friendly denim.

Sheng: Based on your experience, do you have any advice for our students on preparing for a career in the fashion apparel industry? What can they do at UD to better prepare? Additionally, what benefits do you see in pursuing a Master’s degree in fashion and apparel?

Jillian: My biggest advice is to be open to opportunities that are different from what you envisioned doing or even realized was a specific job that existed, like one centered around trims! I work with people who have moved between different roles in sourcing, design, technical design, and even IT once they get exposed to different teams and what their work was like. It’s ok to pivot if you find something that suits you better, or to find yourself working on something you weren’t expecting. Getting a breadth of experience also helps you to understand the bigger picture of all the moving parts that go into the apparel industry.

–The End–

2025 WITA Academy Pathways To Opportunity: Textiles and Apparel-University of Delaware

On March 4, 2025 (Tuesday) from 2:15 pm. to 3:45 pm, the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) Academy, in partnership with UD’s Fashion and Apparel Studies Department and JCPenney, will host a virtual workshop (on Zoom) exploring career opportunities across the fashion apparel supply chain, including design, product development, merchandising, sourcing, sustainability, trade compliance and more.

This event is free and open to ALL UD students (undergraduate and graduate), faculty, and prospective students of the UD FASH program, but registration is required (please use .edu email address): https://www.wita.org/events/pathways-careers-behind-the-seams/

Note: Students in FASH455-010 (Tue and Thu) do not need to register for the event. We will attend the workshop and participate in the live Q&A session in the classroom.

Featured speakers (bios here) from JCPenney include:

  • Amanda Blackman, Director of Planning and Allocation
  • Michelle Erwin, Sourcing Manager
  • Hunter Green, Senior Manager of International Transportation
  • Angela Hofmann, VP, Government Affairs
  • Wayne Milano, SVP, Global Sourcing and Product Development
  • Aqsa Tasleem, Senior Manager of Fabric & Sustainability
  • Katie Thurman, Senior Pre-Production Manager
  • Brandi Wallace, Senior Design Director
  • Brian Wolfrum, Director of Trade Compliance
  • Aaron Worley, Senior Buyer

Recording: Due Diligence Education for Gen Z: Preparing Future Fashion Leaders for Sustainable and Socially Responsible Apparel Sourcing (2025 OECD Forum Side Session)

About the Event

As the fashion industry grapples with increasing demands for sustainability, transparency, and social responsibility, the next generation of industry professionals—Generation Z—will play a crucial role in shaping the future of apparel sourcing and social responsibility practices in the industry.

This session explores how US college fashion programs equip Gen Z with critical knowledge in due diligence, sustainable sourcing, and supply chain transparency. Including voices from educators, Gen Z students (future professionals), and industry partners, the session will share best education practices, identify educational gaps, and present valuable Gen Z’s vision for improving due diligence and social responsibility in the garment industry. Additionally, the session will emphasize the increasing importance of industry-academic partnerships in curriculum development and talent preparation, illustrating the long-term benefits of such collaboration.

This session is highly relevant to industry professionals, educators, students, international organizations, and policymakers interested in supporting the next generation of fashion leaders and fostering a more socially responsible and sustainable fashion industry.

Panelists (Bios here)

  • Matthias Knappe, Head of Fibres, Textiles and Clothing Unit, International Trade Center
  • Laurie Rando, Senior Director of Sustainable Product and Human Rights, Macy’s
  • Julia Hughes, President, United States Fashion Industry Association
  • Megan Dawson-Elli, Manager of Product Sustainability, Tapestry
  • Sheng Lu, Professor & Graduate Director, Fashion and Apparel Studies, University of Delaware
  • Emilie Delaye, Master’s Student, Fashion and Apparel Studies, University of Delaware

This event is an official side session of the 2025 OECD Forum on Due Diligence in the Garment and Footwear Sector.

FASH455 Video Discussion: The Global Journey of a Sneaker

Discussion questions [Please address at least two questions in your comment]

#1: Based on the video and our class discussion, what would be the advantages and disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain?

#2: Assume you are an experienced U.S. shoe worker. What arguments would you present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the United States?

#3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?

#4: The “hidden costs” of global trade (e.g., emissions, labor conditions) are often obscured from consumers. How can brands like Converse address these “hidden costs” while maintaining market competitiveness? What specific policies or regulatory measures should governments implement to promote responsible sourcing and enhance supply chain transparency?

[Discussion is closed]

Is Free Trade Worth the Cost? (Video discussion)

For FASH455 students: Please share your reflections on the video regarding the free trade debate. You can focus on analyzing 1-2 specific debates raised in the video (e.g., comparing the arguments from both sides) and then share your thoughts. Please do not simply state your “opinion,” but use examples, statistics, or trade theories we learned to support your viewpoint.

Further reading: Is Free Trade Worth the Cost?

[discussion is closed]

New OECD Study: The Role of Sustainability Certifications In Due Diligence In The Garment And Footwear Sector (February 2025)

The study was based on a content analysis of major fashion brands and retailers’ sustainability reports and a survey of stakeholders in the garment and footwear sector from August to October 2023, including 32 brands and retailers, 37 suppliers, and a few non-business respondents.  The full report is HERE.

Key findings:

Rise in sustainability certification in the garment and footwear industry

  • Certifications like GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) and LWG (Leather Working Group) have seen significant growth (e.g., GOTS-certified facilities increased by 154% from 2018–2023).
  • Certified textile materials still constitute a minority of global production (e.g., 27% for cotton, 39% for leather)

Sustainability certification requirements and motivations

  • Over 80% of surveyed garment and footwear brands/retailers require certifications from suppliers, driven by risk identification (92%), product tracing (81%), and compliance with regulations (72%). In general, larger brands/retailers (91% of those with >€50M turnover) are more likely to mandate certifications than smaller ones (60% of small and medium-sized enterprises, SME).
  • In contrast to brands and retailers, most surveyed garment and footwear suppliers selected market access (84%) as a key motivation for obtaining certifications, followed by reputational reasons (83%) and risk identification (68%)

Types of sustainability certification in the garment and footwear industry

The paper divides sustainability certification in the garment and footwear industry into three major categories:

  • Due diligence certification to attest that a company (e.g. brand, manufacturer) implements the 6-step risk-based due diligence framework as outlined in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (e.g., Green Button, Oeko-Tex Responsible Business).
  • Targeted risk certifications to verify outcomes on labor, environmental, or animal welfare risks in the supply chain (e.g., Better Cotton Initiative, Cradle to Cradle, Fairtrade Cotton, Fairtrade Textiles, FSC Forest Management, Global Recycled Standard (GRS), GoodWeave, GOTS, LWG, Oekotex SteP, SA8000, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production)
  • Certificates of origin and chain of custody to trace raw materials (e.g., cotton, wool) to specific regions or facilities (e.g., Better Cotton Traceability, GOTS transaction certificates)

Role of sustainability certification in trade and market access

  • Certifications standardize compliance, enabling suppliers to meet buyer/regulatory demands (e.g., EU due diligence laws).
  • Brands use certifications to exclude high-risk regions (e.g., cotton from areas with forced labor) and validate ethical claims (e.g., recycled content).

Challenges related to sustainability certification in the garment and footwear sector

  • As the report noted, suppliers typically bear certification costs (e.g., audits, improvements), with limited buyer support.
  • SMEs and informal suppliers struggle with eligibility criteria and costs, risking exclusion from global supply chains.
  • The paper argues that certifications are not a “safe harbor.” Instead, apparel and footwear brands and retailers must complement certification with direct assessments, grievance mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement (e.g., worker interviews). Likewise, mandatory due diligence laws (e.g., EU CSDDD) will increase certification demand, but companies must balance compliance with holistic risk management.
  • The paper emphasizes the need for further research to understand how fashion brands and retailers use sustainability certification in practice. Policymakers should also consider new guidelines that clarify how companies should communicate publicly about the elements of due diligence for which they utilize sustainability certifications.

FASH455 Video Discussion: This ‘Loophole’ Lets $54B of Products Into the U.S. Tariff-Free (WSJ)

Discussion questions:

  1. What makes the de minimis rule controversial?
  2. Who might be the winners and losers of the suspension of the de minimis provision for U.S. imports from China? Why?
  3. Imagine you are part of the sourcing department of a U.S.-based fashion company that currently sources from China. How would you respond to the situation in the video, and what recommendations would you make regarding your company’s sourcing strategies?
  4. Do you have any other thoughts or reflections on the video?

Additional reading:

FASH455 Video Discussion: The State of Textiles and Apparel “Made in Asia” (Updated February 2025)

Video 1: Threads of Resilience: China’s textile manufacturing goes automated
Video 2: Asian factories struggling to keep young workers
Video 3: How Millions Of Jeans Get Recycled Into New Pairs in Pakistan
Video 4: Vietnam becomes second biggest garment exporter globally

Discussion questions:

#1 How are textiles and apparel “Made in Asia” changing their faces? What are the driving forces of these changes?

#2 How would you assess Asia’s competitiveness as a hub for textile and apparel production and sourcing in the next five years? Why? What relevant factors could come into play?

#3  Is there anything else in the videos that you find interesting, intriguing, thought-provoking, or debatable? Why?

(Note: Anyone is welcome to join the discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two of the questions above. Please mention the question number in your response, but there is no need to repeat the question.)

Outlook 2025–Key Issues to Shape Apparel Sourcing and Trade

In December 2024, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry experts and scholars in its Shape of apparel sourcing in 2025 briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. Welcome any comments and suggestions!

What’s next for apparel sourcing

Although the world economy is predicted to grow at a similar pace in 2025 from 2024, the slowing US and Chinese economies could impose new challenges to apparel sourcing, from weakened demand to intensified price competition.

Regarding the macroeconomic environment in 2025, which “sets the tone” for apparel sourcing, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank estimated that the world economy would grow by approximately 2.7-3.2 percent in 2025, with almost no change from the previous year. Similarly, the World Trade Organization (WTO) projected that world merchandise trade would increase by 3.3 percent in 2025, slightly higher than 2.6 percent in 2024.

Despite this incremental improvement, the world’s two largest economies–the US (with 2.2 percent GDP growth in 2025, down from 2.8 in 2024 and 2.9 in 2023) and China (with 4.5 percent GDP growth in 2025, down from 4.8 in 2024 and 5.2 in 2023) are expected to experience slower economic growth in the new year ahead. This slowdown means that apparel producers around the world, particularly those developing countries making large-volume basic items, will likely continue to struggle with a shortage of souring orders in 2025 due to overall weak import demand.

Even more concerning, as China grapples with declining domestic sales, the world clothing market could see an additional influx of low-cost Chinese products, especially through new e-commerce channels. Notably, less than half of China’s clothing production is exported, indicating its significant untapped export capacity. Furthermore, while China’s wage levels are higher than those in many other Asian apparel-producing countries, the unit price of U.S. apparel imports from China measured in dollar per square meter equivalent ($/SME) dropped by more than 21% between 2018 and 2024 (up to October). In contrast, U.S. apparel import prices from the rest of the world increased by 7.8% over the same period. Related to this, what is often overlooked is that even Shein, the “ultra-fast fashion” retailer known for its exceptionally competitive pricing, deliberately opted out of the vast Chinese market due to concerns about the intense price competition there. In other words, disregarding the new Trump tariff, 2025 could see an escalation of trade tensions targeting Chinese products in the US market and beyond.

Meanwhile, due to concerns about rising geopolitical tensions worldwide and trade policy uncertainty during Trump’s second term, fashion companies will likely continue to leverage sourcing diversification to mitigate risks. However, the “reducing China exposure” and sourcing diversification movement has yet to substantially benefit near-shoring or emerging sourcing destinations such as the Western Hemisphere and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This result was mainly because fashion companies utilized China to source a wide range of various products, whereas Western Hemisphere and SSA suppliers can only produce a few basic categories.

For example, my latest studies show that in the first nine months of 2024, even excluding major platforms like Shein, Amazon, and Temu, US fashion companies sourced more than 60K Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) of clothing items from China. In comparison, India and Vietnam each supplied approximately 15K SKUs, Cambodia and Bangladesh each contributed 3,000 SKUs, Mexico provided only 2K SKUs, and CAFTA-DR and AGOA member countries supplied around 200 SKUs each. Therefore, even if fashion companies report sourcing from more countries, they are likely to stay sourcing from more Asian countries with closer export capacity and structure to China. Meanwhile, the total value or volume of trade may not fully capture the whole picture of sourcing diversification. This trend may persist in 2025, even with new tariff escalations.

Apparel industry challenges and opportunities

Today’s fashion business is highly global and relies heavily on the frequent movement of goods and services across borders. Thus, the uncertain and protectionist nature of U.S. trade policy during Trump’s second term could present significant challenges to the fashion industry in 2025. Of particular concern is that Trump’s new tariff actions would raise fashion companies’ sourcing costs, create additional inflationary pressure, reduce US consumers’ purchasing power on clothing, and trigger retaliatory trade measures from U.S. trading partners, ultimately hurting the U.S. economy. Notably, when the 7.5% Section 301 tariff was imposed on selected Chinese clothing products in 2018, the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth was relatively low at 1.9%. However, imposing a 20% global tariff, a 60% tariff on Chinese products, and the existing 15%-30% regular tariff on clothing when the CPI is historically high is like “adding fuel to the fire.”

Besides tariffs, in 2025, if not sooner, U.S. fashion companies and many e-commerce suppliers worldwide will closely watch how Congress and the new Trump administration reform the de minimis rule, which currently exempts small-value shipments under $800 from tariffs and most customs procedures.  With Trump’s new tariffs looming, some argue that closing the de minimis “loophole” has become even more urgent, as it creates more financial incentives to use the rule to bypass the tariff increase. Meanwhile, proposals under consideration suggest removing textile and apparel products entirely from de minimis, a move that could be an “earthquake” for those fashion companies utilizing the rule heavily.

Trump’s approach and philosophy toward conventional trade agreements and trade preference programs in 2025 also deserve attention. During his first term, Trump launched a few bilateral trade negotiations, from the one with the United Kingdom and Japan to Kenya. Back then, Trump saw a bilateral agreement would give the U.S. more leverage for a better “deal.” Specifically related to apparel sourcing and trade, two flagship U.S. trade preference programs–the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Haiti HOPE/HELP Act, will expire in September 2025. It remains uncertain whether the new Trump administration will support the early renewal of these two trade preference programs with minimal changes or prefer to renegotiate them and add new bilateral elements.

Additionally, even though the new Trump administration may not prioritize addressing climate change, it is an irreversible trend for fashion companies to allocate more resources to comply with upcoming or newly implemented sustainability and environmental-related legislation, whether from the EU or the US state level. Unlike in the past, when being more sustainable only meant adding operational costs or paying a “one-time fee,” today’s new generation of sustainability-focused regulations—such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)—requires companies to shift their mindset and demonstrate continuous improvement. Interestingly, my recent study tracking apparel products’ sustainability claims shows that vague terms like “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” are gradually being replaced by more neutral, fact-based keywords such as “regenerative,” “textile waste,” and “low impact.”

Meanwhile, offering “sustainable” apparel products and those using “preferred sustainable fibers” could provide fashion companies new opportunities to diversify their sourcing base and expand their vendor networks. For example, studies show that in the U.S. market, China and many other Asian countries are not necessarily the top suppliers of clothing made with recycled materials. Instead, Europe and countries in the Western Hemisphere or even Africa present unique sourcing advantages and capacities due to the unique nature of such products. Therefore, in 2025, we can expect an ever-closer collaboration between design, product development, merchandising, sourcing, and legal teams within fashion companies, working together to meet the growing demand for sustainable apparel and ensure compliance with evolving regulations.

by Sheng Lu

New Study: Exploring India as an Apparel Sourcing Base for U.S. Fashion Companies

The full article is published in Just-Style and below is the summary:

India’s Textiles and Apparel Production

Data from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) shows that India produced around $76.5 billion in textiles and $26.64 billion in wearing apparel in 2022. Although still smaller than China’s, this production scale has already surpassed that of most other Asian countries, including Vietnam. Behind these numbers were India’s over 4,000 ginning factories, 3,500 textile mills, and around 45 million workers directly employed by the textile and apparel sector.

India is one of the world’s largest textile fiber producers, including regular cotton, organic cotton, silk, polyester, and viscose. India also has more advanced local textile manufacturing capabilities than most other developing apparel-exporting Asian countries, allowing it to benefit from a vertically integrated local textile and apparel supply chain. A recent U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) study noted that more than 90 percent of India’s textile raw materials needed for its apparel production can be sourced domestically. In comparison, as the World Trade Organization (WTO) global value chain analysis estimated, more than 64 percent of Vietnam’s apparel exports in 2022 contained foreign-made content (i.e., imported yarns and fabrics), 57 percent for Cambodia, 49 percent for Indonesia, and 33 percent for Bangladesh.

India’s Apparel Export

India remained a much smaller apparel exporter than China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), India exported about $15 billion in apparel in 2023, ranked the world’s sixth largestor 2.8 percent of the global total.  Similarly, in 2023, India accounted for 5.5 percent of U.S. apparel imports and 3.5 percent of the EU, showing its position as a significant supplier but not among the largest. However, unlike most other developing Asian countries, India exports less than half of its apparel output due to its massive domestic market with a population of 1.43 billion. This implies that India’s substantial untapped apparel export potential should not be ignored.

Why Sourcing from India?

Firstly, aligned with trade statistics, many U.S. fashion companies already source from India, although in a relatively small volume.  For example, the USFIA benchmarking survey respondents consistently ranked India as the 3rd or 4th most utilized apparel sourcing base from 2021 to 2024, after China and Vietnam. However, U.S. fashion companies typically place less than 10 percent of their total sourcing value or volume in India. The recent USITC study also raised concerns that India’s apparel factories were primarily small and medium-sized, which could limit their ability to fulfill large-volume sourcing orders.

Secondly, “Made in India” clothing is not necessarily cheap but could be perceived as “worth the value.” Notably, from January to October 2024, clothing labeled “Made in India” sold in the U.S. retail market was, on average, priced much higher than imports from Bangladesh and Vietnam, particularly in the mass market segment. Meanwhile, in the premium market segment, clothing “Made in India” was, on average, priced relatively lower than “Made in China,” such as dresses, tops, and bottoms. These results suggest that U.S. fashion companies do not typically consider India a preferred sourcing base for basic and price-sensitive items. Instead, India may be seen as a more cost-effective alternative to China for high-quality, value-added clothing.

Thirdly, India has been strengthening its competitiveness in export flexibility and agility, enabling its vendors to quickly adjust the delivery, volume, and product of the sourcing order upon customers’ requests. In the latest 2024 USFIA survey, respondents rated India’s sourcing flexibility and agility second only to China, surpassing Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Central American countries. Likewise, India was regarded as one of the few Asian countries that could fulfill apparel sourcing orders with relatively low “minimum order quantity (MOQ)” requirements.

One major factor contributing to India’s perceived advantages in sourcing flexibility and agility is its ability to produce a wide range of apparel products. For example, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) calculated using trade data at the 6-digit HS code level indicates that U.S. apparel imports from India cover more diverse product categories than most Asian countries.

Moreover, due to India’s position as one of the world’s leading cotton producers, in the first ten months of 2024, nearly 60 percent of U.S. apparel imports from India contained cotton fibers, including 13 percent using organic cotton. This percentage was much higher than imports from other Asian suppliers such as China and Vietnam. In comparison, over the same period, U.S. apparel imports from India appear less likely to contain man-made fibers like polyester, nylon, spandex, and recycled polyester. This fiber composition explains why India has yet to become a leading supplier of certain apparel product categories, like outerwear, which more commonly uses man-made fiber than cotton.

Additionally, in the first ten months of 2024, over 45 percent of India’s apparel newly introduced to the U.S. market targeted the luxury and premium segment, closely matching China’s nearly 50 percent and exceeding other Asian suppliers such as Vietnam (20 percent), Bangladesh (13 percent), Cambodia (5 percent), and Indonesia (18 percent). This result explains why U.S. fashion companies increasingly consider India a strategic alternative to sourcing from China, given the similarities in their product offerings.

Reflections

India’s large country size and population, the presence of an already highly integrated and sophisticated textile and apparel supply chain, and its ability to make a great variety of high-quality products suitable for various market segments position it well in the export competition. U.S. fashion companies’ eagerness to reduce sourcing from China due to rising geopolitical concerns and the limited sourcing capacity elsewhere created historical opportunities for India to expand its apparel exports to the U.S. market further.

Nevertheless, it remains a question mark whether India is fully committed to expanding labor-intensive apparel production and exports, given the country’s economy is moving toward more capital and technology-intensive sectors. Notably, in value, apparel only accounted for about 5.6 percent of India’s total merchandise exports in 2023, similar to China’s 5.3 percent but much lower than other lesser-developed Asian countries, including Vietnam (10 percent), Bangladesh (88 percent), and Cambodia (44 percent).

Moreover, while India is not a primary focus for compliance issues like forced labor, sourcing from the country still carries general social and environmental compliance risks similar to those in most developing countries (note: see the 2024 USITC report). It remains to be seen whether India’s textile and apparel mills are technically and financially prepared to meet more stringent social and environmental standards being adopted in the U.S. and can effectively compete in the growing market for “sustainable apparel.”

by Gabriella Giolli (Honors Marketing major & Fashion management minor, University of Delaware) and Sheng Lu

Interview with the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations: The Geopolitics of Fast Fashion–U.S.-China & the World

About the interview: Fashion is possible because of international trade. Each year, the global fashion industry generates more than $4 trillion USD and provides families with affordable clothing options. However, as fast fashion continues to grow, so does awareness of pressing issues such as labor standards and environmental sustainability. How are the United States and China involved in the global fashion industry? How can they collaborate on the issues facing the global fast fashion industry, from production to consumption?

Sheng Lu joins the National Committee to discuss how fast fashion is a global phenomenon and how the United States and China can address common areas of concern.

Learn more about the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations (NCUSCR)

New Study: Exploring the US as a Sourcing Base for Clothing Using Recycled Cotton

The full article is published in Just-Style and below is the summary:

Market Size

Reflecting fashion companies’ interest in carrying more sustainable apparel products to meet consumers’ demand, there has been a notable increase in clothing using recycled cotton in the U.S. retail market since 2022. For example, based on information collected from US apparel retailers’ websites, only about 100 Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) of “Made in the USA” clothing explicitly indicated that they contained recycled cotton in 2022 and 2023, respectively. However, in the first nine months of 2024, this number had already doubled to around 200.

Despite the impressive growth, clothing containing recycled cotton remains a “niche” in the U.S. retail market. As of 2024, the total SKUs of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton accounted for only about 0.1% of those made with regular virgin cotton.

Meanwhile, measured by SKU count, 70% of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton was sold in the mass and value segments in the U.S. retail market from 2022 to 2024.  In comparison, over the same period, “Made in the USA” clothing made with regular cotton catered to a more diverse consumer base, with a relatively balanced distribution across the mass and value segment (57%) and the luxury and premium segment (43%).

Product Features

There appears to be a notable distinction between the product categories of “Made in the USA” clothing using recycled cotton and those made with regular cotton. Specifically, from 2022 to 2024, by SKU count, “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton mainly focused on basics such as T-shirts (35.6%), jeans (20.1%), other bottoms (20.7%) and other tops (18.4%). Particularly, jeans appear more likely to contain recycled cotton than any other apparel category.

Using recycled cotton also appears to affect clothing’s design patterns. For example, from 2022 to 2024, nearly 85% of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton chose plain design patterns compared to only 65% of those exclusively using regular cotton. These results echo findings from previous studies, suggesting that the shorter fiber length and lower quality of recycled cotton may limit the use of more intricate and complex design details.

Fiber Content

Reflecting the significant limitations of the quality and properties of the fiber, clothing labeled as using “100% recycled cotton” was rarely available in the U.S. retail market from 2022 to 2024, regardless of where the item was made. In most cases, recycled cotton accounted for no more than 30% of the total fiber content in a garment, with typical labels read like “49% cotton, 21% recycled cotton, 17% recycled polyester” (jeans), “Made from 70% cotton and 30% recycled cotton” (T-shirt), and “Made from 70% cotton, 29% recycled cotton, and 1% elastane” (skirt).

Results show that over 95% of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton was blended with regular virgin cotton, and 92% of imported clothing did the same. According to textile scientists, this blend helps overcome the physical limitations of recycled cotton and enhances the fabric’s durability and softness. Approximately 14% of “Made in the USA clothing” containing recycled cotton was blended with polyester. This blend was commonly used for jeans and T-shirts to improve durability and flexibility and may also reduce production costs. However, compared with “Made in the USA” clothing made from regular cotton, it was uncommon to see recycled cotton blended with specific fiber types such as nylon, spandex, rayon, and linen. This result again revealed the physical limitations of recycled cotton and explained the narrow range of apparel products currently suited for its use.

Sustainability Claims

In practice, the sustainability claims of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton in the U.S. retail market appear to be a “mixed bag.” On the one hand, as anticipated, “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton seems to be more likely to highlight its sustainability attributes than those using regular cotton only. From 2022 to 2024, by SKU count, more than 23.1% of “Made in the USA” items containing recycled cotton mentioned the word “sustainable” in the product description or label, and another 16.2% mentioned “eco-friendly.” In comparison, less than 2% of “Made in the USA” clothing made from regular cotton included these two terms.  Similarly, a higher percentage of “Made in the USA” clothing using recycled cotton also featured other sustainability-related terms such as “impacts,” “waste,” and “certified,” compared to those made from regular cotton.

On the other hand, however, the sustainability claims of “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton are not without concerns. For example, in many cases, the product descriptions or labels provide no detailed and verifiable information about the actual “sustainability benefits” of producing and consuming clothing made from recycled cotton aside from vaguely saying the product was “sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” or “certified.”

To complicate the issue further, as clothing made from regular cotton increasingly emphasizes its sustainability benefits as a natural fiber, it somehow diminishes the exclusivity of recycled cotton as a sustainable option. For example, there is no clear evidence indicating that consumers generally perceive clothing using “recycled cotton” as more or less sustainable than those using “organic cotton” or cotton certified by reputable programs such as the “Better Cotton Initiative, BCI” and the “U.S. Cotton Trust Protocol.” In other words, “recycled cotton” faces intense competition as the preferred sustainable fiber among many choices available to fashion companies, including regular cotton. 

Pricing Practices

Results show that “Made in the USA” clothing containing recycled cotton is not always “cheap” for U.S. consumers. For instance, for those targeting the mass market segment, between 2022 and 2024, adding recycled cotton increased the selling price of “Made in the USA” clothing by more than 10% compared to items made with virgin cotton, with jeans being the only exception (i.e., 12% lower).

Price data also show that “Made in the USA” recycled cotton items generally have higher price tags than comparable non-U.S.-made items across both mass and premium markets, particularly in popular categories like T-shirts and bottoms. This trend suggests that higher U.S. domestic production costs, particularly the higher wage level than Asian countries, could contribute to these elevated prices.

Reflections

As the findings highlighted, while visibility is increasing, promoting recycled cotton in clothing still encounters significant challenges. For instance, technical advancements in the quality of recycled cotton fiber are critical to enhancing its competitiveness among other “preferred sustainable fibers,” raising its perceived market value and enabling its use across a broader range of clothing categories beyond T-shirts and jeans.

Notably, due to slow progress in improving the physical properties of recycled cotton, some have seemingly “given up” on using it for clothing and suggest focusing more on repurposing recycled cotton for other categories, such as non-wovens, carpets, packaging, and home textiles. However, as sustainability legislation, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law, increasingly mandates fashion companies to recycle textile waste, not promoting recycled cotton could lead to greater reliance on recycled polyester or other man-made fibers in clothing, which may not serve the long-term business interests of the cotton industry.

by Katherine Yasik (Fashion Design and Product Innovation major & Sustainable apparel minor, Fashion and Apparel Studies, University of Delaware) and Sheng Lu

New Study: How Has the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Affected U.S. Apparel Import?

Implemented in June 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) prohibits U.S. companies from importing apparel wholly or in part produced in China’s Xinjiang region. UFLPA could significantly alter U.S. apparel import patterns as fashion companies have begun or anticipate adjusting their sourcing base to comply with the law and mitigate the forced labor risks in the supply chain.

This study quantitatively evaluated the impacts of the UFLPA on U.S. apparel imports nearly two years after the law’s implementation. Unlike existing studies primarily focusing on UFLPA’s political or legal aspects, this study’s findings would enhance our understanding of the economic and trade implications of the new law.

A panel regression model was adopted to evaluate the quantitative impact of UFLPA on U.S. apparel imports based on data collected from OTEXA (2024) and USITC (2024), the most authentic government data source. Four countries in three categories were included in the study: 1) China; 2) Vietnam and Bangladesh representing top Asian apparel exporting countries other than China; 3) member countries of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) representing near-shoring sourcing destinations. The annual trade activities of these four countries from 2010 to 2023 (the latest available) were used for the analysis.

The panel regression model suggests several interesting findings*:

Firstly, the results showed that holding other factors constant, U.S. cotton apparel imports from China decreased significantly by approximately 350 million square meter equivalent (SME) annually following UFLPA’s implementation. In other words, the result confirmed that UFLPA had negatively affected U.S. cotton apparel imports from China. This result is far from surprising as Xinjiang accounted for nearly 90% of China’s cotton production, causing significant forced labor risks associated with importing cotton apparel from China.

Secondly, holding other factors constant, U.S. cotton apparel imports from Vietnam and Bangladesh and CAFTA-DR also respectively decreased by approximately 81 million SME, 51 million SME, and 20 million SME annually after UFLPA’s implementation in 2022. The results revealed U.S. fashion companies’ concerns about UFLPA compliance risks associated with sourcing from countries other than China, particularly Asia, due to their heavy reliance on cotton yarns and fabrics from China through a highly integrated regional supply chain.

Thirdly, the results revealed a more significant positive relationship between U.S. cotton exports to China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and CAFTA-DR countries and U.S. cotton apparel imports from these countries after UFLPA’s implementation. Related, trade data also showed a declining ratio of U.S. cotton apparel imports from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and CAFTA-DR countries relative to these countries’ cotton imports from the U.S. This pattern implies a closer alignment in the trade flow of raw cotton from the U.S. to these countries and the return of finished cotton apparel to the U.S. It could be the case that leading apparel exporting countries increasingly used US cotton after UFLPA to mitigate the forced labor risks.

Additionally, there was a negative relationship between U.S. cotton apparel imports from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and CAFTA-DR members and U.S. MMF apparel imports from these countries. In other words, cotton apparel and MMF apparel appear to compete within the total U.S. apparel import market. However, UFLPA’s implementation has not significantly impacted the relationship. Nonetheless, MMF apparel has accounted for a growing share of China’s total apparel exports to the United States after UFLPA’s implementation (down from 46% in 2010 to only 19% in 2023).

The study’s findings revealed a broad trade impact of UFLPA’s implementation that goes far beyond China. Notably, cotton apparel exporters from other Asian countries and those in the Western Hemisphere also appeared to be negatively affected by the new law. Also, unlike theoretical prediction, no clear evidence shows that UFLPA has significantly expanded the near-shoring of U.S. cotton apparel imports from the Western Hemisphere, such as CAFTA-DR members.

Meanwhile, the results call for further investigation of the net impact of UFLPA on U.S. cotton exports. While UFLPA may help U.S. cotton gain more shares in the global marketplace, the reduced U.S. import demand for cotton apparel due to forced labor risk concerns may also unexpectedly “shrink the pie size.”

*:The fixed effects (FE) model was selected for the study based on the likelihood ratio test results (p<.01). The result of the F-test suggests the FE model is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (p<.01). The value of R2 exceeds 0.90, indicating an overall high goodness-of-fit of the panel regression. All the independent variables were statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (p<.01).

By Sheng Lu and Emilie Delaye

Note: The study will be presented at the 2024 International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) annual conference in November 2024.

[This blog post is not open for comment]

FASH455 Discussion: How likely will US fashion companies increase apparel sourcing from Guatemala in 2025 compared to 2024?

Note: The video was taken during a Guatemala garment factory visit in May 2024. Credit: Sheng Lu

Discussion instructions:

The following two scenarios are generated by ChatGPT using input from FASH455 students’ proposed discussion questions*. Based on what we learned in class and additional information you collected online (not from ChatGPT or any AI tools), please critique the scenarios presented, including the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, any viewpoints you agree or disagree with, and any additional factors that could be considered. In your response, please share the link to any further resources you consulted.

Scenario 1: US apparel import from Guatemala would increase in 2025

In 2025, U.S. apparel imports from Guatemala are projected to experience a significant increase, driven by a confluence of favorable economic conditions, strategic supply chain shifts, and improvements in local manufacturing capabilities. The U.S. economy is expected to grow at a rate of 2.2%, which, coupled with rising consumer confidence, is likely to sustain robust demand for apparel. Guatemala’s geographic proximity to the U.S. presents a logistical advantage, allowing for shorter shipping times and reduced transportation costs compared to Asian suppliers. Moreover, U.S. apparel imports from Guatemala, which have historically averaged around $1.5 billion, could see a notable increase around 2-5%. This increase is further supported by Guatemala’s investments in modernizing its textile industry, including advancements in sustainable practices and technology adoption that align with growing consumer preferences for ethically sourced and environmentally friendly products.

Additionally, the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) has enabled duty-free access for certain apparel products, encouraging more U.S. brands to explore sourcing options in Guatemala. With a utilization rate of around 70% under CAFTA-DR, brands are beginning to leverage the agreement more effectively, which could lead to a higher volume of apparel imports as they seek to optimize their supply chains. In this context, the increasing trend toward sustainable fashion could further elevate Guatemala’s status as a preferred sourcing location, particularly for companies looking to enhance their corporate social responsibility profiles. As a result, the combination of economic growth, logistical advantages, and strategic shifts in sourcing could lead to a substantial increase in U.S. apparel imports from Guatemala in 2025.

Scenario 2: US apparel import from Guatemala would remain stagnant in 2025

U.S. apparel imports from Guatemala are poised to remain stagnant in 2025, continuing a troubling trend that has characterized the market for over a decade. Despite a projected U.S. GDP growth of 2.2%, the apparel market faces significant challenges that hinder any potential growth in trade volume. Historical data illustrates that U.S. imports from Guatemala have stagnated around $1.5 billion, primarily due to intense competition from Asian manufacturers who can offer lower prices and greater production capacity. With the global supply chain still recovering from disruptions and high inflation pressure, U.S. companies may prioritize sourcing from countries that can provide more cost-effective solutions, further sidelining Guatemala.

Moreover, Guatemala’s textile sector grapples with persistent capacity constraints and labor shortages, limiting its ability to scale operations effectively in response to market demands. The country’s utilization of CAFTA-DR benefits remains suboptimal, hovering around 70%, and many brands have yet to fully exploit the agreement to its potential. This underutilization could be a significant barrier to increasing trade volume, as companies may prefer sourcing from countries that can more efficiently navigate trade agreements and provide better pricing structures. Additionally, the growing trend toward fast fashion and quick turnaround times poses a challenge for Guatemalan manufacturers, who may struggle to compete with the rapid production cycles of Asian suppliers. Given these persistent issues, U.S. apparel imports from Guatemala are likely to remain stagnant at approximately $1.5 billion in 2025, as the country continues to face formidable obstacles in enhancing its role in the global apparel supply chain.

*Questions FASH455 students proposed to generate initial information. Read the ChatGPT responses here.

  • Compare the most likely scenario of Trump or Harris becoming the next U.S. president and its impact on US apparel sourcing from Guatemala.
  • Here is the latest US GDP growth and forecast: 2.9% in 2023, 2.8% in 2024 and 2.2% in 2025. Analyze the historical data you have access to and predict US apparel imports from Guatemala in 2025. Ideally, please provide numerical results
  • US apparel imports from Guatemala have stagnated over the past decade. What are the critical reasons for the lack of growth? Will any factors likely change in 2025, or will they remain mostly the same?
  • Does Guatemala have the capacity to handle increased US apparel sourcing demand in 2025 from 2024? Say 5% increase or 10% increase? Please use data to justify your viewpoint.
  • What factors would impact US fashion companies sourcing with Guatemala in the future? Will any factors change in 2025, and why?
  • What is the relationship between CAFTA-DR’s utilization and the value of US apparel imports from Guatemala? Based on historical data, will the utilization rate significantly affect the trade volume?
  • Will offering more flexibility in CAFTA-DR’s apparel rules of origin encourage more apparel imports from Guatemala, and why?
  • Will recycled textiles significantly boost US apparel sourcing in 2025 vs 2024? or instead, this is a niche product and won’t affect the sourcing volume much
  • Is Guatemala a preferred sourcing base among fashion companies for fast fashion items? Can Guantema compete with Asian countries for such orders in 2025?

Costume Buying and Sourcing: FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Kara Hamalainen, Associate Costume Buyer at Disney Live Entertainment

About Kara Hamalainen

My name is Kara Hamalainen, and I am a May 2023 graduate of the University of Delaware. I earned my Bachelor of Science double majoring in Fashion Design and Product Innovation & Fashion Merchandising and Management. While studying at UD, I was very involved with the Impact Dance Company and Synergy Fashion Group. I have a strong passion for the costume industry because I grew up as a dancer, and it is the perfect way to link my two most prominent interests of fashion and the entertainment world together.

After graduating from UD, I was accepted into the Disney Professional Internship program and began my role as a Disney Live Entertainment Costuming Buyer Intern. I had the most incredible experience as a Professional Intern for the Walt Disney Company, and luckily, my time with my dream company did not end after my internship. I was offered a full-time Associate Costume Buyer role, and I get to continue making magic for thousands of people every single day! I currently live in Orlando, Florida and have been in my full-time ACB role for about six months.

Sheng: As a costume buyer for Disney, what are your primary job responsibilities? What does a typical day or week look like for you? Which part of the job do you find most exciting? Were there any aspects of the position that surprised you after you started?

Kara: The primary responsibility of a costume buyer under Disney Live Entertainment is to have the right costumes at the right place, in the right quantity, and at the right time. Buyers are responsible for placing orders for costume pieces, garments, and accessories and ensuring that delivery dates for products ordered are closely monitored. By achieving this, we can create and enrich the experiences of our guests and cast members worldwide. Our work can be seen at the Disney theme parks, resort hotels, cruise ships, and numerous other locations around the globe, which is truly a special and unique opportunity.

I am an Associate Costume Buyer under our Character Programs & Development (CP&D) replenishment team. In this role, I mainly replenish existing products but may assist with new developments as needed. My main responsibility is facilitating the purchase of various hard and soft goods for our character costumes. I assist a few buyers on my team with their orders while managing my own orders and vendor relationships. I also facilitate conversations with domestic vendors across the U.S. to get high-quality products on time and within budget. Additionally, I issue fabric and notions requests from our warehouse to get materials stored in-house and sent to our outside vendors for production.

The most exciting part of my job is witnessing how my work behind the scenes impacts people every single day. Whenever I go to the Walt Disney World theme parks, I watch guests interact with their favorite Disney characters through meet & greets and parades. It is heartwarming to know that I get to contribute to something so special to somebody and allow them to have that memory for the rest of their life.

An aspect of my role that surprised me the most was how complex and detail-oriented every single element of a character’s costume is. It may be as small as an earring or a buckle on a belt, but each costume component is treated equally. Attention to detail is an extremely crucial element to Disney Live Entertainment Costuming to ensure the power of storytelling comes across to all guests.

Sheng: What does the buying and sourcing process look like for costumes? What factors do you typically consider in your buying and sourcing decisions? What are the unique issues or challenges involved in costume buying and sourcing?

Kara: The buying process for character costumes begins with our CP&D inventory planning team, which monitors the inventory of our costumes in terms of sizing, assortment, and quantity. The inventory planning team determines optimal inventory levels and all costume issue locations in the warehouse. They are also the team that will receive specific requests from costuming leaders and sites regarding inventory status and demand for a certain character costume. Once the inventory planning team has decided what character costume piece will need to be ordered and the ideal quantity, they will notify the buyer to place an order.

Once the buyer has been notified of the new purchase request, they will email their vendors to notify them of the new order. It is essential to inform the vendor of the item, quantity, and due date to confirm that the order can fit into their current production schedule. The buyer will also confirm pricing with the vendor. As soon as the vendor confirms that the new order will fit into their production schedule, the buyer writes the official purchase order. For all soft goods, this is the point in time where the buyer will notify our patternmaking team to send the tech pack and samples to the vendor for production. If necessary, the buyer will also ensure that fabric and notions requests are made for the order. Once the buyer takes these steps, the outside vendor will successfully produce the order.

When production is completed, and the order is delivered to our warehouse, a detailed quality check process will be performed. Every item goes through inspection, is counted for quantity accuracy, and is measured to ensure that sizing is to spec based on the tech pack. If there are any discrepancies, there are multiple ways in which the issue can be resolved so the items can ultimately pass the quality inspection. Most importantly, the buyer will be notified and communicate the issue to the vendor so it can be prevented for future orders. If there are no noted issues with the order, then the order will be received in the system and marked for completion.

A challenge frequently arises involves orders with a “hard due date,” meaning the costume piece is needed for a specific project, show, or cruise ship. These hard due date orders do not have flexibility with their due dates as a regular replenishment order would, so it is crucial to make the vendor aware of shifting order priority if necessary. Sometimes, these hard-due-date order requests come in with very little notice, so the buyer will confirm with the vendor that they can turn in the items quickly and successfully meet the due date. If a hard due date order becomes impossible to meet, the buyer will communicate with the inventory planning team, which will work on finding a viable solution.

Sheng: As a costume buyer, how do you collaborate with other departments and teams at Disney, such as designers, product development, and sourcing? How about external stakeholders, such as your vendors?

Kara: For the CP&D Procurement Buying team, one of our main focuses is our communication and relationships with outside vendors. It is extremely vital that we build and maintain strong relationships with our outside vendors so our business can continue to run successfully. The buyers are in constant contact with their assigned vendors, communicating daily via email and phone about both current and new costume orders. It is also important that we get our work onto their production schedule in a timely manner to avoid scheduling conflicts with other customers they may have.

Regarding other teams at Disney, my buying team often collaborates with the project development buying team. This team is responsible for buying and sourcing materials for new character costumes that the designers are currently developing. Once the development process has been completed, we hold transition meetings where the development team goes over everything the replenishment buying team will need to know about the new character costume for future orders. This includes elements such as raw materials, fiber content, vendor information, and price per costume piece.

Sheng: Do you see any innovations changing the future of costume buying or production, particularly due to factors like technology, AI, and sustainability?

Kara: The Walt Disney Company commits to environmental sustainability, implementing several goals to achieve by 2030 related to emissions, water, waste, materials, and sustainable design. Specifically for Disney Live Entertainment Costuming, we focus on sustainable materials, manufacturing, and zero waste management. Fabrics and raw materials will be resourced to contain at least 25% certified sustainable content or lower-impact alternatives. Plastics will also need to contain at least 30% recycled content or a lower-impact alternative material. Manufacturers of raw materials and garments must provide one or more approved sustainable certifications and confirm participation in the Higg Index.

As a buyer, it will be our responsibility to work with our outside vendors and ensure they are closely following our company’s sustainability efforts. As some vendors source their own materials rather than use Disney-supplied materials, they must shift toward using recycled, sustainably sourced, or lower-impact alternative textiles and raw materials. Additionally, any vendors specializing in plastics and other hard goods will have to figure out ways to make their materials more sustainable without affecting the quality of the costume piece. Our current outside vendors must also maintain a sustainable manufacturing certification and provide proof of their sustainability practices. Suppose this is not possible for some of our current vendors. In that case, I imagine we would have to identify new vendors who can maintain production on a sustainable level that is ideal for our business model.

Sheng: What advice would you give to students interested in pursuing a career in costume buying and sourcing? What skill sets are most valued in this role? Are there any specific experiences or opportunities at UD and in the FASH program that you would highly recommend for our students exploring their career paths?

Kara: I would highly recommend taking advantage of internship opportunities during your time at UD. Internships are a great way to gain hands-on experience in the day-to-day responsibilities of a particular role while allowing you to strengthen your understanding of the textile and apparel industry from a real-world perspective. It is also an extremely effective way to network and make valuable connections in the industry. Don’t be afraid to start conversations with your FASH professors about your goals and interests, as they are always willing to help and will likely have strong connections to the industry as well.

Additionally, having an open mind is extremely important going into the industry. Your first job out of college may not be your dream role, but know that you are gaining valuable industry skills that can be applied to a number of different positions. For example, I know that I eventually want to work my way into a more creative and design-driven role. While my current position as a costume buyer may not be focused on design and creativity, the communication and organization skills I am gaining can still translate to various positions in the industry.

Lastly, follow your dreams! It might sound cliché, but you never know what will happen if you put yourself out there and give something a shot. I faced multiple rejections from Disney before getting accepted into the internship program. If I had not decided to persevere and keep trying, I would not be where I am today. I also owe so much of my successes to the UD FASH program, as I am so grateful for the opportunities it provided. Good luck to all of you!

–The End–

Event Recording: Regulating and Reforming De Minimis (October 2024)

The event was hosted by the Washington International Trade Association on October 9, 2024

Panelists

  • Ralph Carter, Staff Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, FedEx
  • Kim Glas, President & CEO, National Council of Textile Organizations; Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
  • Melissa Irmen, Director of Advocacy, NAFTZ-National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones
  • John Pickel, Senior Director, International Supply Chain Policy, National Foreign Trade Council
  • Felicia Pullam, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
  • Ana Swanson, Trade and International Economics Reporter, The New York Times (Moderator)

Event summary: Competing views about de minims and its reform

Arguments supporting De Minimis: Proponents like Ralph from FedEx argue that de minimis reduces trade friction, drives international supply chain efficiency, and allows U.S. companies to offer competitive pricing through free returns and streamlined customs processes. Meanwhile, they argue that the de minimis supports low-income U.S. consumers and enables small U.S. businesses to remain competitive.

Criticism of De Minimis: Critics, including Kim Glas from the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), argue that it undercuts U.S. manufacturers, especially in industries like textiles, by allowing cheap imports from countries like China, often bypassing tariffs and safety regulations. They also say that de minimis was unfair to U.S. retailers that pay millions of dollars of tariff duties. Additionally, there are significant concerns about the safety risks posed by counterfeit goods and dangerous products (e.g., fentanyl) entering under de minimis exemptions.

Challenges of dealing with de Minimis: Felicia from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) emphasizes the strain on the agency’s resources due to the sheer volume of de minimis shipments—it surged from about 2.8 million shipments per day in fiscal year 2023 to close to 4 million shipments per day in fiscal year 2024. She highlighted challenges such as the often unreliable information the de minimis imports submitted and the outdated authorities that hinder CBP’s enforcement.

Equal treatment for U.S. Foreign Trade Zones: U.S. Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) are designated areas within the United States that are considered outside U.S. customs territory for import duties. They allow businesses to import, store, assemble, manufacture, or process goods with deferred or reduced customs duties, which are only paid when goods leave the FTZ and enter U.S. commerce. Currently, U.S. FTZs do not benefit from the de minimis exemption, meaning goods imported directly into the U.S. from overseas warehouses can qualify for de minimis, but goods entering through U.S. FTZs do not.

Melissa Irmen from NAFTZ-National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones advocates for U.S. foreign trade zones to be given the same de minimis privileges as foreign warehouses, arguing that this would ensure better oversight and security while maintaining trade efficiency. Critics, however, say that expanding de minimis in this way would exacerbate the problem rather than fix it.

Reforming the De minimis: There is a push for comprehensive reform of the De minimis system, with proposals ranging from raising duties on certain products to eliminating the exemption altogether for specific categories of goods (e.g., textiles, products subject to Section 301 tariffs).

Particularly, in a face sheet released in September 2024, the Biden Administration announced it would address “the significant increased abuse of the de minimis exemption, in particular China-founded e-commerce platforms.” The announcement said the Biden Administration would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would exclude from the de minimis exemption all shipments containing products covered by tariffs imposed under Sections 201 or 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The announcement also called for Congress to pass new legislation to reform the de minimis rule comprehensively. 

Related readings:

Current Event Discussion: How Shipping Containers Control Global Trade

FASH455 Learning activity: After watching the two video above, please explore the following topics with the assistance of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools:

  1. The significance and complexity of container shipping for U.S. fashion brands and retailers
  2. Current issues related to container shipping for U.S. fashion brands and retailers

In your response, please include the following elements:

  • Questions: list at least three questions you asked ChatGPT or other AI tools that helped generate the most information and insights.
  • Summary and reflections: summarize the key points from the answers you received from the AI tool and share your reflections (e.g., were there any surprising insights? the outlook for the issues discussed)
  • Further Reading: Suggest 1-2 additional articles from national or international press that offer deeper insights into the topics. The readings need to be published after 2024. Please share the article link and briefly explain why you recommend them.

New USITC Report: Apparel: Export Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to the United States

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) released its new fact-finding report examining the competitiveness of Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan as apparel suppliers to the United States. The study was conducted in 2024 based on input from secondary sources (e.g., trade statistics, public hearings, and desk studies) and fieldwork. Below are summaries of the key findings regarding apparel export competitiveness.

Factors that affect export competitiveness in the global apparel sector

One key issue the study explored is what factors affect a country’s apparel export competitiveness and how to become a preferred apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies.

The studies suggest that four types of factors are most important (see the figure above). However, consistent with existing literature, the USITC report could not determine which factor is decisive in fashion companies’ apparel sourcing decisions. For example, the report found that:

  • “cost—the price buyers pay their suppliers—plays a key role in sourcing decisions, although opinions vary regarding the importance of cost relative to other factors.”
  • “Depending on the product, target consumer, and identity of a brand or buyer, apparel buyers will place varying degrees of importance on product differentiation factors such as quality, specialization, product mix, and full package offerings, which include design services, finishing, packaging, and logistics.”
  • “The emphasis on reliability has particularly grown in response to various recent disruptions to global apparel supply chains such as a global pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, and trade policy.”
  • “Although emerging research suggests that compliance programs concerning wages, social inclusion, and climate change mitigation may increase competitiveness, buyers and brands remain divided on the topic…the relative importance, or “weight,” of such compliance in sourcing decisions remains a topic of active study and discussion within the industry.”

Cost and export competitiveness

The USITC report highlighted the complex and nuanced relationship between “costs” and a country’s apparel export competitiveness. Several patterns are noteworthy:

  • Apparel is a buyer-driven industry, meaning “the global apparel supply chain gives buyers the power to negotiate based on price, which can push down prices and transfer greater costs to the supplier.”
  • The ability to produce textile raw materials locally can provide cost advantages in garment production—“Material inputs are widely recognized as the largest component in the cost of a final apparel product, and these prices are largely determined by the presence of a domestic textile industry or costs of importing textiles.”
  • It is difficult to compare wages across countries to measure labor competitiveness. In particular, low labor costs “do not reflect the true cost of doing business (e.g., via wage suppression)” in a country and “they can harm a country’s reputation for social compliance and negatively affect labor productivity.”

Buyer-supplier relationships in apparel sourcing

The USITC report revealed some positive developments in the buyer-supplier relationships involving U.S. fashion companies.

  • Fashion companies increasingly recognize the value of building long-term relationships with their vendors. Buyers emphasize that maintaining these relationships is a key factor in sourcing decisions, largely due to the cost and time involved in finding and establishing relationships with new suppliers.
  • Fashion companies’ efforts to improve supply chain transparency and traceability also need  “suppliers who will act in line with their brand’s values.”
  • Suppliers benefit from the long-term relationship, too. As the USITC report noted, some fashion companies guarantee suppliers a particular profit margin to ensure their continued operation. Additionally, some buyers gain a deep understanding of their suppliers’ cost structures, enabling them to calculate the costs of compliance with various standards and assist suppliers in reducing costs where possible.
  • Subcontracting is still regarded as necessary for the garment industry. As noted in the USITC report, apparel orders fluctuate seasonally, making it impractical for suppliers to hire additional permanent workers or invest in machinery for peak demand. To meet buyer expectations during busy periods, manufacturers often subcontract parts of orders and increase overtime or rely on temporary contract workers. This practice is seen as essential for ensuring a reliable supply of apparel.

Social and environmental responsibility and apparel sourcing

The USITC report acknowledged the growing importance of social and environmental compliance to a country’s apparel export competitiveness. However, the relationship remains complex.

  • The extent to which voluntary social and environmental responsibility programs and their associated auditing practices have influenced outcomes, especially regarding worker rights, remains unclear.
  • Suppliers report that the increased frequency of flooding and high temperatures due to climate change negatively affect their ability to meet labor and environmental standards.
  • Increased compliance with social and environmental standards raises supplier costs, negatively impacting their cost competitiveness. Many stakeholders note that while brands and consumers demand greater responsibility, this often does not come with a “price premium” for suppliers, who ultimately absorb these increased costs.

Note: The USITC report also evaluated the export competitiveness of each apparel-exporting country it examined, including their respective competitive advantages and issues to address.

Merchandising and Sourcing: FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Natalie Kaucic, Global Merchant for Dockers at Levi Strauss & Co.

About Natalie Kaucic

Natalie Kaucic is a Merchandising professional currently in the role of Global Merchant for Dockers Men’s Tops at Levi Strauss & Co. She graduated from the University of Delaware in 2019 with a Fashion Merchandising Degree and Business Admin minor. During her studies, she was awarded the Fashion Scholarship Fund scholarship, studied at John Cabot in Rome, participated in the Disney College Program, and was a leader for the Delaware Diplomats. Natalie’s research on the global market for sustainable apparel was published in Just-style, a leading fashion industry trade publication. Post university, Natalie started as an assistant at Minted as a Merchandiser, where she worked in the Wedding category and faced the adverse challenges of the wedding industry during COVID-19. Levi’s was her next endeavor where she started as an assistant, and has since been promoted to run the Dockers Men’s Tops Category for the Globe.

Disclaimer: The comments and opinions expressed below are solely my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of any company.

Sheng: What are your primary job responsibilities as a global merchant? What does a typical day or week look like for you? Which part of the job do you find most exciting? Were there any aspects of the position that surprised you after you started?

Natalie: My primary responsibility is to create a brand-right and consumer-focused product assortment. Under the covers, this looks like a vast variety of tasks that I do on a seasonal basis. I regularly listen and work with regional merchandising to understand their regional specific needs, collaborate with design on new product ideas and fabrics, and meet with product development to work on new fabric innovations and product costing. Every week looks dramatically different for me in my work. Sometimes, I’m heads down in assortment strategy; other weeks, I work on creating templates and calendars for process improvement.

What I find most exciting is seeing the product in person. Most Dockers Tops are not sold domestically, so it’s really fun to see a product you worked on in the wild! I am also grateful to be able to manage an assistant. Seeing things click for her and watching her succeed is incredibly motivating.

What surprised me the most was the number of different teams I work with, including planning, regional merchants, product development, marketing, styling, design, garment/fit development, copy, IT, analytics, sales, business operations, and e-commerce. Learning what everyone does and who to go to was the most significant learning curve and the biggest shock coming into my role.

Sheng: Based on your observation and experience, how do the merchandising, product development, and sourcing teams collaborate in a fashion apparel company? Could you explain their respective responsibilities and how they support one another?

Natalie: In my role, I have more direct contact with our product development team than the sourcing team. I work very closely with product development as they are the team that helps produce our product. They manage fabric & garment development, costing negotiations, and innovation development/testing. They also work through some more micro-sourcing strategies, for example, moving the production from one factory to another to get better duty rates. As a hypothetical example, we sell a poplin shirt primarily in Europe. Pretend we produce the shirt in India at a cost of $10/each. However, shipping it to Europe incurs a 40% import duty, bringing the cost of goods sold (COGS) to $14. If we could produce the shirt in Mexico, where the duty rate to Europe is only 5%, even if the production cost is higher—say $12—the overall cost to Europe would still be lower. There are endless complexities to this that I’m sure you will learn more from FASH455—topics like free trade agreements, yarn forward rules of origin, etc.

Sheng: Fashion companies need to balance various factors such as cost, quality, speed to market, and compliance risks when deciding where to source their apparel products. Could you share your experiences and reflections on managing these challenges in the real world?

Natalie: Below is an example of natural fibers and the cost challenge with cotton-forward apparel products.

Currently, linen is in high demand, but there isn’t enough crop to meet industry needs—it’s a classic case of supply and demand. Not only does this drive up costs (COGS), but it also complicates the process of securing raw materials. It’s easy to overlook that the apparel industry is fundamentally tied to agriculture, making it vulnerable to factors like bad weather, natural disasters, and inaccurate demand forecasting. These challenges force us to make critical decisions. With rising garment costs, should the company absorb the expense to keep prices steady for consumers? Our product development team might ask if we need to pre-book fibers to lock in pricing—when is the right time to do that, and how much should we purchase?

This isn’t a new challenge. For example, cotton, our primary raw material for clothing, fluctuates in price like oil, making agility in sourcing essential!

Sheng: Studies show that consumers want to see more “sustainable apparel products” in stores. How are fashion companies responding to this demand? What opportunities and challenges does this trend present for fashion companies’ business operations, especially in merchandising, supply chain, and sourcing?

Natalie: This is such a complicated question. I think about this often as I am personally really passionate about this topic!

In my day-to-day work, I focus on sustainable fibers, as the fabric content of a garment is something I can directly influence. Working on a global scale, I collaborate with regions worldwide, each of which—along with their retailers—has different values regarding sustainable products. Europe, for instance, is relatively ahead of the US in sustainability and often requires a certain percentage of sustainable fibers (e.g., organic cotton, recycled cotton) in our products. In Europe, items using 100% organic cotton hold significant value and can command a higher price in stores such as Galeries Lafayette or Zalando. However, not all retailers and consumers globally share the same commitment to sustainability. In some cases, we may need to use synthetics for functional purposes, such as in activewear. In those instances, we prioritize using recycled polyester or nylon to meet our sustainability goals. Regardless of the consumer or price point, our goal is to integrate sustainability at every level and for every product.

One challenge I find particularly interesting is working with “recycled cotton.” As you may know, recycling cotton typically involves breaking down the fibers, which shortens and weakens them. Because of this, there’s usually a limit to how much recycled cotton can be used before fabric quality is affected. That’s why you often see recycled cotton blended with virgin cotton in the same garment. However, newer recycling methods that aim to preserve the staple length are emerging, offering hope for improvements as the technology becomes more mature and accessible.

Ultimately, heavy consumption, regardless of the fabric being recycled or organic, isn’t truly sustainable. The focus should be on choosing pieces you love and investing in items that are made to last.

Sheng: Are there any other major trends in the fashion industry that we should closely monitor in the next 1-3 years?

Natalie: In the next 1-3 years, I’m eager to see what AI-driven tools will be introduced to assist merchants in making smarter, data-backed decisions. In merchandising, we are constantly trying to predict the future. A lot of research and data analysis go into decision making,  but also a big handful of going with your gut. Will AI be able to help us find trends in the past that can better help us make decisions for the future?

It’s not exactly a trend, but I’m really curious about the future of fast fashion giants over the next decade. With growing interest in sustainability and new regulations emerging from Europe, will we eventually see a decline in these dominant players, or will demand for fast, cheap apparel always persist?

Sheng: Last but not least, is there anything you learned from FASH455 or other FASH courses that you find particularly relevant and helpful in your career? What advice would you offer current students preparing for a career in the fashion apparel industry?

Natalie: I felt really prepared coming out of the FASH program for my corporate job. I picked this degree, as I’m sure many have because it combined the necessary key concepts of a business degree with the skills and knowledge to build a career in apparel. I think the classes I reference the most in my day-to-day life are product development classes, textile classes, and apparel buying. As a merchant, I need to be able to talk about fabric types with designers, cost engineering with product developers, and financial metrics with planners. FASH455 was one of my favorite classes because sourcing, trade, geopolitics, and policy constantly pull the strings behind the scenes in the apparel sector. FASH455 gives you insight into how these factors create ripples in the apparel sector.

When it comes to advice, it’s tried and true: network! Talk to teachers, reach out to alumni, sign up for the UD Job Shadow Program, and talk to the career center. There are so many services to take advantage of while at UD. Other than networking, I would highly recommend steering the subjects of your papers to companies and topics you are interested in. I worked on a few reports about Levi Strauss & Co., which confirmed it as a target company for me and helped me succeed in the interview process.

Lastly, be flexible! You might come in, as I did, thinking you want to be a buyer, only to realize it’s not the best fit. Or, you could start with greeting cards and stationery merchandising and pivot to apparel. Or even move out of apparel entirely! Nothing is set in stone, and that’s both the most stressful yet reassuring lesson I’ve learned since graduating.

–The End–

New Study: PVH Corporation’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Strategies (updated Septmeber 2024)

PVH Corporation (PVH), which owns well-known brands including Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, Arrow, and Izod, is one of the largest US fashion companies with nearly $9.2 billion in sales revenues in 2022.

By leveraging PVH’s publically released factory lists, this article analyzes the company’s detailed sourcing strategies and changes from 2021 to 2022. Key findings:

Trend 1: PVH adopts a diverse apparel sourcing base and continues to work with more vendors. Specifically, in 2022, PVH sourced apparel from as many as 37 countries in Asia, Europe, America, the Middle East, and Africa, the same as in 2021. Despite not expanding the number of countries it sources from, PVH increased its total number of vendors from 503 in 2021 to 553 in 2022, highlighting the company’s ongoing commitment to diversifying its sourcing base.

Trend 2: Asia is PVH’s dominant sourcing base for finished garments and textile raw materials.

Specifically, about 56.2% of PVH’s apparel suppliers were Asia-based in 2022, followed by the EU (20.3%). Compared with a year ago, PVH even added twenty new Asia-based factories to its supplier list in 2022, suggesting no intention of reducing sourcing from the region. Moreover, From 2021 to 2022, as many as 83% of PVH’s raw material suppliers were Asia-based, far exceeding any other regions.

Trend 3: PVH’s China sourcing strategies are evolving and more complicated than simply “reducing China exposure.”

  • First, PVH continued to work with MORE Chinese factories. Specifically, between 2021 and 2022, PVH added 17 Chinese factories to its apparel supplier list, more than other countries. However, the expansion could be because of PVH’s growing sales in China.
  • Second, PVH’s garment factories in China are smaller than their peers in other Asian countries. For example, in 2022, most PVH’s contracted garment factories in top Asian supplying countries, such as Bangladesh (87.5%), Vietnam (63.3%), and Sri Lanka (65.3%), had more than 1,000 workers. In comparison, only 11.3% of PVH’s Chinese vendors had 1,000 workers, and more than 62.5% had fewer than 500 workers. The result suggests that PVH treats China as an apparel sourcing base for flexibility and agility, particularly those orders that may include a greater variety of products in relatively smaller quantities.
  • Further, PVH often priced apparel “Made in China” higher than those sourced from the rest of Asia.

Trend 4: PVH actively used “emerging” sourcing destinations outside Asia. Other than those top Asian suppliers, PVH’s apparel sourcing base includes several countries in America, the EU, and Africa that deserve more attention, including Portugal, Brazil, Tunisia, and Turkey. Overall, PVH sourced from these countries for various reasons, from serving local consumers, seeking sourcing flexibility, accessing raw materials, and lowering sourcing costs.

by Sheng Lu and Ally Botwinick

Further reading: Lu, Sheng & Botwinick, Ally (2023). US fashion companies’ evolving sourcing strategies – a PVH case study. Just-Style. Retrieved from https://www.just-style.com/features/us-fashion-companies-evolving-sourcing-strategies-a-pvh-case-study/

PVH’s market shares in the China apparel retail market

(discussion for this post is closed)

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Michael Lambert, Executive Director of Global Trade and Compliance of Urban Outfitters, about Trade Compliance and Global Apparel Sourcing

About Michael Lambert

Michael Lambert is the Executive Director of Global Trade and Compliance at Urban Outfitters (URBN). He also serves as the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA).

Michael has spent over 30 years in the retail fashion business, primarily in the import/export and Customs compliance area. At URBN, Michael is responsible for Customs, Social, Vendor and Regulatory Compliance. Urban Outfitters has a global footprint, with stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe and the United Kingdom.  Urban Outfitters designs and develops products throughout the world, working with a core vendor base across more than thirty countries. Prior to Urban Outfitters, Michael spent nine years with Limited Brands as head of their Import Planning department.  He spent his last two years with Limited Brands in London, setting up Compliance activity for Limited Brands as they expanded overseas.

Michael has been a Licensed Customs Broker since 1998 and is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University, with a Bachelor of Arts in International Politics and Foreign Service.

About Emilie Delaye (Moderator)

Emilie Delaye is a 2024 UD entrepreneurship graduate and an incoming UD graduate student in fashion and apparel studies. Emilie is the recipient of the 2024 UD Alumni Association Alexander J. Taylor Sr. Awards for Outstanding Seniors.

FASH455 Learning Activity: Exploring US Import Tariffs

Part I: Watch the following two videos on tariffs—one from an economic perspective and the other from a political perspective.

Part II: Check the respective tariff rate for the following products by copying and pasting the HS code into the search box

  • Product 1 (men’s and boys’ overcoat, cotton): HS code 6101.20.00
  • Product 2 (cotton): HS code 5201.00.05
  • Product 3 (smartphone): HS code 8517.13.00

Discussion question: Based on the videos and your findings, how would you explain the differences in tariff rates for these products? Do you think tariffs are still necessary in the 21st century?

Additional readings (RT≠ endorsement):