EU textile and apparel companies are still struggling with an adverse business environment, from high energy bills and hiking inflation to an economic slowdown. Many companies are in trouble. New “green measures” must be careful about their impacts on companies’ business operations.
Textile and apparel is one of the most globalized sectors in the EU. Government sustainability policy must consider the global dimension of their implications on EU companies, such as the impact on fair competition and investments across borders.
Consumers’ demand for sustainable textile and apparel products, especially their willingness to pay a premium, remains a question mark.
If new sustainability regulations are implemented, it is imperative for the government to assist companies going through the transition. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) form the backbones of the textile and apparel industry. These SMEs must survive as they provide critical products and services to large-scale fashion brands.
Many green legislations impacting the EU textile and apparel industry are coming (e.g., new labeling requirements on sustainable materials). Close collaboration and dialogue between the industry and legislators are essential.
Second, I hope FASH455 helps students shape a big-picture vision of the fashion apparel industry in the 21st-century world economy and provides students a fresh new way of looking at the world. Throughout the semester, we’ve examined many critical, timely, and pressing global agendas that are highly relevant to the textile and apparel industry, from the impact of COVID-19 on apparel sourcing and trade, the growing interest in expanding near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere, the debate on the textile and apparel provisions in U.S. free trade agreements to the controversy of forced labor in the apparel supply chain. It is critical to keep in mind that we wear more than clothes: We also wear the global economy, international business, public policy, and trade politics that make affordable, fashionable, and safe clothes possible and available for hardworking families.
Likewise, I hope FASH455 can put students into thinking about why “fashion” matters. A popular misconception is that “fashion and apparel” are just about “sewing,” “fashion magazine,” “shopping” and “Project Runway.” In fact, as one of the largest and most economically influential sectors in the world today, the fashion industry plays a critical and unique role in creating jobs, promoting economic development, enhancing human development, and reducing poverty. As we mentioned in class, over 120 million people remain directly employed in the textile and apparel industry globally, and a good proportion of them are females living in poor rural areas. For most developing countries, textile and apparel typically account for 70%–90% of their total merchandise exports and provide one of the very few opportunities for these countries to participate in globalization. The global pandemic, in particular, reveals the fashion industry’s enormous social and economic impacts and many problems that need our continuous efforts to make meaningful improvements.
Last but not least, I hope from taking FASH455, students will take away meaningful questions that can inspire their future studies and even life’s pursuit. For example:
How to make apparel sourcing and trade more sustainable, socially responsible, and transparent? What needs to be done further–fashion companies, government, consumers, and other stakeholders?
To which extent will geopolitics, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and US-China tensions, affect world trade patterns and fundamentally shift fashion companies’ sourcing and supply chain strategies?
How will automation, AI, and digital technologies change the future landscape of apparel sourcing, trade, and job opportunities? What may fashion education look like ten years from now given the shifting nature of the industry?
How to use trade policy as a tool to solve challenging global issues such as forced labor and climate change? Or shall we leave these issues to the market forces?
We don’t have solid answers yet for these questions. However, these issues are waiting for you, the young professional and the new generation of leaders, to write history, based on your knowledge, wisdom, responsibility, courage, and creativity!
So what do you take away from FASH455? Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments.
The full paper is HERE. Below are the key findings:
Over the past decade, U.S. fashion brands and retailers have seen Central America as a critical emerging apparel-sourcing destination. Especially since implementing the Dominican-Republic Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) in 2006, a trade deal among the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic (joined in 2007), and Costa Rica (joined in 2009), apparel sourcing from the region gained consistent interest among U.S. companies.
Nevertheless, U.S. apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members is NOT without significant challenges. For example, CAFTA-DR countries’ market shares in the U.S. apparel import market fell from 11.8% in 2005 before the trade agreement entered into force to only 10.6% in 2022, measured by value. Trade data also indicated that U.S. apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members concentrated on simple and low-value items, such as T-shirts, and lacked product diversification with no improvement over the years.
Given the high stakes of improving the status quo, this study quantitatively evaluated the impact of textile raw material access on CAFTA-DR’s apparel exports to the United States. Specifically, this study assumed that CAFTA-DR members cut their textile import tariff rates to improve garment producers’ textile raw material access (i.e., to reduce the cost of sourcing textiles from anywhere in the world and beyond the U.S. supply). The computable general equilibrium (CGE) model estimation based on the GTAP9 database shows mixed results:
On the one hand, cutting CAFTA-DR members’ textile import tariffs to improve their garment producers’ textile raw material access would significantly improve CAFTA-DR members’ price competitiveness of their apparel exports to the United States and increase the export volume.
However, cutting CAFTA-DR members’ textile import tariffs to improve their garment producers’ textile raw material access would significantly expand their textile imports from non-U.S. sources. This means that CAFTA-DR members’ dependence on the U.S. textile raw material supply may decline further.
Overall, the study’s findings remind us that the debate on expanding U.S. apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members should go beyond CAFTA-DR members’ garment production. Instead, more efforts could be made to enhance CAFTA-DR garment producers’ textile raw material access as an effective way to expand the region’s apparel exports to the United States.
Meanwhile, several leading CAFTA-DR apparel exporting countries, including Honduras and Nicaragua, have been engaged in negotiations for free trade agreements with China, Taiwan, and other Asian economies. As the study’s findings indicate, these new trade deals could incentivize CAFTA-DR apparel manufacturers to increase their textile sourcing from Asia. In other words, inaction on the U.S. side and maintaining the status quo still could have significant implications for the future stability of the Western Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain.
Discussion questions (proposed by students in FASH455, spring 2023)
Based on the videos, does the flying geese concept still work today? Why?
Do you think Western fashion brands and retailers’ increasing emphasis on sustainability and social responsibility in apparel sourcing reduces Asian suppliers’ competitive disadvantage? Why or why not?
With Asian countries increasingly leveraging their labor advantages alongside advanced technologies, is the prospect of expanding nearshoring even less likely? What is your assessment?
What is your vision for the recycled clothing supply chain? Why or why not do you think Asian countries will continue to dominate?
On April 17, 2023, the US International Trade Commission (USITC) released a new report analyzing the trade and economic impact of the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). The report fulfills the investigation request by the US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means in January 2022.
The full report is HERE. Below are the key findings regarding the apparel sector:
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) matters significantly to Sub-Saharan African countries (SSA)’s apparel exports to the United States
AGOA has been the primary competitive advantage for SSA’s apparel exports to the United States. For example, US apparel imports from AGOA beneficiaries have risen from $953 million in 2001 to $1.4 billion in 2021 (note: up to $1.76 billion in 2022). More than 96.4% of these imports claimed AGOA’s duty-free benefits, including 98.8% utilized the “third-country fabric” provision.
While twenty countries were eligible for AGOA’s apparel provision, over 90% of US apparel imports from AGOA members in 2021 originated in five SSA countries: Kenya (31.5%), Madagascar (19.9%), Lesotho (20.6%), Ethiopia (18.3%), and Mauritius (5.1%).
AGOA benefits appear essential for SSA countries to maintain their apparel exports to the United States. USITC noted that in every case when a country lost AGOA eligibility between 2000 and 2021, there was a noticeable decrease in US apparel imports from that country, such as Rwanda and Madagascar. (note: according to OTEXA’s latest trade data, US apparel imports from Ethiopia, which lost its AGOA eligibility in 2022, dropped by 42% in the first two months of 2023 from a year ago, far worse than a 5.8% decrease of AGOA members as a whole.)
SSA garment manufacturers often find supplying the US apparel market a better fit than Europe, primarily because US brands tend to place orders for higher volume bulk basics, which allows workers to focus on a narrower set of skills.
The impact of AGOA on SSA’s apparel production and exports varied at the country level
Some SSA countries (e.g., Kenya and Lesotho) already had well-established apparel industries when AGOA was implemented in 2000. In contrast, other SSA countries (e.g., Madagascar, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Ghana) received substantial investments from foreign-owned firms after AGOA was enacted, which helped jumpstart their apparel sectors.
USITC also identified two “unsuccessful” AGOA cases. For example, Mauritius was the largest AGOA beneficiary apparel supplier to the United States in 2000 but has since fallen to the fifth-largest in 2021, largely due to increased labor costs. Likewise, South Africa’s apparel export to the US was negatively affected by its disqualification from the “third-country fabric” provision under AGOA.
AGOA has had a limited impact on building an integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain in SSA
Currently, SSA countries primarily participate in the cut-and-sew operations of apparel based on imported textile raw materials from outside the region (mostly from Asia).
The USITC identified several challenges in building the local textile industry in SSA. For example, building a textile mill typically requires much higher investments (e.g., $200–300 million) than a garment factory (i.e., $25 million). Also, most SSA manufacturers cannot make the various types of yarns and fabrics in demand from U.S. buyers.
The dilemma is not new: Access to textile inputs from sources outside SSA is essential for garment manufacturers in SSA to meet the specifications of US buyers. However, relying on imported textile inputs reduces the incentives for investing in new textile production capabilities in SSA.
The USITC report found Mauritius an exception as it has developed a relatively competitive capability in producing cotton fabrics, which are supplied to garment factories in Madagascar. There is also some collaboration between cotton producers in Tanzania and Uganda and Kenya’s textile manufacturers.
US fashion companies generally see SSA as a promising emerging sourcing destination
Apparel producers in SSA are less established in global apparel value chains than manufacturers in other parts of the world. Therefore, it is not uncommon that fashion brands and retailers “work more directly with SSA apparel manufacturers to ensure product quality, particularly for new or expanding product lines.”
Most SSA garment factories only have cut, make, and trim (CMT) capability and rely on imported textile materials arranged by fashion brands and retailers.
USITC found that US companies increasingly import man-made fiber (MMF) apparel from AGOA members to benefit from greater import duty savings. (note: US tariff rates for MMF apparel were typically higher than those made with natural fibers like cotton. On the other hand, however, it’s worth noting that SSA countries generally have more competitive advantages in producing cotton apparel products than in producing MMF apparel).
SSA countries also have advantages over their Asia competitors. For example, “a shipment takes about 15–18 days to travel from the port in Lomé to the East Coast of the United States. From China or Bangladesh, lead times range from 40–50 days.”
Many fashion brands “have expressed interest in sourcing from greenfield factories with fewer legacy challenges posed by compliance and environmental impacts.”
US fashion companies’ sourcing diversification strategy to avoid risk exposure also contributed to the expansion of their apparel imports from AGOA members.
Uncertainty of AGOA renewals hurt US apparel imports from SSA
Apparel companies typically make sourcing decisions 12–18 months in advance. This practice underscores the importance of renewing AGOA early rather than granting extensions only within two to nine months of expiration, as in the past.
The USITC report mentioned, “Without the assurance of the “third country fabric” provision, many US apparel companies sourced from AGOA beneficiaries reported holding back orders from the region.”
More can be done to leverage SSA’s cotton production better
Cotton growing is widespread across about thirty SSA countries. SSA accounts for about 7 percent of the world’s cotton production, the fifth-largest globally.
However, most SSA cotton is sold to international buyers and exported to Asian mills that process it into yarns and fabrics. In contrast, the consumption of domestic cotton in SSA is limited.
The SSA cotton industry produces high-quality, “sustainable” cotton that can be used in several high-value end products sold globally. However, because of a lack of mechanization, SSA cotton production struggles to increase supply to meet demand.
Also, cotton-growing regions in SSA tend to be poorer and less politically stable than other parts of the region.
Based on the blog post and class discussions, how competitive or attractive are AGOA members as apparel-sourcing destinations for US fashion companies, especially compared with suppliers from Asia and the Western Hemisphere?
Based on the blog post, what improvement can be made to make AGOA or any problems that need to be addressed?
Any other thoughts related to the patterns of apparel trade and sourcing based on the blog post?
UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that “any goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured whollyor in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of the People’s Republic of China, or produced by certain entities,” are not allowed to enter the United States based on Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In other words, generally, importers have to provide evidence demonstrating that the factories or entities involved in the production of their imported products have no connection to XUAR or are not involved in any forced labor practices in XUAR.
UFLPA affects not only US imports directly from China but also products from other countries. Notably, China is a critical textile raw material supplier for many leading apparel exporting countries in Asia, and over 90% of cotton “made in China” comes from XUAR.
According to the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), from June 2022 to April 2023, about 345 “textiles, apparel and footwear” shipments from mainland China ($13.45 million), 263 shipments from Vietnam ($13.3 million), 4 shipments from Sri Lanka ($1.64 million) and 46 shipments from other countries ($1.16 million) were affected by UFLPA enforcement.
The Asia-Pacific region includes several mega free trade agreements:
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is a regional intergovernmental organization comprising ten countries in Southeast Asia (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam). In 2021, ASEAN members have a combined GDP of $3.11 trillion and a population of 673 million.
CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile. The CPTPP covers a market of 495 million people with a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion in 2021. The United States was originally a participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, but in January 2017, former US President Trump withdrew the US from the agreement. The Biden administration has indicated no interest in rejoining CPTPP. Additionally, China is actively seeking to join CPTPP.
RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. In 2021, RCEP members collectively represented a market of 2.3 billion people with a combined GDP of $26.3 trillion. India was an RCEP member but withdrew from the agreement due to concerns about import competition with China.
IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity) is a US-led economic cooperation framework that aims to “link major economies and emerging ones to tackle 21st-century challenges and promote fair and resilient trade for years to come.” IPEF is NOT a traditional free trade agreement, and it does not address market access issues like tariff cuts. Instead, IPEF includes four pillars: trade, supply chains, clean economy, and fair economy. IPEF members in the Asia-Pacific region include the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Fiji, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IPEF is designed to be flexible, meaning that IPEF partners are not required to join all four pillars. For example, India chooses not to join the trade pillar of the framework. In 2021, IPEF countries collectively represented a market of 2.1 billion people with a combined GDP of $23.3 trillion. The potential economic impact of IPEF remains too early to tell.
Notably, ASEAN, CPTPP, RCEP, and IPEF members play significant roles in the world textile and apparel trade. Specifically:
ASEAN and RCEP members have established a highly integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain. For example, a substantial portion of ASEAN and RECP members’ textile imports came from within the region.
ASEAN and RCEP members’ supply chain connection with China has substantially strengthened over the past decade. In contrast, the US barely participated in Asia-based textile and apparel supply chains. For example, other than CPTPP, the US accounted for less than 2% of ASEAN, RCEP, and IPEF members’ textile imports in 2021.
ASEAN and RCEP members also hold significant market shares in the world textile and apparel export (over 50%). Meanwhile, the US and EU are indispensable export markets for ASEAN and RCEP members.
Because of the United States, IPEF represented one of the world’s largest apparel import markets (i.e., 33.7% in 2021, measured in value). Similarly, in 2022, about 26% of US apparel imports came from current IPEF members. Should IPEF address market access issues, it could potentially offer significant duty-saving opportunities for textile and apparel products.
Additionally, UK’s membership in CPTPP may have a limited direct impact on the textile and apparel sector, at least in short to medium terms. For example, current CPTPP members only accounted for about 6% of UK’s apparel imports in 2021.
Background: What sets Shein and Temu’s sourcing strategies apart from other US fashion brands?
Leading US fashion companies have increasingly turned to sourcing diversification to reduce supply chain risks and market uncertainties. For example, industry surveys and firm-level analyses consistently found that prominent US fashion brands and retailers typically source from more than 10-20 countries. Notably, “reducing China exposure” is a growing trend among US fashion companies, given the concerns about the rising US-China trade tensions and geopolitics.
Instead, Temu and Shein are notable for their reliance on Chinese suppliers, with Temu primarily shipping products directly from China rather than US-based distribution centers. This business model may be explained by two factors.
One is to leverage China’s strengths in making apparel products with greater varieties and smaller quantities. In other words, while countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia may be better suited for sourcing large orders, “Made in China” can remain overall price competitive for a wide range of products requiring a smaller minimum order quantity. In this way, China can offer greater flexibility to Temu, which intends to manufacture various products while controlling costs.
Another possible reason is to take advantage of the “de minimis rule.” Under US customs law, specifically the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, import duties are generally waived for goods with a value of $800 or less per person per day. Therefore, Temu’s shipping from China to US consumers is likely to be eligible for the benefits.
Discussion question: What shall we do about Shein?
USITC adopted two methods to estimate Section 301 tariffs’ economic impacts:
Econometric model estimates using monthly trade data (10-digit HS code) from January 2017 to December 2021.
A set of partial equilibrium models that linked section 301 tariffs to domestic prices and production at the four-digit NAICS code level. USITC used data from 2018 to 2021 as the base year.
USITC only considered Section 301 tariffs’ direct impacts, i.e., “how tariffs impacted prices, production, and trade for products subject to section 301 tariffs and domestic sectors that compete directly with those imports.”
Regarding the overall impact of Section 301 actions, USITC found that the tariffs imposed on Chinese goods resulted in a price rise paid by US importers, but the exporter prices received by Chinese firms were mostly unchanged. As a result, “imports from China decreased in quantity, leading to a substantial decline in their import value. These changes, in turn, caused an increase in production and prices in US domestic industries that were competing with Chinese imports.”
USITC also evaluated the specific impacts of Section 301 tariffs on the Cut and Sew apparel (NAICS 3152) sector. According to USITC:
First, Section 301 tariffs hurt US apparel imports from China. USITC estimated that US woven apparel (NAICS 3152) imports from China decreased by 14.7% in 2019 but fell nearly 40% in 2020 and 2021 due to Section 301 tariffs. However, USITC didn’t explain why imports from China suddenly worsened, nor if other factors, such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), played a role.
Second, Section 301 tariffs mostly replaced US woven apparel (NAICS3152) imports from China with other sources. However, the direct benefits of Section 301 tariffs to US domestic cut and sew manufacturing seemed limited. Specifically, USITC estimated that US woven apparel imports from sources other than China increased by 7.1% in 2019, 24.8% in 2020, and 25.2% in 2021 due to Section 301 tariffs. In comparison, Section 301 tariffs resulted in modest growth of US domestic woven apparel (NAICS3152) production (up to 6.3%) over the same period.
Actual trade and production data further showed that US woven apparel (NAICS 3152) imports from sources other than China increased from $55.3 billion in 2018 to $61.2 billion in 2021 (or up 10.7%). Over the same period, US domestic woven apparel (NAICS 3152) sales & value of shipments declined from $7.49 billion to $7.38 billion (or down 1.4%) (Data source: Census). In other words, no clear evidence suggests that Section 301 tariffs boosted US domestic woven apparel production.
Third, Section 301 tariffs made US woven apparel (NAICS 3152) imports from EVERYWHERE more expensive. On the one hand, USITC found that the price of US woven apparel (NAICS 3152) imports from China increased by 4.4% in 2019, 14.7% in 2020, and 14.5% in 2021 due to the Section 301 tariffs. However, similar to the case of trade volume, USITC didn’t explain why Section 301 tariffs’ price impact suddenly became more significant in 2020 and 2021. (Note: In fact, the Tranche 4A tariffs were 15% since September 1, 2019, but were reduced to 7.5% effective February 14, 2020, because of the US-China Phase One deal.)
Meanwhile, due to limited production capacity outside of China, the Section 301 tariffs caused an increase in the cost of US woven apparel imports from all other countries. Specifically, USITC found that the price of US woven apparel (NACIS 3152) imports from sources other than China increased by 3.2% from 2018 to 2021. (Note: given the hiking sourcing costs in 2022, the price increase could be more significant should USITC include updated 2022 trade data in the estimation.)
Additionally, USITC acknowledged that its estimation may “likely captures the most significant impacts of these tariffs in the short run.” However, some effects of section 301 tariffs would likely be delayed. For example, USITC said, “if importers and domestic producers anticipated the tariffs remaining in place long enough,” they may consider more costly changes, such as adjusting their supply chains and investing in domestic production.
Based on USITC’s assessment, should President Biden keep or remove the Section 301 tariffs on imports from China? Why or why not?
Regarding the impact of Section 301, any questions remain unanswered or can be studied further?
Any findings in the USITC report surprised you and why?
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.
In March 2023, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2024 Fiscal Year Budget report, outlining six major goals and objectives for FY2024. USTR’s FY2024 goals and objectives for textile and apparel are similar to FY2023, but keywords such as “near-shoring” are newly emphasized.
Goal 1: Open Foreign Markets and Combat Unfair Trade
Provide policy guidance and support for international negotiations or initiatives affecting the textile and apparel sector to ensure that the interests of U.S. industry and workers are taken into account and, where possible, to provide new or enhanced export opportunities for U.S. industry. (Note: no change from FY2023)
Conduct reviews of commercial availability petitions regarding textile and apparel products and negotiate corresponding FTA rules of origin changes, where appropriate, in a manner that takes into account market conditions while preserving export opportunities for U.S. producers and employment opportunities for U.S. workers. (Note: no change from FY2023)
Engage relevant trade partners to address regulatory issues potentially affecting the U.S. textile and apparel industry’s market access opportunities. (Note: no change from FY2023)
Continue to engage with CAFTA-DR partner countries to address trade-related issues to optimize inclusive economic opportunities; strengthen trade rules and transparency and address non-tariff trade impediments; provide capacity building in areas such as textile and apparel trade-related regulation and practice on customs, border and market access issues, including agricultural and sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, to avoid barriers to trade. (note: newly mentioned “transparency”)
Continue to engage CAFTA-DR partners and stakeholders to identify and develop means to increase two-way trade in textiles and apparel and strengthen the North American supply chain and near-shoring to enhance formal job creation. (note: newly emphasized “Near-shoring”)
Provide policy guidance and support for international negotiations or initiatives affecting the textile and apparel sector to ensure that the interests of U.S. industry and workers are taken into account and, where possible, to provide new or enhanced export opportunities for U.S. industry. (Note: no change from FY2023)
Conduct reviews of commercial availability petitions regarding textile and apparel products and negotiate corresponding FTA rules of origin changes, where appropriate, in a manner that takes into account market conditions while preserving export opportunities for U.S. producers and employment opportunities for U.S. workers (note: no change from FY2023)
Engage relevant trade partners to address regulatory issues potentially affecting the U.S. textile and apparel industry’s market access opportunities. (note: no change from FY2023)
Goal 2: Fully Enforce U.S. Trade Laws, Monitor Compliance with Agreements, and Use All Available Tools to Hold Other Countries Accountable
Closely collaborate with industry and other offices and Departments to monitor trade actions taken by partner countries on textiles and apparel to ensure that such actions are consistent with trade agreement obligations and do not impede U.S. export opportunities. (note: no change from FY2023)
Research and monitor policy support measures for the textile sector, in particular in the PRC, India, and other large textile producing and exporting countries, to ensure compliance with international agreements. (note: no change from FY2023)
Continue to work with the U.S. textile and apparel industry to promote exports and other opportunities under our free trade agreements and preference programs, by actively engaging with stakeholders and industry associations and participating, as appropriate, in industry trade shows. (note: no change from FY2023)
Goal 4: Develop Equitable Trade Policy Through Inclusive Processes
Take the lead in providing policy advice and assistance in support of any Congressional initiatives to reform or re-examine preference programs that have an impact on the textile and apparel sector. (note: no change from FY2023)
Other Priorities for USTR in FY2024:
#1 “Advancing a Worker-Centered Trade Policy.” For example, given “communities of color and lower socio-economic backgrounds were more negatively affected by free trade policies that have reduced tariffs and distributed supply chains across the globe,” USTR will develop “a new strategic approach to trade relationships that is not built on traditional free trade agreements…USTR is embarking on trade engagements with allies and like-minded economies, like Taiwan and Kenya and [through] multinational economic frameworks that focus on clean energy and supply chains rather than tariffs.”
#2 Address forced labor. For example, USTR developed the first-ever focused trade strategy to combat forced labor. Paired with the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and the Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) launching of a Task Force on the Promotion of Human Rights and International Labor Standards in Supply Chains under the U.S.-Japan Partnership on Trade. And USTR will “use every tool available to block the importation of goods made partially or entirely with forced labor.”
#3 Re-Aligning the U.S. – Beijing Trade Relationship. “USTR continues to keep the door open to conversations with the PRC, including on its Phase One commitments. However, USTR acknowledges the Agreement’s limitations. USTR’s strategy is expand beyond only pressing Beijing for change and includes vigorously defending our values and economic interests from the negative impacts of the PRC’s unfair economic policies and practices.”
#4 Strengthen enforcement of US trade policy. For example, USTR sees enforcement “a key component of our worker-centered trade policy.” USTR is “upholding the eligibility requirements in preference programs,” such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). As many enforcement tools were “were crafted decades ago,” USTR will be “reviewing our existing trade tools and working with Congress to develop new tools as needed.”
The program is split into two half-day sessions. Public sector trade-related careers will be examined on Friday, March 10, and private sector opportunities will be the focus on Monday, March 13. Both sessions will be held from 8:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Zoom.
Sarah Clarke, former Chief Supply Chain Officer, PVH Corp.
Hun Quach, Director of Policy and Advocacy, Levi Strauss & Co.
Stephanie Lester, Vice President, Head of Government Affairs, Gap Inc.; former Professional Staff, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade
Patty Lopez, Sr. Director- Vendor Management, Gap Inc.; former Sr Director-Global Production, Gap Inc.
Julia Hughes, President, U.S. Fashion Industry Association
Natalie Hanson, Deputy Assistant USTR for Textiles, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Jon Gold, Vice President of Supply Chain and Customs Policy, National Retail Federation
Nate Herman, Senior Vice President, American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA)
Bill McRaith, former Chief Supply Chain Officer, PVH Corp.
Heidi Colby-Oizumi, Chief Chemicals and Textiles Division, US International Trade Commission
Linda Martinich, Senior International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, US Department of Commerce
Thomas Newberg, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, US Department of Commerce
Blake Harden, Vice President, International Trade at Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA); former Trade Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade
Eric Biel, Senior Advisor, Fair Labor Association; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; former Associate Deputy Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Nicole Bivens Collinson, President, International Trade and Government Relations, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.; former Assistant Textile Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative
Amanda Blunt, Counsel, Legal Affairs & Trade, General Motors; former Associate General Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Lisa Schroeter, Global Director of Trade and Investment Policy, Dow; former Executive Director, TransAtlantic Business Dialogue
Maria Luisa Boyce, Vice President, UPS Global Public Affairs; former Executive Director Office of Trade Relations/Senior Advisor for Trade Engagement, U.S. Customs and Border Protectionformer President, Border Trade Alliance
Brenda Smith, Global Director of Government Outreach, Expeditors; former Executive Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection
Nikole Burroughs, Deputy Chief of Staff for Management and Resources, USAID; former Staff Director, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific the Nonproliferation, United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Catherine DeFilippo, Director of Operations, United States International Trade Commission; former Economist, US International Trade Commission
Paul H. DeLaney, III, Partner, Kyle House Group; former Vice President for Trade and International at Business Roundtable, former International Trade Counsel to Chairman Orrin G. Hatch for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
Erin Ennis, Senior Director, Global Public Policy, Dell Technologies; former Assistant to the Deputy US Trade Representative, Office of the US Trade Representative
Naomi Freeman, Consultant, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg; former Director for the Generalized System of Preferences at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Nasim Fussell, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP; former Chief International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director, Trade and Global Markets at PPI; former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative
Jodi Herman, Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs, USAID; former Vice President for Government Relations and Public Affairs, National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Charlotte Mcclure, Logistics Supervisor, Cap America; former Overseas Specialist, Cap America; former Logistics Specialist, Cap America
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 peoplein 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 for FASH455:
What is your stance on the used clothing trade? Should the government impose more export or import trade restrictions on used clothing?
After considering both sides of the debate, what is your decision regarding donating used clothing? What factors influenced your choice?
Any other thoughts or comments on the used clothing trade debate?
Argument: The U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a winner of globalization
Comment #1: The video highlighted some of the few remaining textile plants and the cotton refinery’s in the U.S. and how they are taking risks daily to stay afloat with risks of inflation and climate change. However, for these American companies to stay afloat, they must participate in globalization themselves. The video mentioned how these factories were using Swiss and German dying machines to make production more efficient. For these onshore jobs to stay alive, they have to now utilize globalized information and technology to stay successful.
Comment #2: Deeper down, the US textile sector seems to be winning in the long run. The squeeze that globalization has placed on them has allowed for innovation within the industry as they fight to stay relevant and compete with overseas goods. Operational slack such as high turnover jobs have been eliminated with automation, and US manufacturers gained a new branding niche that overseas companies do not: a US “personal touch.” Consumers may now be more willing to pay more for a garment just because it says it is made in the USA. USA-made clothing may now be perceived as higher quality and more scarce. The sentiment towards US-made goods and their quality could enact change to reduce overseas reliance, which is a win for US manufacturing in the long run. Additionally, globalization expands the export market for the US textile manufacturing sector.
Argument: the U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a loser of globalization
Comment #3: According to the video, the U.S. textile manufacturing sector is a loser in globalization and international trade. Robert Lighthizer, a former U.S. trade representative, believes the drive to globalization saw the United States effectively giving away its own prosperity and success. He explains the effects of trade deals on jobs, illustrating how the U.S. would place most of its focus on service sector jobs and outsource its industrial base. However, this resulted in the loss of roughly 6 million jobs and 60,000 factories, destroying many communities all across the country and causing a lack of diversity in the job economy.
Comment #4: I think the US is a loser of globalization and international trade because they rely on other countries for their cheap goods and services. When I look at clothing tags, I rarely see them made in the US nowadays. Again, this is because the US being dependent on other countries due to unbeatable costs. I also think since we rely so heavily on other countries, it has contributed to job displacement.
Comment #5: The US textile manufacturing sector is a loser of globalization and international trade. Cotton production in the US is beneficial to the communities it exists in. However, these companies must fight against a strong dollar, competitors in China who do not always abide by the same regulations as US companies, and use cheap labor. When China entered the WTO, the US suffered greatly. Many textile factories in the US have closed, disrupting the entire community.
Comment #6: Overall, I believe that the U.S. textile manufacturing industry is a loser of globalization and international trade, mostly due to the competition from overseas. This competition includes more manufacturers from other countries, but also the competition of pricing since other oversea manufacturers are able to sell their cotton/textile materials at a lower price. Since the U.S. struggles to compete with these lower prices, they are forced to look for another way to have a competitive advantage in the textile manufacturing sector, such as lean manufacturing and technology improvements. At Carolina Cotton Works, Bryan Ashby shares how they have increased efficiency and use high-quality machines (note: imported) for their products. Although this sounds great, this also means that there are fewer workers.
Comment #7: I think the US textile manufacturing sector was a loser of globalization and international trade because big companies were using other countries for their sourcing and manufacturing. This was because it was much cheaper compared to the United States. In doing this, it declined the need for textile manufacturing jobs in the United States.
Comment #8: Globalization creates a trade dependence on imports. It’s important we don’t depend on things for when things happen that we can’t predict like the pandemic where we can’t import anymore. Since there was a lack of local textile manufacturing and sourcing in the United States compared to what was being imported, there was less of a chance for technological advances and improvement in the United States textile manufacturing sector. Post Globalization however may be the chance for the United States to bring back the textile manufacturing sector momentum. I think this because the United States has seen the result of heavily relying on other countries for their cheap labor/sources and this could add extra motivation for companies to want to figure out better alternatives in manufacturing in their own country.
Comment #9: I think currently the US is a loser to globalization only because brands want to get the product for cheap. I think brands think that would create more profit that way. However, I do believe we could get to a future where more things would be created in the US and wouldn’t have to pay that much in tariffs and other external prices. I think it would help boost people to work more. I think people are worried about making things in our country because of the relations we have with other countries.
Comment #10: U.S. Businesses are now focusing on the cheapest way to do everything instead of thinking about creating good jobs for their working community with fair pay. The U.S. is losing jobs, factories, communities, etc. in efforts to help other countries build themselves up through globalization. It is time for the U.S. to make some changes and look out for our own country and people.
Do you agree or disagree with any particular argument above? Any follow-up comments on the impact of globalization on the US textile manufacturing sector? What should government do with trade given the debates? Please feel free to share any additional thoughts.
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.
Trend 1: US fashion companies continue to diversify their sourcing base in 2022
Numerous studies suggest that US fashion companies leverage sourcing diversification and sourcing from countries with large-scale production capacity in response to the shifting business environment. For example, according to the 2022 fashion industry benchmarking study from the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), more than half of surveyed US fashion brands and retailers (53%) reported sourcing apparel from over ten countries in 2022, compared with only 37% in 2021. Nearly 40% of respondents plan to source from even more countries and work with more suppliers over the next two years, up from only 17% in 2021.
Trade data confirms the trend. For example, the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), a commonly-used measurement of market concentration, went down from 0.110 in 2021 to 0.105 in 2022, suggesting that US apparel imports came from even more diverse sources.
Trend 2: Asia as a whole will remain the dominant source of imports
Measured in value, about 73.5% of US apparel imports came from Asia in 2022, up from 72.8% in 2021. Likewise, the CR5 index, measuring the total market shares of the top five suppliers—all Asia-based, i.e., China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India, went up from 60.6% in 2021 to 61.1% in 2022. Notably, the CR5 index without China (i.e., the total market shares of Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, and Cambodia) enjoyed even faster growth, from 40.7% in 2021 to 43.7% in 2022.
Additionally, facing growing market uncertainties and weakened consumer demand amid high inflation pressure, US fashion companies may continue to prioritize costs and flexibility in their vendor selection. Studies consistently show that Asia countries still enjoy notable advantages in both areas thanks to their highly integrated regional supply chain, production scale, and efficiency. Thus, US fashion companies are unlikely to reduce their exposure to Asia in the short to medium term despite some worries about the rising geopolitical risks.
Trend 3: US fashion companies’ China sourcing strategy continues to evolve
Several factors affected US apparel sourcing from China negatively in 2022:
One was China’s stringent zero-COVID policy, which led to severe supply chain disruptions, particularly during the fall. As a result, China’s market shares from September to November 2022 declined by 7-9 percentage points compared to the previous year over the same period.
The second factor was the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in June 2022, which discouraged US fashion companies from sourcing cotton products from China. For example, only about 10% of US cotton apparel came from China in the fourth quarter of 2022, down from 17% at the beginning of the year and much lower than nearly 27% back in 2018.
The third contributing factor was the US-China trade tensions, including the continuation of Section 301 punitive tariffs. Industry sources indicate that US fashion companies increasingly source from China for relatively higher-value-added items targeting the premium or luxury market segments to offset the additional sourcing costs.
Further, three trends are worth watching regarding China’s future as an apparel sourcing base for US fashion companies:
One is the emergence of the “Made in China for China” strategy, particularly for those companies that view China as a lucrative sales market. Recent studies show that many US fashion companies aim to tailor their product offerings further to meet Chinese consumers’ needs and preferences.
Second is Chinese textile and apparel companies’ growing efforts to invest and build factories overseas. As a result, more and more clothing labeled “Made in Bangladesh” and “Made in Vietnam” could be produced by factories owned by Chinese investors.
Third, China could accelerate its transition from exporting apparel to providing more textile raw materials to other apparel-exporting countries in Asia. Notably, over the past decade, most Asian apparel-exporting countries have become increasingly dependent on China’s textile raw material supply, from yarns and fabrics to various accessories. Moreover, recent regional trade agreements, particularly the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), provide new opportunities for supply chain integration in Asia.
Trend 4: US fashion companies demonstrate a new interest in expanding sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, but key bottlenecks need to be solved
Trade data suggests a mixed picture of near-shoring in 2022. For example, members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) accounted for a declining share of US apparel imports in 2022, measured in quantity and value. While CAFTA-DR and USMCA members showed an increase in their market share of US apparel imports in the fourth quarter of 2022, reaching 10.7% and 3.1%, respectively, this growth was not accompanied by an increase in trade volume. Instead, US apparel imports from these countries decreased by 11% and 15%, respectively, compared to the previous year. CAFTA-DR and USMCA members’ gain in market share was mainly due to a sharper decline in US apparel imports from the rest of the world (i.e., decreased by over 25% in the fourth quarter of 2022).
Trade data also suggests two other bottlenecks preventing more US apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR and USMCA members. One is the lack of product diversity. For example, the product diversification index consistently shows that US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members and Mexico concentrated on only a limited category of products, and the problem worsened in 2022. The result explained why US fashion companies often couldn’t move souring orders from Asia to CAFTA-DR and USMCA members.
Another problem is the underutilization of the trade agreement. For example, CAFTA-DR’s utilization rate for US apparel imports consistently went down from its peak of 87% in 2011 to only 74% in 2021. The utilization rate fell to 66.6% in 2022, the lowest since CAFTA-DR fully came into force in 2007. This means that as much as one-third of US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR did NOT claim the agreement’s preferential duty benefits. Thus, regarding how to practically grow US fashion companies’ near-shoring, we could expect more public discussions and debates in the new year.
The session intends to facilitate constructive dialogue regarding the latest progress, challenges, and opportunities for achieving more sustainable and socially responsible apparel sourcing in the Post-COVID world. The session will offer a unique opportunity to hear directly from leading fashion brands and retailers regarding 1) fashion companies’ latest sourcing practices against the evolving business environment and their impacts on due diligence; 2) fashion companies’ new efforts and innovative projects to achieve more sustainable and socially responsible apparel sourcing; 3) opportunities and challenges to further improve sustainability and social responsibility in apparel sourcing in the post-COVID world. In addition, the session will be highly relevant and informative to all stakeholders in the fashion apparel business community, civil society, international organizations, academia, and policymakers.
Elizabeth Davelaar is a Co-Owner of Maker’s Way Fiber Mill in Brandon, SD, which opened in October 2021. The mill is a family-run business, with Elizabeth’s sister, Erin, and her mother, Kari, as other co-owners. Elizabeth began her career in the fashion industry at the University of Minnesota, where she graduated with a BS in Apparel Design from the College of Design. She then went to the University of Delaware, where she graduated with an MS in Fashion and Apparel Studies and a Graduate Certificate in Sustainable Apparel Business.
Elizabeth served as a project manager for a non-profit fashion brand in St. Louis and taught sewing to immigrant women in St. Louis and women in Ethiopia. She then moved to Vi Bella Jewelry in Sioux Center, IA, working her way from Shipping Manager to VP of Operations, Sustainability and Design. She then opened Maker’s Way Fiber Mill in 2021 with her family and has been working with local fiber producers to grow the yarn industry in South Dakota and surrounding areas.
Sheng: What inspired you to start your fiber mill business? What makes it special and exciting?
Elizabeth: The mill was born out of the need to solve a problem. I became interested in natural dye at the University of Delaware under Professor Cobb. Once I moved back to the area where I grew up, COVID hit, and I was able to dive deeper into the natural dye and use local plants as a dye source. This also led to being curious about local natural fibers. South Dakota isn’t a state that grows cotton, and the hemp industry is currently small, but it has an abundance of sheep. According to statistics from the US Department of Agriculture, South Dakota has 235,000 sheep and is home to one of the nation’s largest wool co-ops. However, there are only 2 working fiber mills in the area that provide custom processing, which makes yarn made from local fiber very hard to find.
This led to the opening of Maker’s Way Fiber Mill. We are a full-service, custom fiber mill and make yarn, felt, roving, and home goods products from primarily wool and alpaca fiber. Approximately 90% of our time is spent processing for clients who own the animals and use the yarn themselves or sell it, with the other 10% processing yarn that we sell online via our website and in-person at events. The vast majority of our customers are local (within 4-5 hrs) and sell locally to crafters. We take pride in knowing where the fiber we use comes from, sourcing from local farms or using fiber from vintage or second-hand sources.
Sheng: According to Maker’s Way Fiber Mill’s website, sustainability is a critical feature of your products. Why is that, and how do you make your products sustainable?
Elizabeth: We believe that we are stewards of the earth and should be conscious of how the products we make are grown, created, and then how they can be disposed of. The fashion industry, from creating the product to end life, is a huge polluter. The current market for wool is not great for producers, and there isn’t a good avenue for alpaca producers. We work very hard to ensure that our products are sourced from people that we know and trust or are from vintage or second-hand sources. We also work to ensure our products are made from natural fibers, thus they are biodegradable.
We also work to limit the waste in our mill. Although we try our absolute best to reduce loss in the process, each step produces some loss in fiber. This fiber is swept up and either rewashed and added to our Millie line or added to our bird nest starters. The Millie line is yarn spun up from the scraps, and we end up running about four batches of this a year. Each batch is unique because of the different blends of fiber we run. The bird nest starters use fiber that either falls out of our carder or is swept off the floor. These are then put outside in the spring for birds to use for nesting. The fibers are short enough that the baby birds don’t get tangled in them as they would with yarn and because they are natural animal fibers, the nests will biodegrade, unlike acrylic yarns that are sometimes used.
Sheng: Maker’s Way Fiber Mill’s products are 100% locally made in South Dakota. From your perspective, what are the opportunities and challenges for manufacturing textiles in the US today?
Elizabeth: I see two big challenges in the natural animal fiber side of the U.S. textile industry: Lack of consumer knowledge of where clothing comes from and lack of infrastructure. But both also present big opportunities!
First, we have found with our mill that people don’t have a good understanding of how many steps there are in creating yarn in general, let alone clothing. We have people who question our pricing because they don’t understand what it means to make yarn in the United States. From start to finish, it takes eight different steps to get raw fiber from producers to yarn ready to sell. Our consultations for new clients tend to be very educational because even fiber producers don’t necessarily know all the steps. As we open the mill for tours and talk to people at events, they start to understand and respect how much work is behind the yarn we create, and that is when we see buy-in – when people start to see the whole process, as well as the people.
The second challenge I see is the overall lack of infrastructure. We are one of approximately 200 small-scale / artisan-style mills in the country (this number is approximate – there is not a good database) and do not run near the quantity compared to the larger manufacturers. As of 2018, there aren’t any small-scale fiber mill equipment manufacturers in the US, so all of the equipment available to us is either used or has to be imported from Canada or Italy. Wait time for most small producers to get their fiber made into yarn is approximately 8-12 months at many mills, some run up to 18 months out. Our mill currently runs about 6 months out and we have been open for just over a year.
For producers who want to sell their wool to larger manufacturers and not have it custom processed, as far as our research has shown, there is one large-scale scouring (wool washing) facility in the states and most of the large-scale spinners use fiber from this facility to spin into yarn and then send the fiber off to other finishing companies for knitting. Otherwise, all of the wool is shipped overseas, and producers are earning approximately $1.66/lb of wool (in 2020). We have heard of many producers that have stockpiles of wool because they are waiting for higher wool prices. Coops also won’t accept wool that isn’t white, so all dark colors of wool get thrown away as there isn’t a market for it.
We also see this as an opportunity. We have noticed the “buying local” trend extending past food also to include yarn. People also see value in making their own clothing and being intentional through knitting/crocheting. There is a growing market for it. We have also seen some demand for the addition of another large-scale scouring facility that could meet the needs for wool insulation and other home applications.
Sheng: Like other fashion programs in the US, most of our FASH students take job opportunities from fashion brands and retailers, not necessarily textile mills. How to raise the young generation’s interest in pursuing a career in textile and apparel factories? Do you have any suggestions?
Elizabeth: I definitely never intended to start a fiber mill when I was in school. I only took one textile class and am pretty sure only one of my design projects used wool. UD was really what fed the sustainability bug in me and I started to realize that sustainability starts at the very beginning of the lifecycle of clothing. Whether or not something can be biodegradable, recyclable, or repurposed starts with what fiber makes up the clothing. UD also showed me how global apparel is and how much carbon footprint it makes.
Working in a fiber mill is not an easy job. It is dirty, we tend to put in long days, and we are constantly learning new things. I am a very hands-on person, and I love being able to create things from nothing, so this job is a great fit for me. The part I loved most about being in design school was being able to create things, and my current job is that all day, every day. We split the mill into “zones” and between myself, Erin and our mom, we all specialized in a specific part of the process. I am in charge of skirting and cleaning fleeces, which means cleaning off all of the hay and visibly dirty areas (aka manure) and then washing the fiber in 140-180 degree water to get the dirt and lanolin out of the fleece. I then pick and card the fiber, which opens up and organizes the fiber into a long tube that is then drafted, spun, plied, and put into skeins. While most days tend to include the same things, each day is never the same as the last. Each animal fleece we run acts differently, so we are always learning new and better ways to run the equipment we have. It is challenging but also a labor of love. Because we work directly with producers, we know the names of most of the animals and love knowing that their fleeces are being used instead of being discarded! We also love connecting with local people who love purchasing from local producers and makers.
One of the biggest things I believe fashion programs can do to help open up students to different options in the fashion industry is to expose them to different opportunities and allow them to follow whatever passion they have and emphasize that there isn’t a “right” path in the industry. My classes opened me up to labor issues around the world and that then led me to Delaware. And the opportunities I was given at UD to follow my passions are a huge reason I am doing what I am doing now. One of the things I think UD does right is having many different professors with varying backgrounds in the FASH department and I think other universities would do well to implement that too.
Sheng: Any other key issues or industry trends you will watch in 2023?
Elizabeth: One of the key trends we are watching is the local craft movements and knowing where your clothing comes from. We saw a crafting resurgence happen during COVID and people are still pickup up their knitting needles and crochet hooks to create items to wear and love. We also see some carryover of the local food scene into the local fiber scene. We believe that this will continue to grow!
This study aims to understand western fashion brands and retailers’ latest China apparel sourcing strategies against the evolving business environment. We conducted a content analysis of about 30 leading fashion companies’ public corporate filings (i.e., annual or quarterly financial reports and earnings call transcripts) submitted from June 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
The results suggest several themes:
First, China remains one of the most frequently used apparel sourcing destinations. For example:
Express says, “The top five countries from which we sourced our merchandise in 2021 were Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines, based on total cost of merchandise purchased.”
According to TJX, “a significant amount of merchandise we offer for sale is made in China.”
Children’s Place says, “We source from a diversified network of vendors, purchasing primarily from Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and China.“
Ralph Lauren adds, “In Fiscal 2022, approximately 97% of our products (by dollar value) were produced outside of the US, primarily in Asia, Europe, and Latin America, with approximately 19% of our products sourced from China and another 19% from Vietnam.
However, many fashion companies have significantly cut their apparel sourcing volume from China. More often, China is no longer the No.1 apparel sourcing destination, overtaken by China’s competitors in Asia, such as Vietnam.
According to Lululemon, “During 2021, approximately 40% of our products were manufactured in Vietnam, 17% in Cambodia, 11% in Sri Lanka, 7% in China (PRC), including 2% in Taiwan, and the remainder in other regions… From a sourcing perspective, when looking at finished goods for the upcoming 2022 fall season, Mainland China represents only 4% to 6% of our total unit volume.”
Levi’s says, “The good thing about our supply chain is we’ve got truly a global footprint. We don’t manufacture a whole lot in China anymore. We’ve been slowly divesting manufacturing out of China, if you will, and kind of playing our chips elsewhere on the global map… Less than 1% of what we’re bringing into this country, into the US, less than 1% of it is coming from China.”
Adidas says, “In 2021, we sourced 91% of the total apparel volume from Asia (2020: 93%). Cambodia is the largest sourcing country, representing 21% of the produced volume (2020: 22%), followed by China with 20% (2020: 20%) and Vietnam with 15% (2020: 21%).”
Victoria’s Secret says, “On China, China is a single-digit percentage of our total inflow of merchandise. We’re not particularly dependent on China at all.”
Nike: “As of May 31, 2022, we were supplied by 279 finished goods apparel contract factories located in 33 countries. For fiscal 2022, contract factories in Vietnam, China and Cambodia manufactured approximately 26%, 20% and 16% of total NIKE Brand apparel, respectively“
Meanwhile, fashion companies still heavily use China as a sourcing base for textile raw materials (such as fabrics). For example:
Columbia Sportswear says it sources most of its finished products from Vietnam, but “a large portion of the raw materials used in our products is sourced by our contract manufacturers in China.”
Likewise, Puma says, “90% of our recycled polyester comes from Vietnam, China, Taiwan (China) and Korea.”
Guess says, “During fiscal 2022, we sourced most of our finished products with partners and suppliers outside the U.S. and we continued to design and purchase fabrics globally, with most coming from China.”
Lulumemon says, “Approximately 48% of the fabric used in our products originated from Taiwan, 19% from China Mainland, 11% from Sri Lanka, and the remainder from other regions.”
Second, Western fashion companies unanimously ranked the COVID situation as one of their top concerns for China. Many companies reported significant sales revenue and profits loss due to China’s draconian “zero-COVID” policy and lockdown measures. For example,
Tapestry says, “For Greater China, sales declined 11% due to lockdowns and business disruption… as a result, we have tempered our fiscal year 2023 outlook based on the expectation for a delayed recovery in China.”
Adidas says, “With Great China… we continue to see several market-specific challenges that are affecting our entire industry. The strict zero COVID-19 policy with nationwide restrictions remains in place amid more than 2000 daily new COVID-19 cases in November. As a consequence, offline traffic is subdued due to the imminent risk of new lockdowns.
Under Armour says, “Ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and related preventative and protective actions in China…have negatively impacted consumer traffic and demand and may continue to negatively impact our financial results.”
VF Corporation says, “The performance in Greater China…continues to be impacted by widespread rolling COVID lockdowns and restrictions as well as lower consumer spending.”
Puma says, “COVID-19-related restrictions are still impacting business in Greater China, and higher freight rates and raw material prices continue to put pressure on margins.”
Notably, despite China’s most recent COVID policy U-turn, most fashion companies expect market uncertainties to stay in China, at least in the short run, given the surging COVID cases and policy unpredictability. For example:
PVH says, “While we remain optimistic about our business in China, it continues to be a challenging environment as restrictions have once again intensified in the fourth quarter of 2022.”
Nike says, “So we’ve taken a very cautious approach in our guidance to China, given the short-term uncertainties that are there.”
Abercrombie & Fitch also listed China’s COVID situation as one of their top risk factors, “risks and uncertainty related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including lockdowns in China, and any other adverse public health developments.”
Third, fashion companies report the negative impacts of US-China trade tensions on their businesses. Also, as the US-China relationship sours, fashion bands and retailers have been actively watching the potential effect of geopolitics. For example,
Express says, “recent geopolitical conditions, including impacts from the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and increased tensions between China and Taiwan, have all contributed to disruptions and rising costs to global supply chains.”
When assessing the market risk factors, Chico’s FAS says, “our reliance on sourcing from foreign suppliers and significant adverse economic, labor, political or other shifts (including adverse changes in tariffs, taxes or other import regulations, particularly with respect to China, or legislation prohibiting certain imports from China)”
Adidas holds the same view, “In addition, the challenging market environment in China had an adverse impact on the company’s business activities… Additional challenges included the geopolitical situation in China and extended lockdown measures.”
Macy’s adds, “At this time, it is unknown how long US tariffs on Chinese goods will remain in effect or whether additional tariffs will be imposed. Depending upon their duration and implementation, as well as our ability to mitigate their impact, these changes in foreign trade policy and any recently enacted, proposed and future tariffs on products imported by us from China could negatively impact our business, results of operations and liquidity if they seriously disrupt the movement of products through our supply chain or increase their cost.”
Gap Inc. says, “Trade matters may disrupt our supply chain. For example, the current political landscape, including with respect to U.S.-China relations, and recent tariffs and bans imposed by the United States and other countries (such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act) has introduced greater uncertainty with respect to future tax and trade regulations.”
QVC says, “The imposition of any new US tariffs or other restrictions on Chinese imports or the taking of other actions against China in the future, and any responses by China, could impair our ability to meet customer demand and could result in lost sales or an increase in our cost of merchandise, which would have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.”
Additionally,NO evidence shows that fashion companies are decoupling with China. Instead, Western fashion companies, especially those with a global presence, still hold an optimistic view of China as a long-term business opportunity. For example:
Inditex, which owns Zara, says, “we remain absolutely confident about our opportunities there (in China) in the medium to long term. Fashion demand continues to be strong in China. For sure it will remain a core market for us for Inditex.”
Ralph Lauren says, “China provides not only the successful blueprint for our elevated ecosystem strategy globally, it also represents one of several geographic long-term opportunities for our brand…We continue to see near and long term brand opportunities in China.”
Lululemon says, “On China, we remain very excited…we remain very, very excited about the potential and the role that will play in quadrupling our international business with Mainland China.”
Nike says, “We have remained committed to investing in Greater China for the long term.”
Adidas says, “On China, clearly, we believe in as a midterm opportunity in China… And then when the market opens up (from COVID), we believe, the western brand is well-positioned in China again, and we can start growing significant in China again.”
Meanwhile, Western fashion companies plan to make more efforts to localize their product offer and cater to the specific needs of Chinese consumers, especially the young generation. The “Made in China for China” strategy could become more popular among Western fashion companies. For example,
PVH says, “So, I think in general, our production in China is heavily oriented to China for China production. I think for us generally speaking, the biggest impact of the shutdowns that we’ve seen across Shanghai and Beijing has really been focused on the impact to our China market.”
Likewise, Levi’s says, “We’re manufacturing somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% of our global production is in China, and most of it staying in China.“
Hanesbrands says, “we’re committed to opening new stores, and that’s continues to go well, despite, the challenges that are there. Looking specifically at Champion, we continued our expansion in China adding new stores in the quarter through our partners.”
H&M says, “we still see China as an important market for us.”
According to Hugo Boss, “Thanks to overall robust local demand, revenues in China in 2021 grew 24% as compared to 2019.”
VF Corporation adds, “China is a significant opportunity…(We are) really pushing decision-making into the regions and providing more and more latitude for local-for-local decision-makings around product, around storytelling, certainly staying within the confines or the framework of the brand strategy, but really giving more freedom and more empowerment to the regions.”
Grew up in Huntington, New York, Julianne began her fashion career by double majoring in Apparel Design and Fashion Merchandising at the University of Delaware. After graduating in Spring 2018, Julianne joined Saks Fifth Avenue’s Private Label Brands as a Product Development Assistant Manager. Julianne was involved in designing for the men’s brands, Saks Fifth Avenue Collection and Saks Fifth Avenue Modern. Although a relatively small team, the experience allowed Julianne to “wear many hats” and control the entire design process from start to finish. Julianne and her team also designed for many product categories, including sportswear, tailored clothing, dress shirts, swim, and personal furnishings, to name a few.
After two years on the men’s team, Julianne moved over to help rebrand and relaunch Saks Fifth Avenue’s women collections. Her designs were adopted for Fall 21 collection and the experience allowed her to get familiar with the whole design process. This project also gave Julianne the knowledge and courage to move to the next career level.
In January 2022, Julianne left her dream job at Saks and started to build her own apparel brand. Officially launched in November 2022, Julianne Bartolotta has become a rising star in the luxury fashion world.
Sheng: Thank you so much for speaking with us,Julianne! What inspired you to start your apparel company? What makes it special and exciting?
Julianne: When Covid-19 hit New York in March 2020, I was furloughed from my job at Saks like many peers. I remember being at home when the house phone rang, and it was my dad calling to tell my mom and me that his nursing home ran out of masks and he needed us to sew 200 cloth masks for the nurses and staff. My mom and I ran to the only store open, Walmart, to buy fabric. We then set up a folding table in my kitchen and got to sewing. So we decided to choose a fabric with bright, colorful designs because we thought it would make people happy.
My dad got so many responses from the residents and the staff, saying that they loved the masks. They made the residents feel more comfortable and at ease when seeing their nurse, because it was as if wearing the mask was like wearing a smile.
After seeing the positive impact of my masks on the residents and staff, I decided to begin offering other mask designs on an Etsy Shop. My Etsy took off, and I started experimenting with scrunchies, headbands, swimsuits, and dresses, all sewn by me.
When I returned to Saks, I found myself craving the lifestyle of an entrepreneur. I enjoyed being my own boss and making creative decisions. Seeing people wear my designs and having a 5-star average on Etsy pushed me to take a leap of faith and pursue starting my own business. I officially gave my resignation in December of 2021 and began January 2022 with my focus solely on my brand.
Today, Julianne Bartolotta (JB) is a women’s Ready-to-Wear brand, offering a mini capsule collection each season. We offer sweaters, dresses, skirts, shorts, blouses, and even catsuits. My target audience is women ages 25-45, who live in urban and suburban areas that value fashion and look forward to dressing up on the weekends. She does not mind spending a bit more on a dress because she is excited to wear something unique, trendy, and well-made. We are a woman-owned, women-run, family business, where my mom is my Chief Operating Officer (COO), and my sister is one of my fit and marketing models.
Every item in the collection is designed by me and made in Italy, using the same manufacturers as other household luxury brands. Each style is meant to act as a “statement piece,” meaning there is something statement-worthy about the design, color, fabrication, or buttons. During my time at Saks, I learned from studying selling reports that the styles with “statement-worthy” details had the highest sell-throughs across most brands. I learned that women want to show off their cool clothes! They would rather spend $250 on a dress that stands out than $250 on a dress that probably won’t get her much attention.
My intention with this collection is to make women feel like a light in a dark room, just as my masks did during such a scary and unpredictable time. Clothing is how we portray ourselves to the world. My brand prides itself on making quality clothing, with statement-worthy designs, to show the world a woman’s femininity and confidence. With JB, the clothing speaks for itself, so you don’t have to!
Sheng: All your companies’ products are “Made in Italy.” Why is that?
Julianne: While at Saks, we used factories in Italy, China, Spain, and other countries worldwide. When President Trump imposed higher tariffs on China, it pushed us to revisit our supplier base. We eventually decided to move almost everything to Italy because the tariff duties were lower and the “Made in Italy” label is very desirable. People love clothing made in Europe, especially Italy. Italian factories pride themselves on their craft. They are very artisanal and view fashion as art. The factories are also smaller, with about 25-50 people working on the main floor. Because of this, the garments are being handled by fewer people, so the workers will spend a lot of time taking care of each garment. So if you were to compare this to factories in Asia, for example, there would typically be hundreds of workers on the main floor, and each worker would have a particular job, sewing a specific part of the garment and passing it on to the next worker (i.e., productin line).
When branching off to start my own business, I took this sourcing knowledge with me and chose to work with Made in Italy factories. Because the factories in Italy are smaller, they are also able to offer lower minimums. Being a starting-out designer, it’s important not to over-buy. You don’t want to end up in a situation where you are sitting on inventory and can’t move it.
The “Made in Italy” label is also an homage to my Italian heritage. I am actually a dual citizen, so I have American citizenship as well as Italian citizenship. I have family in Italy that I have visited in recent years and communicate with regularly. Having my garments made in Italy is a way for me to give recognition to my family’s roots and uphold a standard of luxury at the same time.
When sourcing fabric for my garments, it would be typical to attend fabric shows in Milan and Florence to pick the best fabrics for my designs. Because of Covid, I could not travel to attend these shows, so I had yarn books and color cards sent to me instead. I was able to get pricing and pick the best suitable fabrics that way, but in the future, I plan to go and network with the mills as well.
Sheng: Can you share with us your sourcing practice? For example, what are your vendor selection criteria? What does the importing process look like?
Julianne: Currently I work with three factories in Italy, all specializing in different realms. One specializes in knitting sweaters, one works with woven fabrics, and the other works with jersey knits and stretch materials. I selected these factories because they were able to offer me low minimums. I was also given net payment terms, so I don’t have to pay my factories upfront for my clothes, which allows me to use selling time to help pay for the invoices.
When selecting my factories, I also made sure to know what other brands they work with. Big retailers like Saks have special ethics codes in place that the brand’s factories must comply with to sell to their stores. This includes ensuring that the factories don’t overwork their staff, the work environment conditions are safe, and the workers are compensated appropriately for their work. I made sure to use only reputable factories that produce for other luxury brands so that I comply with the same standards.
When I am working on costing for my styles, I have to contact my broker for each item’s landing factor to get my landed cost. A landing factor is a number that includes the exchange rate and duties on a specific style based on the type of article of clothing it is (blouse, jacket, pants, etc.), whether it is woven or knit, what the fabrication is, and where it is coming from. The landing factor for an Italian wool sweater could be different from the landing factor on an Italian wool coat. Landing factors usually range from .5 to 1.9. For example, if an item has a first cost of 30 euros and a landing factor of 1.5, the landed cost would come to $45. Landing factors can change over time, so it’s important that I check in with my broker every season to make sure I know what to expect when it comes time to ship.
My landing factors do not include the shipping cost. Because my orders are so small, and my production timeline is shorter than other big brands, it is in my best interest to air my goods. This isn’t the case for most brands, as airing goods can become quite costly. Usually, goods would be shipped by boat, but when Covid hit, there were fewer workers to unload the cargo ships in New York, which caused many retail orders to become very delayed. I wanted to avoid this altogether, and since my boxes are small, I chose to air my shipments instead. As I work on my production timeline and grow my business, I will probably have to move towards shipping my goods by boat.
Sheng: Regarding the apparel business environment in 2023, what are the opportunities and challenges? What trends shall we watch closely?
Julianne: The apparel industry right now is tough, butthere are still opportunities for fashion businesses. Inflation has caused many people to rethink how much they are willing to spend on clothing. People want to feel like they will get their money’s worth on their purchases across the board. This is where social media marketing comes into play. If you can create a strong social media presence, and gain credibility through the right PR tactics, people will be more inclined to shop for your brand. Influencers are becoming modern world celebrities. If you see Danielle Bernstein wearing a dress from a small named brand, you suddenly give the brand credibility and want to check out their Instagram. With more people joining Tiktok, Instagram’s algorithm shifting towards reels, and influencers gaining more popularity, there are plenty of opportunities to spread the word; brands need to take advantage of these social media tools in the most compelling way.
It is becoming more common for people to start a side hustle in today’s world. Many people work from home and have the extra time and effort to put towards their small business. This means that the market for fashion startups is becoming saturated, but if you can create a brand that stands out from the rest, and put out engaging social media content, your audience can really grow and take off.
I would pay attention to how big and small brands are trying to take advantage of Tiktok and Instagram. Big brands are joining the Tiktok and Reels bandwagon and putting out more relatable content. They are using influencers, giving them discount codes to share, and sending them PR packages to show off on social media. It’s also interesting to see how small startup brands can utilize the same influencers and tactics to bring awareness to themselves. Social media creates a stage where small and big brands can coexist and compete for the same customers. Through social media, small brands can become more relevant, and big brands can try to stay relevant.
Sheng: Any reflections on your experiences at UD and FASH? What advice do you have for our current students who are preparing for their careers after graduation?
Julianne: Looking back on my college experience at UD and in the Fashion and Apparel Department(FASH), it feels like it was just yesterday! I double majored in Apparel Design and Fashion Merchandising, so I took a majority of the fashion classes offered, but if I could give any advice, I would say to be involved as much as you can. Utilize the amazing learning and career development opportunities that UD FASH offers you! Also, interning as much as possible– whether you get paid or not, it could be a valuable experience. I would suggest interning in a few different fields in fashion (if you can) to see what you like best before applying to jobs. For example, I had market week internships, product development internships, and fashion design internships, and I worked in retail. These experiences helped me decide what I liked and didn’t like.
Also, it is competitive out there, so don’t get discouraged! For example, the interview with Saks was a long process but I am so grateful that it worked out the way it did.
If you are a designer and want to start your own business, I would HIGHLY recommend working for someone else first. When you work for someone else, whether a big brand or a small startup, you learn the business’s ins and outs and network. It is much easier to start a business when you have connections then trying to start a business having to cold call vendors. Starting a business is also much easier when you understand the production calendar. Knowing what needs to be done and in what order will avoid a lot of mistakes! Put your time in, learn and grow, and you will be able to achieve great things!
Mango is a fashion company based in Barcelona, Spain that was founded in 1984 by brothers Isak Andic and Nahman Andic. The company has grown significantly since its inception and now has over 2,700 stores in 109 countries worldwide. Mango is known for its trendy and high-quality clothing, which is targeted toward young women.
One of the critical factors in Mango’s success has been its ability to stay current and relevant in the fast-paced fashion world. The company regularly collaborates with top designers and influencers to create unique and fashionable collections that appeal to its target audience. Mango also closely monitors emerging trends and adapts its collections accordingly.
Besides clothing, Mango also offers accessories, such as bags, shoes, jewelry, and a home collection. The company has a solid online presence, with an e-commerce website that allows customers to shop from anywhere in the world.
In December 2022, Mango announced the Sustainable 2030 strategy, which “aims to move towards the full traceability and transparency of its value chain, in order to continue with the process of auditing its suppliers and ensuring that appropriate working conditions are being fulfilled for the workers in the factories the company works with around the world.” As part of the strategy, Mango will “focus its efforts on moving towards a more sustainable collection, prioritizing materials with a lower environmental impact and incorporating circular design criteria, so that by 2030 these will predominate in the design of its products and all its fibers will be of sustainable origin or recycled.”
Mango’s Apparel Sourcing Strategies (as of December 2022)
First, Mango adopted a sophisticated global sourcing network for its apparel products. Specifically, Mango’s apparel supply chain involves 1,878 Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 factories in 29 countries worldwide. About 31% of these factories produce garments (Tier 1), 19% supply fabrics (Tier 2), and 49% provide textile raw materials like yarns and accessories (Tier 3). Further, about 407 factories (or 21%) have vertical production capability (e.g., making both finished garments and textile inputs).
Second, like many EU fashion companies, near-shoring from the EU and Turkey is a critical feature of Mango’s apparel sourcing strategy. For example, about 44.8% of Mango’s Tier 1 garment suppliers were EU based (including Turkey), whereas Asia suppliers only accounted for 54%. Likewise, about 34% of Mango’s Tier 2 fabric suppliers and nearly half of its Tier 3 yarn and accessories suppliers were also EU based. The result reflects the EU’s intra-region textile and apparel trade patterns, supported by the region’s relatively complete textile and apparel supply chain. In comparison, US fashion companies typically source more than 80% of finished garments from Asia, and most of these garments also use Asia-based textile raw materials.
Third, measured by the number of suppliers, Mango’s top Tier 1 apparel production bases include Turkey (187 factories), China (176 factories), India (135 factories), and Italy (107 factories). Industry sources further indicated that between 2021 and 2022, Mango primarily sourced from Turkey and India for Tops (69% and 78%, respectively). Mango’s imports from China and Italy were more diverse in product categories (e.g., dresses, outwear, bottoms, and swimwear). On the other hand, Mango’s apparel imports from Italy were much higher priced ($107 retail price on average) than those from the other three countries ($38-41 retail price on average).
Fourth, the factory size and vertical production capabilities of Mango’s suppliers seem to vary by region. Notably, Mango’s Asia-based suppliers are more likely to be large-sized (with 1,000+ employees) and offer vertical production (e.g., making both finished garments and textile input). Mango’s Africa and America-based suppliers were relatively small-sized or lacked vertical integration.
This study explored the survival strategies of apparel manufacturing in a high-wage developed economy using “Made in Ireland” as a case study. Based on a statistical analysis of 4,000 apparel items for sale in the retail market from January 2018 to December 2021, the study found that:
First, unlike the conventional views like the factor proportion trade theory and the global value chain theory, the study’s results showed that garment manufacturing did NOT disappear in Ireland as a high-wage developed country. Notably, garments “Made in Ireland” demonstrated many unique attributes, such as:
statistically more likely to target luxury and high-end markets than foreign-made apparel imported into Ireland;
statistically more likely to highlight their Irish cultural heritage and mention keywords such as “traditional,” “centuries-old,” “craftsmanship,” and “historical” in the product description;
statistically more likely to focus on manufacturing specific product categories with a world reputation, including jumpers and kilts;
statistically less likely to be seen in categories with an abundant supply from lower-cost imports, such as bottoms;
In other words, economic theories need to incorporate non-price competition factors and better explain the development patterns of a country’s garment sector, particularly in developed economies.
Second, the findings called for a rethink of the strategies supporting the garment-manufacturing sector in a high-wage developed country. Current industry practices and government policies aiming to promote garment manufacturing in a developed country primarily focus on implementing protectionist trade measures (i.e., restricting imports) or investing in modern technologies like automation. However, the study’s findings suggested new approaches. For example, using disaggregated product data at the Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) level, the study indicated that a substantial portion of garments “Made in Ireland” was sold overseas. Thus, promoting exports instead of curbing imports could be a more effective way of expanding garment production in a high-wage developed country.
On the other hand, the popularity of “Made in Ireland” jumpers and kilts in the world marketplace suggested that garment manufacturers in a high-wage developed country could survive their business by leveraging cultural heritage, history, and traditional craftsmanship instead of fancy new technologies. Likewise, to a certain extent, the value of maintaining garment manufacturing in a high-wage developed country in the 21st Century may not necessarily be about replacing imports, improving “speed to market,” or creating jobs but preserving a country’s unique cultural heritage and history.
Third, the study’s findings revealed the challenges facing garment manufacturers in a high-wage developed country like Ireland. For example, garments “Made in Ireland” were more likely to be sold with a discount, implying their price competition with foreign-made imports might not be entirely avoidable despite all the efforts from targeting the niche markets to differentiating product assortments.
On the other hand, garments “Made in Ireland” often targeted the high-end market, requiring the workforce to obtain demanding skills such as advanced sewing, craftsmanship, and a deep understanding of the Irish culture. However, the aging workforce and the shortage of skilled labor, a common problem facing developed countries, could also prevent the expansion of apparel manufacturing in Ireland in the long run. Thus, prompting the traditional Irish culture and apparel production craftsmanship, especially to attract the young generation to garment factories and be willing to pursue a career there, would be critical for sustaining the garment manufacturing sector in Ireland and other high-wage developed countries.
Ireland has a long history of making garments, and specific categories of apparel “Made in Ireland” are famous worldwide, such as jumpers and kilts. As of 2020 (i.e., the latest data available), about 340 garment factories still operate in Ireland, a notable increase from 293 in 2010 (Eurostat, 2022). Meanwhile, the output of Ireland’s apparel manufacturing sector totaled $68 million in 2020 (measured in value-added), a substantial drop from $142 million ten years ago (Eurostat, 2022).
Meanwhile, export was critical in supporting apparel “Made in Ireland” today. Statistics show that Ireland’s apparel exports totaled $270 million in 2019 before the pandemic, down about 19% from 2005 (UNComtrade). However, over that period, Ireland’s apparel exports to most developed countries enjoyed positive growth, such as Spain (up 151%), the Netherlands (up 4.5%), Germany (up 14.5%), France (up 61.6%), and Japan (up 20.2%). Further, Ireland’s top four largest apparel export markets were all developed Western EU countries (UNComtrade, 2022). Geographic proximity and the specific product structure of Ireland’s apparel exports could be important factors behind these distinct export patterns.
by Miriam Keegan (FASH MS student, Fulbright-EPA scholar) and Sheng Lu
Full paper: Keegan, M. & Lu, S. (2023). Can garment production survive in a developed economy in the 21st century? A study of “Made in Ireland”. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel. (ahead of print) https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-09-2022-0113
This study was based on a statistical analysis of 3,307 randomly selected clothing items made from recycled textile materials for sale in the U.S. retail market between January 2019 and August 2022 (see the sample picture above). The results show that:
First, U.S. retailers sourced clothing made from recycled textile materials from diverse countries.
Specifically, the sampled clothing items came from as many as 36 countries, including developed and developing economies in Asia, America, the EU, and Africa.
However, reflecting the unique supply chain composition of clothing made from recycled textile materials, U.S. retailers’ sourcing patterns for such products turned out to be quite different from regular new clothing. For example, whereas the vast majority (i.e., over 90%) of U.S. regular new clothing came from developing countries as of 2022 (UNComtrade, 2022), as many as 43% of the sampled clothing items made from recycled textile materials (n=1,408) were sourced from developed countries. Likewise, U.S. retailers seemed to be less dependent on Asia when sourcing clothing made from recycled materials (41.9%, n=1,387) and instead used near-sourcing from America (30.1%, n=994) more often, particularly domestic sourcing from the United States (14.8%, n=490).
Second, U.S. retailers appeared to set differentiated assortments for products imported from developed and developing countries when sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials.
Among the sampled clothing items made from recycled textile materials, those imported from developing countries, on average, included a broader assortment than developed economies. Likewise, imports from developing countries also concentrated on products relatively more complex to make as opposed to developed countries. Developing countries’ more extensive clothing production capability, including the available production facilities and skilled labor force, than developed economies could have contributed to the pattern.
On the other hand, likely caused by developed countries’ overall higher production costs, the average retail price of sampled clothing items sourced from developed countries was notably higher than those from developing ones. However, NO clear evidence shows that U.S. retailers used developed countries primarily as the sourcing bases for luxury or premium items and used developing countries only for items targeting the mass or value market.
Third, an exporting country’s geographic location was another statistically significant factor affecting U.S. retailers’ sourcing pattern for clothing made from recycled textile materials. Specifically,
Imports from Asia had the most diverse product assortment (e.g., sizing options) and focused on complex product categories (e.g., outwear) that targeted mass and value markets.
Imports from America (North, South, and Central America) concentrated on simple product categories (e.g., T-shirts and hosiery) with moderate assortment diversity and mainly targeted the mass and value market.
Imports from the EU were mainly higher-priced luxury items in medium-sophisticated or sophisticated product categories with diverse assortment.
Imports from Africa concentrated on relatively higher-priced premium or luxury items in simple product categories (i.e., swim shorts) with a limited assortment diversity.
The study’s findings demystified the country of origin of clothing made from recycled textile materials hidden behind macro trade statistics. The findings also created critical new knowledge that contributed to our understanding of the supply chain of clothing made from recycled textile materials and U.S. retailers’ distinct sourcing patterns and affecting factors for such products. The findings have several other important implications:
First, the study’s findings revealed the broad supply base for clothing made from recycled textile materials and suggested promising sourcing opportunities for such products. Whereas existing studies illustrated consumers’ increasing interest in shopping for clothing made from recycled textile materials, the study’s results indicated that the “enthusiasm” also applied to the supply side, with many countries already engaged in making and exporting such products. Meanwhile, the results showed that U.S. retailers sourced clothing made from recycled textile materials in different product categories with a broad price range targeting various market segments to meet consumers’ varying demands. Moreover, as textile recycling techniques continue to advance, potentially enriching the product offer of clothing made from recycled textile materials, U.S. retailers’ sourcing needs and supply base for such products could expand further.
Second, the study’s findings suggest that sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials may help U.S. retailers achieve business benefits beyond the positive environmental impacts. For example, given the unique supply chain composition and production requirements, China appeared to play a less dominant role as a supplier of clothing made from recycled textile materials for U.S. retailers. Instead, a substantial portion of such products was “Made in the USA” or came from emerging sourcing destinations in America (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua) and Africa (e.g., Tunisia and Morocco). In other words, sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials could help U.S. retailers with several goals they have been trying to achieve, such as reducing dependence on sourcing from China, expanding near sourcing, and diversifying their sourcing base.
Additionally, the study’s findings call for strengthening U.S. domestic apparel manufacturing capability to better serve retailers’ sourcing needs for clothing made from recycled textile materials. On the one hand, the results demonstrated U.S. retailers’ strong interest in sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials that were “Made in the USA.” Also, the United States may enjoy certain competitive advantages in making such products, ranging from the abundant supply of recycled textile waste and the affordability of expensive modern recycling machinery to the advanced research and product development capability. On the other hand, the results showed that U.S. retailers primarily sourced simple product categories (e.g., T-shirts and hosiery), targeting the value and mass markets from the U.S. and other American countries. This pattern somewhat mirrored the production and sourcing pattern for regular new clothing, for which apparel “Made in the USA” also lacked product variety and focused on basic fashion items compared with Asian and EU suppliers. Thus, strengthening the U.S. domestic apparel production capacity, especially for those complex product categories (e.g., outwear and suits), could encourage more sourcing of “Made in the USA” apparel using recycled textile materials and support production and job creation in the U.S. apparel manufacturing sector.
In December 2022, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry experts and scholars in its Outlook 2023–what’s next for apparel sourcing briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. All comments and suggestions are more than welcome!
2023 is likely another year full of challenges and opportunities for the global apparel industry.
First, the apparel industry may face a slowed world economy and weakened consumer demand in 2023. Apparel is a buyer-driven industry, meaning the sector’s volume of trade and production is highly sensitive to the macroeconomic environment. Amid hiking inflation, high energy costs, and retrenchment of global supply chains, leading international economic agencies, from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), unanimously predict a slowing economy worldwide in the new year. Likewise, the World Trade Organization (WTO) forecasts that the world merchandise trade will grow at around 1% in 2023, much lower than 3.5% in 2022. As estimated, the world apparel trade may marginally increase between 0.8% and 1.5% in the new year, the lowest since 2021. On the other hand, the falling demand may somewhat help reduce the rising sourcing cost pressure facing fashion companies in the new year.
Second, fashion brands and retailers will likely continue leveraging sourcing diversification and strengthening relationships with key vendors in response to the turbulent market environment. According to the 2022 fashion industry benchmarking study I conducted in collaboration with the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), nearly 40 percent of surveyed US fashion companies plan to “source from more countries and work with more suppliers” through 2024. Notably, “improving flexibility and reducing resourcing risks,” “reducing sourcing from China,” and “exploring near-sourcing opportunities” were among the top driving forces of fashion companies’ sourcing diversification strategies. Meanwhile, it is not common to see fashion companies optimize their supplier base and work with “fewer vendors.” For example, fashion companies increasingly prefer working with the so-called “super-vendors,” i.e., those suppliers with multiple-country manufacturing capability or can make textiles and apparel vertically, to achieve sourcing flexibility and agility. Hopefully, we could also see a more balanced supplier-importer relationship in the new year as more fashion companies recognize the value of “putting suppliers at the core.”
Third, improving sourcing sustainability and sourcing apparel products using sustainable textile materials will gain momentum in the new year. On the one hand, with growing expectations from stakeholders and pushed by new regulations, fashion companies will make additional efforts to develop a more sustainable, socially responsible, and transparent apparel supply chain. For example, more and more fashion brands and retailers have voluntarily begun releasing their supplier information to the public, such as factory names, locations, production functions, and compliance records. Also, new traceability technologies and closer collaboration with vendors enable fashion companies to understand their raw material suppliers much better than in the past. Notably, the rich supplier data will be new opportunities for fashion companies to optimize their existing supply chains and improve operational efficiency.
On the other hand, with consumers’ increasing interest in fashion sustainability and reducing the environmental impact of textile waste, fashion companies increasingly carry clothing made from recycled textile materials. My latest studies show that sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials may help fashion companies achieve business benefits beyond the positive environmental impacts. For example, given the unique supply chain composition and production requirements, China appeared to play a less dominant role as a supplier of clothing made from recycled textile materials. Instead, in the US retail market, a substantial portion of such products was “Made in the USA” or came from emerging sourcing destinations in America (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua) and Africa (e.g., Tunisia and Morocco). In other words, sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials could help fashion companies with several goals they have been trying to achieve, such as reducing dependence on sourcing from China, expanding near sourcing, and diversifying their sourcing base. Related, we are likely to see more public dialogue regarding how trade policy tools, such as preferential tariffs, may support fashion companies’ efforts to source more clothing using recycled or other eco-friendly textile materials.
Additionally, the debates on fashion companies’ China sourcing strategy and how to meaningfully expand near-sourcing could intensify in 2023. Regarding China, fashion companies’ top concerns and related public policy debates next year may include:
What contingency plan will be should the geopolitical tensions in the Asia-Pacific region directly affect shipping from the region?
Meanwhile, driven by various economic and non-economic factors, fashion companies will likely further explore ways to “bring the supply chain closer to home” in 2023. However, the near-shoring discussion will become ever more technical and detailed. For example, to expand near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere, more attention will be given to the impact of existing free trade agreements and their specific mechanisms (e.g., short supply in CAFTA-DR) on fashion companies’ sourcing practices. Even though we may not see many conventional free trade agreements newly launched, 2023 will be another busy year for textile and apparel trade policy deliberation, especially behind the scene and on exciting new topics.
By Sheng Lu
Discussion question: As we approach the middle of the year, why do you agree or disagree with any predictions in the outlook? Please share your thoughts.
#1. What makes globalization and trade controversial and debatable? Please use 1-2 examples from the video to illustrate your point.
#2. Are classic trade theories (e.g., comparative advantage) still relevant or outdated in the 21st century? Why? Please share your thoughts based on the video and the figures.
#3. Based on the video and the figures above, is the US textile manufacturing sector a winner or loser of globalization and international trade? Why?
#4. Related to question #3, does the future prosperity of the US textile manufacturing sector need globalization or de-globalization? What’s your vision?
#5. Take the following poll (anonymous) and share your reflections.
#6. Should the government’s trade policy consider non-economic factors such as national security and geopolitics? What should be the line between promoting “fair trade” and “trade protectionism”? What’s your view?
#7. Is there anything else you find interesting/intriguing/thought-provoking in the video? Why?
(Welcome to our online discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two questions and mention the question number (#) in your reply)
On September 2, 2022, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) announced it would continue the billions of dollars of Section 301 punitive tariffs against Chinese products. USTR said it made the decision based on requests from domestic businesses benefiting from the tariff action. As a legal requirement, USTR will launch a full review of Section 301 tariff action in the coming months.
In her remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Sep 7, 2022, US Trade Representative Katharine Tai further said that the Section 301 punitive tariffs on Chinese imports “will not come down until Beijing adopts more market-oriented trade and economic principles.” In other words, the US-China tariff war, which broke out four years ago, is not ending anytime soon.
A Brief History of the US Section 301 tariff action against China
The US-China tariff war broke out as both unexpected and not too surprising. For decades, the US government had been criticizing China for its unfair trade practices, such as providing controversial subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SMEs), insufficient protection of intellectual property rights, and forcing foreign companies to transfer critical technologies to their Chinese competitors. The US side had also tried various ways to address the problems, from holding bilateral trade negotiations with China and imposing import restrictions on specific Chinese goods to suing China at the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, despite these efforts, most US concerns about China’s “unfair” trade practices remain unsolved.
When former US President Donald Trump took office, he was particularly upset about the massive and growing US trade deficits with China, which hit a record high of $383 billion in 2017. In alignment with the mercantilism view on trade, President Trump believed that the vast trade deficit with China hurt the US economy and undermined his political base, particularly with the working class.
President Trump lost his patience with China in the summer of 2018. In the following months, citing the USTR Section 301 investigation findings, the Trump administration announced imposing a series of punitive tariffs on nearly half of US imports from China, or approximately $250 billion in total. As a result, for more than 1,000 types of products, US companies importing them from China would have to pay the regular import duties plus a 10%-25% additional import tax. However, the Trump administration’s trade team purposefully excluded consumer products such as clothing and shoes from the tariff actions. The last thing President Trump wanted was US consumers, especially his political base, complaining about the rising price tag when shopping for necessities. The timing was also a sensitive factor—the 2018 congressional mid-term election was only a few months away.
President Trump hoped his unprecedented large-scale punitive tariffs would change China’s behaviors on trade. It partially worked. As the trade frictions threatened economic growth, the Chinese government returned to the negotiation table. Specifically, the US side wanted China to purchase more US goods, reduce the bilateral trade imbalances and alter its “unfair” trade practices. In contrast, the Chinese asked the US to hold the Section 301 tariff action immediately.
However, the trade talks didn’t progress as fast as Trump had hoped. Even worse, having to please domestic forces that demanded a more assertive stance toward the US, the Chinese government decided to impose retaliatory tariffs against approximately $250 billion US products. President Trump felt he had to do something in response to China’s new action. In August 2019, he suddenly announced imposing Section 301 tariffs on a new batch of Chinese products, totaling nearly $300 billion. As almost everything from China was targeted, apparel products were no longer immune to the tariff war.With the new tariff announcement coming at short notice, US fashion brands and retailers were unprepared for the abrupt escalation since they typically placed their sourcing orders 3-6 months before the selling season.
Nevertheless, Trump’s new Section 301 actions somehow accelerated the trade negotiation. The two sides finally reached a so-called“phase one” trade agreementin about two months. As part of the deal, China agreed to increase its purchase of US goods and services by at least $200 billion over two years, or almost double the 2017 baseline levels. Also, China promised to address US concerns about intellectual property rights protection, illegal subsidies, and forced technology transfers. Meanwhile, the US side somewhat agreed to trim the Section 301 tariff action but rejected removing them. For example, the punitive Section 301 tariffs on apparel products were cut from 15% to 7.5% since implementing the “phase one” trade deal.
Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, and Joe Biden was sworn in as the new US president on January 20, 2021. However, the Section 301 tariff actions and the US-China “phase one” trade deal stayed in force.
Debate on the impact of the US-China tariff war
Like many other trade policies, the US Section 301 tariff actions against China raised heated debate among stakeholders with competing interests. This was the case even among different US textile and apparel industry segments.
On the one hand, US fashion brands and retailers strongly oppose the punitive tariffs against Chinese products for several reasons:
First, despite the Section 301 tariff action, China remained a critical apparel sourcing base for many US fashion companies with no practical alternative. Trade statistics show that four years into the tariff war, China still accounted for nearly 40 percent of US apparel imports in quantity and about one-third in value as of 2021. According to the latest data, in the first ten months of 2022, China remained the top apparel supplier, accounting for 35% of US apparel imports in quantity and 22.2% in value. Studies also consistently find that US fashion companies rely on China to fulfill orders requiring a small minimum order quantity, flexibility, and a great variety of product assortment.
Second, having to import from China, fashion companies argued that the Section 301 punitive tariffs increased their sourcing costs and cut profit margins. For example, for a clothing item with an original wholesale price of around $7, imposing a 7.5% Section 301 punitive tariff would increase the sourcing cost by about 5.8%. Should fashion companies not pass the cost increase to consumers, their retail gross margin would be cut by 1.5 percentage points. Notably, according to the US Fashion Industry Association’s 2021 benchmarking survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents explicitly say the tariff war directly increased their company’s sourcing costs. Another 74 percent say the tariff war hurt their company’s financials.
Third, as companies began to move their sourcing orders from China to other Asian countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia to avoid paying punitive tariffs, these countries’ production costs all went up because of the limited production capacity. In other words, sourcing from everywhere became more expensive because of the Section 301 action against China.
Further, it is important to recognize that fashion companies supported the US government’s efforts to address China’s “unfair” trade practices, such as subsidies, intellectual property rights violations, and forced technology transfers. Many US fashion companies were the victims of such practices. However, fashion companies did not think the punitive tariff was the right tool to address these problems effectively. Instead, fashion brands and retailers were concerned that the tariff war unnecessarily created an uncertain and volatile market environment harmful to their business operations.
“While NCTO members support the inclusion of finished products in Section 301, we are seriously concerned that…adding tariffs on imports of manufacturing inputs that are not made in the US such as certain chemicals, dyes, machinery, and rayon staple fiber in effect raises the cost for American companies and makes them less competitive with China.”
Mitigate the impact of the tariff war: Fashion Companies’ Strategies
The first approach was to switch to China’s alternatives. Trade statistics suggest that Asian countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh picked up most of China’s lost market shares in the US apparel import market. For example, in 2022 (Jan-Nov), Asian countries excluding China accounted for 51.2% of US apparel imports, a substantial increase from 41.2% in 2018 before the tariff war. In comparison, about 16.4% of U.S. apparel imports came from the Western Hemisphere in 2021 (Jan-Nov), lower than 17.0% in 2018. In other words, no evidence shows that Section 301 tariffs have expanded U.S. apparel sourcing from the Western Hemisphere.
The second approach was to adjust what to source from China by leveraging the country’s production capacity and flexibility. For example, market data from industry sources showed that since the Section 301 tariff action, US fashion companies had imported more “Made in China” apparel in the luxury and premium segments and less for the value and mass markets. Such a practice made sense as consumers shopping for premium-priced apparel items typically were less price-sensitive, allowing fashion companies to raise the selling price more easily to mitigate the increasing sourcing costs. Studies also found that US companies sourced fewer lower value-added basic fashion items (such as tops and underwear), but more sophisticated and higher value-added apparel categories (such as dresses and outerwear) from China since the tariff war.
Related, US fashion companies such as Columbia Sportswear leveraged the so-called “tariff engineering” in response to the tariff war. Tariff engineering refers to designing clothing to be classified at a lower tariff rate. For example, “women’s or girls’ blouses, shirts, and shirt-blouses of man-made fibers” imported from China can tax as high as 26.9%. However, the same blouse added a pocket or two below the waist would instead be classified as a different product and subject to only a 16.0% tariff rate. Nevertheless, using tariff engineering requires substantial financial and human resources, which often were beyond the affordability of small and medium-sized fashion companies.
Third, recognizing the negative impacts of Section 301 on US businesses and consumers, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) created a so-called “Section 301 exclusion process.” Under this mechanism, companies could request that a particular product be excluded from the Section 301 tariffs, subject to specific criteria determined at the discretion of USTR. The petition for the product exclusion required substantial paperwork, however. Even companies with an in-house legal team typically hire a DC-based law firm experienced with international trade litigation to assist the petition, given the professional knowledge and a strong government relation needed. Also of concern to fashion companies was the low success rate of the petition. The record showed that nearly 90 percent of petitions were denied for failure to demonstrate “severe economic harm.” Eventually, since the launch of the exclusion process, fewer than 1% of apparel items subject to the Section 301 punitive tariff were exempted. Understandably, the extra financial burden and the long shot discouraged fashion companies, especially small and medium-sized, from taking advantage of the exclusion process.
In conclusion, with USTR’s latest announcement, the debate on Section 301 and the outlook of China as a textile and apparel sourcing base will continue. Notably, while economic factors matter, we shall not ignore the impact of non-economic factors on the fate of the Section 301 tariff action against China. For example, with the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), only about 10% of US cotton apparel imports came from China in the first ten months of 2022 (latest data available), the lowest in a decade. As the overall US-China bilateral trade relationship significantly deteriorated in recent years and the friction between the two countries expanded into highly politically sensitive areas, the Biden administration could “willfully” choose to keep the Section 301 tariff as negotiation leverage. Domestically, President Biden also didn’t want to look “weak” on his China policy, given the bipartisan support for taking on China’s rise.
This article provided a comprehensive review of the world textiles and clothing trade patterns in 2021 based on the newly released data from the World Trade Statistical Review 2022 and the United Nations (UNComtrade). Affected by the ongoing pandemic and companies’ evolving production and sourcing strategies in response to the shifting business environment, the world textiles and clothing trade patterns in 2021 included both continuities and new trends. Specifically:
Pattern #1: As the world economy recovered from COVID, the world clothing export boomed in 2021, while the world textile exports grew much slower due to a high trade volume the year before. Specifically, thanks to consumers’ strong demand, world clothing exports in 2021 fully bounced back to the pre-COVID level and exceeded $548.8bn, a substantial increase of 21.9% from 2020. The apparel sector is not alone. With economic activities mostly resumed, the world merchandise trade in 2021 also jumped 26.5% from a year ago, the fastest growth in decades.
In comparison, the value of world textiles exports grew slower at 7.8% in 2021 (i.e., reached $354.2bn), lagging behind most sectors. However, such a pattern was understandable as the textile trade maintained a high level in 2020, driven by high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic.
Nevertheless, the world textiles and clothing trade could face strong headwinds down the road due to a slowing world economy and consumers’ weakened demand. Notably, amid hiking inflation, high energy costs, and retrenchment of global supply chains, leading international economic agencies, from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), unanimously predict a slowing economy worldwide. Likewise, the World Trade Organization (WTO) forecasts that the growth of world merchandise trade will be cut to 3.5% in 2022 and down further to only 1% in 2023. As a result, the world textiles and clothing trade will likely struggle with stagnant growth or a modest decline over the next two years.
Pattern #2: COVID did NOT fundamentally shift the competitive landscape of textile exports but affected the export product structure. Meanwhile, some long-term structural changes in world textile exports continued in 2021.
Specifically, China, the European Union (EU), and India remained the world’s three largest textile exporters in 2021, a pattern that has stayed stable for over a decade. Together, these top three accounted for 68% of the world’s textile exports in 2021, similar to 66.9% before the pandemic (2018-2019). Other textile exporters that made it to the top ten list in 2021 were also the same as a year ago and before the pandemic (2018-2019).
Meanwhile, the growth rate of the top ten textile exporters varied significantly in 2021, ranging from -5.5% (China) to 47.8% (India). The demand shift from PPE to apparel-related yarns and fabrics was a critical contributing factor behind the phenomenon. For example, China’s PPE-related textile exports decreased by more than $33bn (or down 43%) in 2021. In contrast, the world knit fabric exports (SITC code 655) surged by more than 30% in 2021, led by India (up 74%) and Pakistan (up 72%). Nevertheless, as consumers’ lifestyles almost reached a “new normal,” we could expect the textile export product structure to stabilize soon.
On the other hand, as a trend already emerged before the pandemic, middle-income developing countries continued to play a more significant role in textile exports, whereas developed countries lost market shares. For example, the United States, Germany, and Italy led the world’s textile exports in the 2000s, accounting for more than 20% of the market shares. However, these three countries’ shares fell to 12.8% in 2019 and hit a new low of 11.3% in 2021. In comparison, middle-income developing countries like China, Vietnam, Turkey, and India have entered the development stage of expanding textile manufacturing. As a result, their market share in the world’s textile exports rose steadily. These countries also achieved a more balanced textiles/clothing export ratio over the years, meaning more textile raw materials like yarns and fabrics can be locally produced instead of relying on imports. For example, Vietnam, known for its competitive clothing products, achieved a new high of $11.5bn in textile exports in 2021 and ranked sixth globally. Vietnam’s textiles/clothing ratio also doubled from 0.15 in 2005 to 0.37 in 2021. It is not unlikely that Vietnam’s textile exports may surpass the United States over the next few years.
Pattern #3: Countries with large-scale production capacity stood out in world clothing exports in 2021. Meanwhile, clothing exporters compete to become China’s alternatives, but there seems to be no clear winner yet.
Consumers’ surging demand and COVID-related supply chain disruptions significantly impacted the world’s clothing export patterns in 2021. As fashion brands and retailers were eager to find sourcing capacity, countries with large-scale production capacity and relatively stable supply enjoyed the fastest growth in clothing exports. For example, except for Vietnam, which suffered several months of COVID lockdowns, all other top five clothing exporters enjoyed a more than 20% growth of their exports in 2021, such as China (up 24%), Bangladesh (up 30%), Turkey (up 22%), and India (up 24%).
As another critical trend, many international fashion brands and retailers have been trying to reduce their apparel sourcing from China, driven by various economic and non-economic factors, from cost considerations and trade tensions to geopolitics. Notably, despite its strong performance in 2021, China accounted for only 23.1% of US apparel imports in 2022 (January to September), much lower than 36.2% in 2015. Likewise, China’s market shares in the EU, Japanese, and Canadian clothing import markets also fell over the same period, suggesting this was a worldwide phenomenon.
With reduced apparel sourcing from China, fashion companies have actively sought alternative sourcing destinations, but the latest trade data suggests no clear winner yet. For example, Vietnam and Bangladesh, the two most popular candidates for “Next China,” accounted for 6.5% and 5.7% shares in the world’s clothing export in 2021, still far behind China (32.1%). Interestingly, from 2015 to 2021, the world’s top four largest clothing exporters next to China (i.e., Bangladesh, Vietnam, Turkey, and India) did not substantially gain new market shares. Instead, China’s lost market was filled by “the rest of the world.”
Additionally, recent studies show that many fashion companies have switched back to the sourcing diversification strategy in 2022 as managing risks and improving sourcing flexibility become more urgent priorities. In other words, the world’s clothing export market could turn more “crowded” and competitive in the coming years.
Pattern #4: Regional supply chains remain critical features of the world textiles and clothing trade. Several factors support and shape the regional textiles and clothing trade patterns. First, as clothing production often needs to be close to where textile materials are available, many developing clothing-producing countries rely heavily on imported textile materials, primarily from more advanced economies in the same region. Second, through lowered trade barriers, regional free trade agreements also financially encouraged garment producers, particularly in Asia, the EU, and Western Hemisphere (WH), to use locally or regionally made textile materials. Further, fashion companies’ interest in “near-shoring” supported the regional supply chain, and related textiles and clothing trade flows between neighboring countries.
The latest trade data indicated that Asia’s regional textiles and clothing trade patterns strengthened further despite supply chain chaos during the pandemic. Specifically, in 2021, as many as 82% of Asian countries’ textile imports came from within Asia, up from 80% in 2015. China, in particular, has played a more prominent role as a leading textile supplier for other Asian clothing-exporting countries. For example, more than 60% of Vietnam’s textile imports came from China in 2021, a substantial increase from 23% in 2005. The same pattern applied to Pakistan, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members.
In January 2022, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega free trade agreement involving all major economies in Asia, entered into force. The tariff cut and very liberal rules of origin of the agreement will hopefully drive Asia’s booming regional textiles and clothing trade and further deepen its regional economic integration.
Besides Asia, the regional textiles and clothing trade pattern in the EU (or the so-called Intra-EU trade) was also in good shape. In 2021, 50.8% of EU countries’ textile imports and 37% of clothing imports came from other EU members. This pattern has changed little over the past decade, thanks to many EU countries’ commitment to maintaining local textiles and clothing production rather than outsourcing.
In comparison, the Western Hemisphere (WH) textile and apparel supply chain (e.g., clothing made in Mexico or Central America using US or regionally made textiles) seemed to struggle in recent years. As of 2021, only 20% of WH countries’ textile imports came from within WH, down from 26% in 2015. Likewise, WH countries (mainly the US and Canada) just imported 14.6% of clothing from WH in 2021, down from 15.3% in 2015 and much lower than their EU counterparts (37% in 2021). It will be interesting to see whether US and Canadian fashion companies’ expressed interest in expanding near-shoring may reverse the course.
Furthermore, the regional textiles and clothing trade patterns in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are also worth watching. Compared with Asia and the EU, SSA clothing producers used much fewer locally-made textiles (i.e., stagnant at around 11% only from 2011 to 2021), reflecting the region’s lack of textile manufacturing capability. Most trade programs with SSA countries, such as the US-led African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) program, adopt liberal rules of origin for clothing products, allowing third-party textile input to be used. It can be studied whether such liberal rules of origin somehow disincentivize building SSA’s own textile manufacturing sector or are still essential given the reality of SSA’s limited textile production capacity.
The EU region as a whole remains one of the world’s leading producers of textile and apparel (T&A). The EU’s T&A production value totaled EUR135.6 bn in 2019, down around 6% from a year ago (Note: Statistical Classification of Economic Activities or NACE, sectors C13, and C14). The EU’s T&A output value was divided almost equally between textile manufacturing (EUR69.4bn) and apparel manufacturing (EUR66.2bn).
Regarding textile production, Southern and Western EU, where most developed EU members are located, such as Germany, France, and Italy, accounted for nearly 60% of EU’s textile manufacturing in 2020. Further, of EU countries’ total textile output, the share of non-woven and other technical textile products (NACE sectors C1395 and C1396) has increased from 20.2% in 2011 to 23.2% in 2019, which reflects the ongoing structural change of the sector.
Apparel manufacturing in the EU includes two primary segments: one is the medium-priced products for consumption in the mass market, which are produced primarily by developing countries in Eastern and Southern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, and Romania, where cheap labor is relatively abundant. The other category is the high-end luxury apparel produced by developed Western EU countries, such as Italy, UK, France, and Germany.
It is also interesting to note that in Western EU countries, labor only accounted for 20.3% of the total apparel production cost in 2019, which was substantially lower than 30.1% back in 2006. This change suggests that apparel manufacturing is becoming capital and technology-intensive in some developed Western EU countries—as companies are actively adopting automation technology in garment production.
Because of their relatively high GDP per capita and the size of the population, Germany, Italy, the UK, France, and Spain accounted for nearly 60% of total apparel retail sales in the EU in 2021. Such a market structure has stayed stable over the past decade. Also, reflecting local consumers’ preference, EU apparel brands overall outperform non-EU brands in the EU retail market.
Intra-region trade is an essential feature of the EU’s textile and apparel industry. Despite the increasing pressure from cost-competitive Asian suppliers, statistics from UNComtrade show that of the EU region’s total textile imports in 2019, as much as 53.8% were in the category of intra-region trade. However, it could result from increased PPE imports from Asia, EU countries’ Intra-region trade% for textiles dropped to 40% in 2020.
Meanwhile, about one-third of EU countries’ apparel imports came from other EU members during 2019-2020. In comparison, close to 98% of apparel consumed in the United States was imported over the same period, of which more than 75% came from Asia (Eurostat, 2022; UNComtrade, 2022).
Regarding EU countries’ textile and apparel trade with non-EU members (i.e., extra-region trade), the United States remained one of the EU’s top export markets and a vital textile supplier (mainly for technical and industrial textiles). Meanwhile, Asian countries, led by China, and Bangladesh, served as the dominant apparel sourcing base outside the EU region for EU fashion brands and retailers. Turkey was another important apparel sourcing base for EU fashion companies. There is no sign that COVID-19 has shifted the trade pattern.
Additionally, Vietnam was EU’s sixth-largest extra-region apparel supplier in 2020 (after China, Bangladesh, Turkey, India, and Cambodia), accounting for 4% in value. The EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement which took effect in August 2020, could encourage more EU apparel sourcing from the country in the long run.
According to the European Apparel and Textile Federation (Euratex), the EU textile and apparel industry continued to recover from COVID-19. For example, the value of textile and apparel output has already reached its pre-pandemic level by the end of September 2022. However, Euratex warns that the EU textile and apparel industry still faces significant challenges from a slowed economy, hiking energy costs as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war and high inflation.
Video 3: Vietnam’s textile and apparel industry amid the pandemic
Video 4: How H&M’s Recycling Machines Make New Clothes From Used Apparel in Hong Kong
How are textiles and apparel “Made in Asia” changing their face? What are the driving forces of these changes?
Based on the video, why or why not do you think the “flying geese model” is still valid today?
How to understand COVID-19’s impact on Asia’s textile and apparel industry? What strategies have been adopted by garment factories in Asia to survive the pandemic? What challenges do they still face?
What is your evaluation of Asia’s competitiveness as a textile and apparel production and sourcing hub over the next five years? Why? What factors could be relevant?
Anything else you find interesting/intriguing/thought-provoking/debatable in the video? Why?
Note: Everyone is welcome to join our online discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two questions. Please mention the question number # (no need to repeat the question) in your comment.