Apparel industry – FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing

Apparel Sourcing and Trade Outlook for 2026

Top challenges in 2026

I believe the global fashion apparel industry will continue to face two macro-level challenges in 2026. One is the relatively weak consumer demand for clothing amid sluggish economic growth and persistent inflationary pressures. For example, according to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) October 2025 forecast, global GDP growth in 2026 is expected to decrease from 3.2% in 2025 to 3.1% in 2026. Specifically, U.S. GDP growth will be around 2.1% (down from 2.8% in 2024), and growth in the EU could drop to 1.1% (down from 1.2% in 2025).

Likewise, several consulting firms forecast that clothing retail sales in key apparel import markets, including the United States and Western Europe, could be stagnant or even decline in 2026. Notably, while Gen Z (i.e., those born between 1997 and 2012) has increasingly become a key customer group for many fashion brands and retailers, analysis shows that this generation has turned more cautious about shopping for clothing, especially for new items. The tariff-driven price increases could further discourage these groups from buying new clothing in the new year ahead.

Meanwhile, the trade policy environment facing the global fashion apparel industry could remain highly uncertain in 2026. Notably, in addition to tariffs, several trade agreements could create new uncertainties for fashion companies when sourcing from affected regions. Specifically:

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement will begin its formal six-year review process in 2026. Despite broad industry support for upholding the existing agreement and calls to “do no harm,” we cannot rule out the possibility that the Trump administration might seek significant renegotiation or even replace the USMCA with separate bilateral trade deals.

Likewise, the outlook for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Haiti HELP/HOPE program, both of which expired in September 2025, remained highly uncertain. Because both programs play a critical role in supporting U.S. apparel sourcing from Sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti, whether and under which conditions they are renewed will directly influence fashion companies’ sourcing decisions and the long-term competitiveness and investment prospects of these regions.

Furthermore, even with several “trade deals” reached between the US and major trading partners like the EU, Vietnam, Cambodia, and potentially China and India, their implementation and enforcement will warrant close attention. In particular, the meaning and definition of critical terms like “transshipment” in these “trade deals” remain largely unclear. However, the impact could be significant for apparel sourcing if the Trump administration ultimately decides to revisit or set new rules of origin in these agreements to reduce the “China content” in products imported into the United States. Notably, according to OECD’s newly released “trade in value-added database,” apparel exports from Asian countries, including Vietnam and Cambodia, commonly contain 20-30% of value created in China.

Key apparel sourcing trends to watch in 2026

First, trade and economic impacts of tariffs could become more visible and significant in 2026. In particular, almost all U.S. apparel imports will be subject to the higher tariffs in 2026, leaving fashion companies with fewer options to use existing inventory to mitigate the effects. Consequently, fashion companies will face increased pressure to control their sourcing costs and protect their profit margins.

Second, fashion companies will continue to leverage sourcing diversification to navigate market and trade policy uncertainties. For example, according to the 2025 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), a record-high percentage of surveyed U.S. fashion brands and retailers (i.e., over 80%) reported sourcing from 10 or more countries. Nearly 60% of respondents plan to source from even more countries in 2026. In a recent study I conducted, some leading U.S. and EU fashion companies mentioned in their 2025 Q2 earnings call transcripts that they intentionally seek vendors with production capacity across multiple countries to achieve sourcing diversification and mitigate risks.

Third, in addition to seeking competitive sourcing costs, fashion companies will increasingly look for vendors that can offer speed to market, flexibility, and agility. As one leading fashion company noted, “increasing the speed” does not necessarily mean “nearshoring,” but also refers to vendors that can deliver products quickly and at scale. Meanwhile, fashion companies increasingly expect suppliers to accommodate last-minute order changes, accept low minimum order quantities (MOQs), arrange raw material sourcing, and offer other value-added services. This shows why, based on trade data, Asian suppliers overall are more competitive and have captured more market share in the U.S. and EU markets in 2025 than “near-shoring” suppliers.

Additionally, China and Asia’s role in apparel sourcing could continue to evolve in 2026. I recently attended an industry event featuring textile and apparel manufacturers in Southeast Asian countries (ASEAN) and China. A few observations from the event stood out to me.

While the tariff was a top concern for most U.S. fashion companies, the conference mainly focused on facilitating investment and creating a more integrated, resilient, and sustainable textile and apparel supply chain in Asia. In other words, Asia-based textile and apparel suppliers did not seem panicked by the tariffs, nor do they believe the tariffs fundamentally challenge their long-term growth trajectory or hurt their export competitiveness.
The Asia-based textile and apparel industry is becoming ever more global, mature, and advanced. Consistent with recent trade data, Asia-based fashion brands today commonly conduct global sourcing. They are investing heavily in new sustainable textile materials and digital technologies. They remain the largest buyer of the most sophisticated textile machinery in the world. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Asian suppliers as a whole will continue to dominate textile and apparel production and export into 2026 with no near competitors.
China’s leadership and influence within the Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain are increasingly visible. At the conference, ASEAN-based textile and apparel associations see China as a vital partner and source of investment. Through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), collaboration is extending from trade and investment to education and skills training. Overall, industry sentiment toward China in ASEAN differs significantly from the “decoupling” and “reducing China exposure” narratives that are gaining traction in the United States.
An interesting question that I took away from the conference was whether China truly worries about losing market share in the U.S. and other markets for final apparel products. Perhaps not. Chinese industry leaders appear confident because they know that many Asian garment-producing countries remain heavily dependent on Chinese textile inputs, and many garment factories are funded or owned by Chinese investors. Given these dynamics, it will be interesting to observe how China’s confidence and its broader leadership role in Asia’s regional textile and apparel supply chain will continue to grow in 2026.

Opportunities in 2026

In 2026, we may see a significant increase in AI use in apparel sourcing. For example, fashion companies could use new AI tools to help optimize inventory levels and logistics, identify and evaluate new suppliers, and improve operational efficiency. AI may also play a more crucial role in supporting efforts around supply chain mapping, traceability, and sustainability data collection. Overall, we could see a more digitalized and data-driven sourcing process in the new year ahead.

On the other hand, in 2026, fashion companies could benefit from investing in and exploring new business models that support designing, making, sourcing, and selling sustainable apparel products. For example, a recent study of mine found that, by stock keeping units (SKUs) count, the number of clothing items made with recycled textile fibers increased by about 24% from 2024 to 2025 (August to October) in the U.S. retail market. Similarly, clothing items made with “regenerative” textile fibers surged by nearly 90% over the same period. These figures represent consumers’ increasing demand and fashion companies’ growing business interest in offering these products. New sustainability legislation, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) at the state, regional, or international levels, will also create new incentives and pressure for fashion companies to revisit many of their current business practices. That said, balancing the sustainability benefits with other key sourcing metrics, such as costs, quality, and traceability, for these sustainable apparel products, will require ongoing efforts and improvements by fashion companies and their supply chain partners in 2026.

by Sheng Lu

How EU Fashion Companies Navigate Trump’s Tariffs (Updated November 2025)

This study aims to examine the impacts of the Trump administration’s escalating tariffs on the apparel sourcing and business practices of EU-headquartered fashion companies. Based on data availability, transcripts of the latest earnings call from about 10 leading publicly traded EU fashion companies were collected. These earnings calls, held between August and November 2025, covered company performance in the second quarter of 2025 or later. A thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted using MAXQDA.

First, reflecting the global nature of today’s fashion apparel industry, many EU-based fashion companies also see tariffs as one of their top business concerns in the second quarter of 2025. However, overall, luxury fashion companies reported less significant tariff effects than fast-fashion retailers and sportswear brands. The result reflected luxury fashion companies’ distinct cost structure, supply chain strategies, and competitive factors, making them less sensitive toward tariff-driven sourcing cost increases.

Second, EU-based fashion companies generally regarded the rising sourcing costs and the resulting pressure on profit margins as the most significant impacts of Trump’s tariffs. Companies also noted that the tariffs’ financial impacts would be more noticeable in the coming months as more newly launched products became subject to the higher import duties. For example:

Adidas: “We already had the double digit hit when it gets to cost of goods sold already in Q2 in the U. S…the impact of these duties, if they are the way we have calculated them here, an increase in cost of goods sold of about CHF 200,000,000 (about $250 million USD).”
H&M: “Against that, we have the impact of the tariffs that will then, based on the tariffs we pay during Q3, a lot of those garments will be sold during Q4, and that’s when they affect our profit and loss.”

Third, EU-based fashion companies commonly adopted a sourcing diversification strategy to mitigate the tariff impact. Companies also increasingly look for vendors that can deliver speed, flexibility, and agility. Furthermore, some EU companies have been strategically leveraging regional supply chains to meet the sourcing needs. For example:

Adidas: “We work with our suppliers who are mostly multi country…”
Hugo Boss: “Since our last update in early May, we have taken concrete steps to mitigate tariff-related impacts. Our well-diversified global sourcing footprint has a clear advantage in this regard. It enables us to swiftly adapt to changing conditions and optimize sourcing decisions.”
H&M: “We are working on how to increase the speed and reaction time in our supply chain. That’s a wide work that includes both, as we mentioned before, how we move production closer to the customer with what we call nearshoring or proximity sourcing, but it’s also working with a set of suppliers that can be much quicker and where they can support with a larger part of the product development process.”
C&A: “In the last quarter, we developed our logistics strategy to sustain C&A’s growth curve till 2030…This strategy was designed so as to bring greater speed and flexibility to our operational model through a more regionalized network, that is a network that is closer to the stores and major consumption centers, allowing us to have greater capacity to respond to the demands of each store.”

Fourth, like their U.S. counterparts, some EU fashion companies reduced their “China exposure” to lessen the impact of tariffs. Others establish a “China for China” supply chain due to perceived market opportunities there. For example:

Puma: “Our China exposure got reduced further for the Spring/Summer 2026 collection…The vast majority of our U. S. Imports originate from Asia, with Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia accounting for the majority…”
Adidas: “China is almost irrelevant for us because we have reduced the amount of China imports into the U. S. to only 2%…What we did is that we transferred the Chinese capacities to be mostly China for China…We have a more verticalized supply chain in China.”
Hugo Boss: “In particular, we have increased our inventory coverages in the U. S. And successfully rerouted product flows from China to other regions.”

Additionally, despite tariff-driven cost pressures, many EU-based fashion companies were cautious about raising prices, worried about losing customers in an overall weak market. Meanwhile, luxury fashion brands seem more comfortable raising prices than non-luxury brands. For example:

Adidas: “What kind of price increases could we take depending on the different duties, but there’s no decision on that…We are not the price leader, but we’d, of course, follow, a, what the market is doing, our competitor is doing and also, of course, look very closely what the consumer is accepting because in the end, it’s to keep the balance between all these factors.”
H&M: “That we do in the U.S., as we do in all other markets, and that leads to both price decreases and price increases to stay competitive. That’s an ongoing work. We are cautious about looking at the Q4 development in the U.S., given that we know we have already paid tariffs that will impact the gross margins as we look into the fourth quarter.”
Inditex (Zara): “With regards to the tariffs in the U.S. specifically, we have a stable pricing policy that we’re always talking about. Of course, all pricing activity, be it in the U.S. or any other geography, is primarily driven by commercial decisions, not financial ones. What we try to do in every market is maintain our relative position.”
Burberry: “19% of our revenues are from the US…We spent much of last year looking at the supply chain, looking at price elasticity…We took quite a surgical approach to price increases in the US, and…we really definitely understood where we had price elasticity there.”
Hugo Boss: “we will introduce moderate price adjustments globally with the upcoming spring 2026 collections, which will begin delivery towards the 2025. These steps aim to safeguard our margin profile while remaining aligned with broader market dynamics.”

by Sheng Lu

Hot Button Apparel Trade and Sourcing Issues: Gen Z’s Perspective (October 2025)

As the fashion industry faces an unprecedented business and trade policy environment, hearing directly from Gen Z fashion majors—the next generation of both consumers and young professionals—has never been more critical.

In a new Just-Style mini series, students from FASH455 and the FASH department at the University of Delaware shared their valuable Gen Z perspectives on several hot-button apparel trade and sourcing issues as well as their vision for the future of the fashion apparel industry. Several findings are noteworthy:

First, like other consumer groups, Gen Z has felt the increasingly noticeable retail price hike driven by higher tariffs, and they are responding by reducing clothing purchases. Compared to a survey conducted in April, nearly all Gen Z consumers now see higher price tags across a broad range of products, including necessities, outerwear, and footwear in the U.S. retail market. Notably, Gen Z consumers feel most strongly about the price hikes at fast fashion retailers—including Shein. Due to the perceived low quality and use of inexpensive textile materials, it is even more challenging for fast fashion brands to justify price increases. Our students who frequently thrift clothing also noted a price increase in the secondhand clothing market. As a warning sign to fashion companies, many surveyed Gen Z students say they plan to spend less this holiday season, or keep shopping “to a minimum” because of price increases. For example,

Gabriella Krug, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: As a shopper, I’ve adjusted by buying fewer items overall, checking sales racks more often, and using platforms like Depop and Poshmark to sell and buy trendy pieces. For the holidays, I think these price increases will push me, and most shoppers like me, to focus more on quality rather than quantity. I’ll definitely be taking advantage of Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals this year. Ultimately, tariffs could cause people to make more intentional and selective purchases this holiday season.
Cheyenne Weiss, Fashion Design & Product Innovation senior: While the higher tariffs have widespread effects on the fashion industry, I have personally noticed raised prices for outerwear and footwear. I noticed these two categories specifically as they are what I was shopping for going back to school and it is telling of how directly trade policy impacts consumers. The effects of the tariffs are hitting close to home, and I would feel most frustrated to see loungewear and athleisure categories rise in price. While these areas seem to already be feeling the effects of raised tariffs, it would be hard as a consumer to continue purchasing these items if tariffs keep rising, considering these are the fashion categories I buy from the most often. As a shopper, the higher prices discourage me from going out and purchasing new clothing.
Skye Johnson, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I have noticed that prices are rising among all types of clothing. In particular, I have heard that Fast Fashion retailers like H&M or even Shein have increased their prices significantly. While I personally do not shop at fast fashion retailers like Shein, I’ve seen the impact through school research projects and conversations with friends. This is frustrating because these fast fashion items are made with very cheap materials like polyester and nylon.
Julia Brady, Graduate Student studying Fashion and Apparel with a focus on Sustainability: I mainly shop using online resale sites, such as Depop, and just enjoy browsing higher-end online consignment stores, like Vestaire and theRealReal, for secondhand designer deals. I have seen fewer deals on the site and more high-priced secondhand designer items… Even on Depop, international listings are higher than normal. The category I would be most frustrated to see prices rise in would be footwear… I also expect to buy holiday gifts from local artisans and local stores, due to higher quality and (hopefully) decreased tariff impact.
Nadia Grosso, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I’ve noticed myself becoming even more price-sensitive when shopping because of the rising prices, so I’m always looking to find the best deal to stretch my budget as much as I can. Overall, I think shoppers are trying to limit their spending as much as possible, and being more cognizant of prices when choosing what to purchase and who to purchase from. As a result, come holiday shopping time, I might be more inclined to shop at discount retailers or even decrease how much I purchase compared to previous years.

Second, Gen Z fashion majors view globalization and international trade as generally beneficial for the fashion industry. At the same time, they emphasize the need to enhance sustainability and social responsibility in the global apparel trade. For example, while most survey respondents supported leveraging apparel trade to promote economic development in developing countries, they also stressed that trade volume alone should not define success. Instead, many highlighted the importance of ensuring that garment workers in developing countries directly benefit from trade and Western fashion brands and retailers have a responsibility to help make this happen. For example,

Emilie Delaye, Master’s student in fashion and apparel studies: I believe that it is almost virtually impossible to move manufacturing fully back into the US. Nearshoring could really help sustainability (as fewer emissions would be released), but nearshoring would require investment and savvy trade deals to ensure that many different kinds of products can be produced there. I don’t really think it is that important that the US maintains a “strong” textile and apparel sector. As we know from the innovation or economic development timeline, the textile and apparel sector is an entry point for less developed economies. It could actually be perceived as a positive that we aren’t largely in this market. I think that there are other more critical sectors to focus on for the US. Plus, we simply do not have the skilled labor or machinery needed to do this. I support the leveraging of the clothing trade to support economic development in the countries that need it. I believe that if done sustainably and socially responsibly, the apparel sector could help millions of individuals in these countries.
Abigail Loth, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: As a consistent consumer in the US fashion industry, I believe that globalization and international trade is vital for our success. Not only does it keep trends fresh, globalization and international trade encourage styles to remain diverse and costs to be cheap… Maintaining a strong domestic textiles and apparel sector in the US is also extremely important. This is because it provides an abundance of jobs/opportunities, innovation and sustainability practices. So, in order to leverage the clothing trade and support workers in developing countries as ethical sourcing and fair labor practices help ensure that globalization benefits more than just corporations.
Ekaterina Forakis, Fashion and apparel studies 4+1 graduate student: Globalization and international trade are crucial aspects of the U.S. fashion industry. It is these that keep the U.S. fashion industry running. Trade theory explains why globalization benefits countries like the U.S. and allows them to focus on textile manufacturing, one of the country’s strong suits. Higher tariffs and import restrictions are not necessary to maintain U.S. manufacturing because the U.S. is already a top textile exporting country and does not specialize in apparel production. The country’s capacity for automation is what makes it reliable in the textile sector. Automation allows for more standardized production of textiles which are necessary for developing countries to produce apparel.
Emma Lombardi, Fashion Design and Product Innovation senior: I view globalization and international trade as a double edged sword for the U.S. fashion industry, because on the one hand, while it doesn’t benefit the creation of jobs in rural areas that many covet, it also shifts the emphasis towards more sophisticated industries in technology development and innovation both in mechanical and textile sectors.
Julia Brady, Graduate Student studying Fashion and Apparel with a focus on Sustainability: I think tariffs and import restrictions are necessary, but not just to protect U.S. domestic manufacturing. Tariffs could help regulate the amount of toxic chemicals along the textile manufacturing value chain. An alternative route for the U.S. to take would be to scale up flax for fibers to be used in domestic textile manufacturing. Perhaps tariffs will force companies and the federal government to invest in agricultural advances in this field…I would never want to advocate taking away work in developing countries; however, for the sake of our environment, we may need to shift the way the fashion supply chain currently operates. It is important to me that the U.S. maintains a strong textiles and apparel sector because we are a big part of the problem. We must take control over the way we consume and dispose of textiles. There could be so many opportunities for economic growth if we shift toward domestic manufacturing, prioritizing the use of materials we already have.

Third, associated with the debate on the future of textiles and apparel “Made in the USA,” most Gen Z fashion majors show little interest in factory jobs. On the one hand, unlike most developing countries, today’s U.S. fashion industry provides Gen Z fashion majors with many exciting and promising non-manufacturing job opportunities, ranging from apparel design, product development, sourcing, trade compliance, and merchandising to marketing. By contrast, factory jobs are often perceived as “low paid,” “repetitive,” and “poor working conditions.” Our Gen Z fashion majors particularly emphasized that their preferred employers should provide both financial and career progress opportunities, and they want to see keywords such as “innovation,” “sustainability,” “room to grow,” and “inclusiveness” associated with their future jobs. In other words, to attract more Gen Z workers to factory jobs, companies need to do more than just offer competitive pay. For example,

Gabriella Krug, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: At this point in my career, I have not pursued an interest in textile or apparel manufacturing or factory-related jobs. My internships have exposed me to different sides of the industry…That said, I think my generation could see these roles as more appealing if companies focused on innovation, sustainability, and clear opportunities for growth. For example, if factories showcased their role in a circular fashion and created a more modern, flexible work environment, I think more Gen Z talent would be drawn in since we’re motivated by making a positive impact. Personally, I’m most interested in jobs that mix creativity with business—like sales, buying, or trend forecasting. When it comes to an employer, I value opportunities to learn and grow, strong mentorship, and a culture built on collaboration and inclusivity.
Cheyenne Weiss, Fashion Design & Product Innovation senior: I am not personally interested in pursuing a career in textile or apparel manufacturing as I see myself in a more creativity-based position. I feel as though my skills in fashion would be better suited for a role where I’m working directly with design and developing the fit and aesthetics of garments. Factory-related jobs in fashion could become more appealing to my generation if more rising fashion professionals knew about the opportunities that are available… When considering the qualities of an employer that I would want to work for, an important factor for me is a growth mindset. I value being able to learn and adapt as the industry evolves and I would want my employer to share my same persistence to always be learning and bettering the quality of work I can produce.
Skye Johnson, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I am not interested in pursuing careers in textile and apparel manufacturing or factory related jobs. However, I completely respect the importance of these roles in our fashion industry. I feel that my skills or career goals do not align with these jobs, but there could definitely be ways to make it more appealing to Gen Z. For example, offering safer working conditions, competitive pay, clear paths for professional growth, etc… When considering an employer, I value a workplace that aligns with my values, offers an inclusive environment, open communication, creative freedom, and room to grow in the company. I want to feel like I belong and am making an actual impact where I work.
Abigail Loth, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I personally do not have any interest in pursuing a career in textile or apparel manufacturing and factory-related jobs. These jobs consist of heavy hands on labor, limited creativity and repetitive daily tasks. The job is very cookie-cutter and has limitations for growth and opportunity. In order to make these types of factory jobs more appealing to our generation, the employers should provide safer working conditions, more money, and a sense of change/development in the everyday job. If factory jobs allowed more flexibility for creative thinking and alterations, they would appeal more to Gen Z.
Julia Brady, Graduate Student studying Fashion and Apparel with a focus on Sustainability: I am interested in pursuing a career related to textile and apparel manufacturing. Specifically, I would love to work towards a more socially responsible fashion industry. I could see myself working for a textile recycling plant in the U.S.; I expect more to be popping up over the next decade. If the factories were focused on green engineering and diverting textile waste, this might be another attractive core value of a potential future employer. I would be more inclined to work a factory job if the conditions in the factory were regulated and protective of the workers’ health. Additionally, if the employer was prioritizing the use of natural materials combined with textile recycling outputs, this would be very appealing to me as a prospective employee.

Fourth, Gen Z fashion majors show a high awareness of AI and are open to increasing its use in the fashion industry. Specifically, our Gen Z students believe that AI can be a powerful tool widely adopted by fashion companies, such as supporting apparel sourcing decisions, generating designs, and conducting data analysis and forecasting. Many also envision bold, creative applications of AI, such as optimizing secondhand clothing use or dynamically altering garments’ colors and textures based on weather conditions or consumers’ moods. These findings underscore the growing importance of deliberately integrating AI into fashion education and strengthening collaborations between industry and academia. For example,

Emilie Delaye, Master’s student in fashion and apparel studies: I think that AI could help understand and simplify the complex supply chains we have. Perhaps by incorporating AI into sourcing decisions, it could help determine the most efficient and eco-friendly path for the garment.
Gabriella Krug, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: If there were no limits in terms of technology or resources, I would love to see AI used to create a truly circular fashion system. Garments would be designed with little to no waste from the very beginning with AI predicting the most sustainable production methods. Also, I think AI should account for each garment’s end-of-life by tracking how items can be reused, recycled, or repurposed.
Skye Johnson, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I still feel that AI will not be able to completely take over in the fashion industry, we still need that human touch. That human aspect is what makes the industry go round, especially when it comes to designers…If I could pick a bold AI-driven innovation to see in the fashion industry, I would love to see garments that change color or texture based on your mood or the weather. The AI technology could read your personal style and predict what looks best on you. That would definitely take years to make, but it would further blur the lines between fashion, technology and art.
Abigail Loth, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: I would love to see AI-driven innovation that would be able to make custom designs depending on preferred colors, style, size, or shape and deliver it based on preferences of style and sustainability.
Nadia Grosso, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: AI can be a helpful tool to analyze data and make recommendations on how to apply its findings to real-world situations. Especially with the uncertainty surrounding changing prices and geopolitics, AI could be implemented to help fashion companies navigate difficult sourcing decisions and manage their complex supply chains. I would also love to see AI be implemented more to drive sustainability initiatives such as reducing waste within production or even assisting with the discovery and development of more sustainable materials. However, I don’t think AI can fully replace human intelligence and creativity, so it’s important for it to be used as a tool and not as a replacement.

Additionally, the results show that Gen Z fashion majors overwhelmingly support the increased use of recycled textile materials in clothing and view it as an important opportunity to address the textile waste problem. However, as consumers, they still expect such products to remain financially affordable, match the quality of non-sustainable options, and look stylish. Additionally, with greater knowledge and awareness of sustainability, Gen Z consumers expect fashion companies to provide more transparency regarding their recycling practices and price structures (i.e., what they are actually paying for). This requires fashion companies to continue to improve their supply chain mapping and traceability in the era of textile recycling. For example,

Emilie Delaye, Master’s student in fashion and apparel studies: The (recycled) garments currently on the market are very expensive and do not appeal to my personal style…And it is very important for fashion companies to provide clear sustainability information. I think providing information on the cost breakdown would be valuable to see and ensure that the money is distributed more evenly.
Gabriella Krug, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: Yes, I do care about clothing made from recycled textile materials because it feels like a step in the right direction and it makes me feel like I am making a more thoughtful choice as a consumer…What makes these products most appealing to me is the mix of style and transparency. Especially with Gen Z, the culture is shifting more and more toward eco-conscious consumers, now with the help of Depop, ThredUp, and Poshmark. These platforms give people an easy way to step into the world of sustainable fashion. For me, I want to know that the clothing looks and feels just as high-quality as non-sustainable options, but I also don’t want to feel like I’m overpaying just because it’s labeled as eco-friendly…I want brands to be upfront about what percentage of a garment is actually recycled and how it was made
Skye Johnson, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: For me, the appeal of recycled or sustainable fashion products comes from a combination of style, price, and brand transparency. I believe it is very important that fashion companies provide clear sustainability information and have the efforts and data to back it up… Obviously, no brand is perfect, but when I see a brand putting in the work to do better, I respect them a ton more.
Nadia Grosso, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior: Fashion brands need to do more to educate their consumers and highlight the importance of sustainability, while also incorporating it as a value into all of their business practices. I think that we can make sustainable and recycled products more appealing to consumers by being transparent and educating them on their importance. Fashion brands are becoming increasingly aware that providing clear sustainability and sourcing information to their consumers is necessary to gain their trust and loyalty, especially as a growing number of consumers are considering these practices as influencing factors to make purchases.

FASH students who contributed to the series include:

Gabriella Krug, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior
Emilie Delaye, Master’s student in fashion and apparel studies
Cheyenne Weiss, Fashion Design & Product Innovation senior & 4+1 graduate student
Skye Johnson, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior
Julia Brady, Master’s student in fashion and apparel studies
Abigail Loth, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior
Nadia Grosso, Fashion Merchandising and Management senior
Ekaterina Forakis, Fashion and apparel studies & 4+1 graduate student
Emma Lombardi, Fashion Design and Product Innovation senior

Explore more:

Updated Impact of Increasing Tariffs on U.S. Fashion Companies’ Sourcing and Businesses

This study aims to examine the impacts of the Trump administration’s escalating tariffs on U.S. fashion companies’ apparel sourcing practices. Based on data availability, transcripts of the latest earnings calls from about 30 leading publicly traded U.S. fashion companies were collected. These earnings calls, held between August and October 2025, covered company performance in the second quarter of 2025 or later. A thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted using MAXQDA.

Key findings:

First, U.S. fashion companies reported a more significant impact of the increasing tariffs on their financial performance as the tariff increase expands from China to other countries. Many companies regarded tariffs as one of their top-most pressing external challenges to profitability in 2025, especially in the second half and beyond. For example:

G-III Apparel: “We expect the total incremental cost of tariffs to be approximately $155 million, up from the $135 million original estimate, and this is based on the latest tariff increases implemented for Vietnam, India and Indonesia, among others.”
American Eagle: “On tariffs, yes, we are providing the guidance here for the third and fourth quarter. About $20 million of impact from Q3. $40 million to $50 million in Q4. So that will pressure gross margin a bit.”
Hanesbrands: “When you think about tariffs and the impact on our business, first of all, we won’t be really experiencing that cost until Q4 because of the inventory that we have and the way cost flows off of our balance sheet.”
Victoria’s Secret: “Our projected net tariff impact of $100 million in 2025 is up $50 million versus our assumption embedded in our previous guidance. With approximately $10 million of net tariff impact already recognized in the first half of the year, our guidance assumes approximately $20 million of net tariff pressure in the third quarter with $70 million impact in Q4.”
Tapestry: “We are facing greater than previously expected profit headwinds from tariffs and duties, with the earlier-than-expected ending of de minimis exemptions being a meaningful factor. In aggregate, the total expected impact on profitability this year from tariffs is $160 million, representing approximately 230 basis points of margin headwind.”
Carter’s: “We’ve assessed the higher incremental tariffs, which have already been implemented, an additional 10% duty for all countries and higher incremental duties for products from China, Vietnam and Indonesia. Relative to a few months ago, we’re preparing for a world with higher and more permanent tariffs above the over $100 million in duties, which we have paid historically. Our estimate of the additional baseline tariffs is that it would represent a gross additional tariff amount between $125 million and $150 million on an annualized basis.”

Second, despite the higher tariff burdens, most U.S. fashion companies still try to avoid across-the-board price hikes due to concerns about losing consumers. Instead, most companies opt for selective price increases, value-based pricing, and closely monitor consumers’ price sensitivity. However, price increases could be more noticeable down the road. For example:

Oxford industries: “We’ve not done sort of an across-the-board approach to pricing. We’ve really looked at it on an item-by-item basis and balanced the need to protect our margins and try to recover some of the tariff impact with not wanting to get too far ahead of ourselves because that tariff number…as we get into spring ’26… And on average, that’s led to sort of low to mid-single digit or low mid-single-digit price increases…we’re just being very cautious about increasing the price too much before we really know where things are settled out.”
URBN: “our pricing strategy…is really to look at some gentle price increases where we feel like there’s the value that contributes to that. So making sure that we’re protecting some of the opening price points that the customer counts on and some programs that we know drive a lot of volume…Recognizing the value equation is really important to all of our consumers.”
TJX: “I think you’re gonna see a more of a little bit of a gradual increase in pricing as the tariffs come in…I don’t think you’ll see step all of a sudden Right. With the tariffs set,because I don’t wanna, I think, turn off customers immediately by seeing a dramatic price shift. So I think they might they might they might absorb it initially for a little bit, and eventually, they’ll get there.”
Columbia Sports: “We expect higher prices for many consumer goods will negatively impact consumer demand…In fall ’25, we’re working with our retail partner to deliver value to consumers and keep inventory and dealer margins healthy. As a result, we’re not making any significant price changes to our fall ’25 product line and expect to absorb much of the incremental tariff costs this year…Our goal is to offset higher tariffs over time through a combination of actions, including price increases, vendor negotiations, SG&A expense efficiencies and other mitigation tactics.”
Ralph Lauren: “The big unknown sitting here today is the price sensitivity and how the consumer reacts to the broader pricing environment and how sensitive that consumer is. And that’s what we’re watching very closely as we head into the second half.”
Ross stores: “Some of the India tariffs, especially if the 25 goes to 50…I think that you’ll see this go into next year, and I think we would expect to see price increases. And — but over time…we think it will reach equilibrium, and it will be business as usual.”
Burlington stores: “we are seeing that competitors are taking up retail prices. So far, though, I would say that those price increases have been quite selective and quite restrained…Part of it may just be the time lag between imports arriving in the country and those goods showing up in stores. But also my sense is that wholesalers and retailers have been reluctant to make decisions on raising prices until they know what the final tariff rates are going to be. Now it does feel like there is more clarity on this now than there was a couple of months ago. So it wouldn’t be surprising if retail prices were to go up across the industry in the back half of the year. Now of course, we know that our customer is very, very price sensitive.”
VF Corporation: “we have actions in place to mitigate the tariff impact through sourcing savings and pricing actions that will take effect later this year.”

Third, while U.S. fashion companies overall continue to reduce their apparel sourcing from China amid the current tariff and geopolitical tensions, some companies still regard China as a viable sourcing base given its many unique advantages, such as speed to market, production efficiency, and well-developed supply chain infrastructure. For example:

Carter’s Inc: “We’ve meaningfully reduced our exposure to China manufacturing over the last number of years. And now, as summarized here, our largest countries of origin are Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and India.”
Abercrombie & Fitch: “Our approach and underlying principles for tariff mitigation remain unchanged, supported by a deep playbook and experience. We continue to expect China sourcing share in the U.S. will be in the low single digits for the year.”
Steve Madden: “Since the last call…We have moved certain production for fall back to China, where we felt it would be difficult to ensure on-time delivery, appropriate product quality and/or reasonable pricing in an alternative country. For fall 2025, we currently expect to source approximately 30% of our U.S. imports from China, down from 71% for the full year 2024..
Oxford industries: “With the recent tariff increases announced during the second quarter, including increased tariffs in countries like Vietnam and India that were included as part of our shift away from China, largely offset by the mitigation efforts we have undertaken, including accelerated inventory receipts and quickly shifting our sourcing network.”
American Eagle: “If you start with all the country of origin remixing…China where we know we were at a higher penetration coming into the year is mid-single digit now in a full year.”

Fourth, establishing a geographically diverse sourcing base continues to be a crucial strategy employed by U.S. fashion companies to mitigate tariff impacts and policy uncertainty. U.S. fashion companies are also intentionally adding speed, flexibility, and agility to their sourcing base and supply chain. However, given the complex sourcing factors fashion companies have to consider, plus the broad scope of “reciprocal tariffs, there is no clear winner. For example:

Kohl’s: “We have a diversified sourcing strategy from a country standpoint. We’re not heavily reliant on any one particular country, and we have the flexibility and agility to actually move production to other countries if necessary.”
PVH: “We work closely with an established network of global sourcing partners across more than 30 countries, and we continue to leverage our deep long-standingrelationships to further optimize our sourcing and production costs.”
American Eagle: “If you start with all the country of origin remixing…India is small for us. Rebalancing some things out of Vietnam.”
Steve Madden: “we were focused on moving a lot of product to Brazil. We’re going to have to wait and see what happens. I think that really goes not just for Brazil, but for a lot of the countries that we work with. So we’ve tried to create a more diversified sourcing footprint. And — but there’s obviously a lot of uncertainty still about where the ultimate tariff rates will land by country. And so we’re going to have to wait and see what happens and then react accordingly. That’s all we can do.”
Hanesbrands: “when you think about tariffs and the impact on our business…not only do you have the Q4 impact, but you have to think about those other offsets about meaningful U.S. content that we have in our products that are exempt from reciprocal, the good East-West balance that we have in our supply chain…”
Land’s End: “With regard to sourcing…we have been intentionally repositioning our sourcing network to better serve the business we are building leading to a more balanced supply chain that enables us to bring new solutions to customers with more speed and frequency throughout the year. For example, our licens epartners are becoming part of our sourcing network…By tapping into the full breadth of our sourcing matrix, we are able to swiftly and strategically reposition fabric and manufacturing as tariff conditions evolve.”

Fifth, as part of their tariff cost mitigation strategy, many U.S. fashion companies have been strategically but cautiously building preemptive stock, adopting a data-driven approach to optimize inventory, and simplifying product assortment. For example:

Levi’s: “And for Q4, we declared a dividend of 14¢ per share, which is up8% to prior year. We ended the quarter with reported inventory dollars up 12%, driven by purposeful investment ahead of the holiday and higher product cost than a year ago due to tariffs. In unit terms, inventory was up 8% versus last year. As of today (October 9, 2025), we have 70% of the product in the US needed for holiday.”
Ralph Lauren: “So we feel good about our inventory levels as we head into the fall season. So we ended Q1 (2025), as you know, with inventories up 18% versus Q1 of last year (2024)…if you think about sort of our Q2 revenue guide of up high single digits, relates to the strategic acceleration of largely core inventory receipts into the U.S. in Q1 during the tariff pause period…So if you back out that tariff-related strategic pull up, our inventory growth is actually a little behind our double-digit top line growth for Q1 and right in line with our expected high single-digit top line growth for next quarter, Q2. And…for the year to go, we expect inventories to moderate as we move throughout the fiscal year, and we plan on ending fiscal ’26 with levels generally in line with demand.”
PVH: “Inventory at quarter end (Q2, 2025) was up13% compared to Q2 last year (2024), including a 1% increase due to tariffs, and reflects a planned improvement compared to up 19% in Q1.”
Hanesbrands: “we’re leveraging advanced analytics with the use of AI to drive operational improvement around the globe, including inventory and assortment management as well as demand planning and forecasting.”
Tapestry: “We’re bringing more innovation to the assortment while we streamline our offering, reducing handbag styles by over 30% by fall, allowing us to stand behind our big ideas with clarity and intention.”

by Sheng Lu

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Shannon Brady, Import and Product Operations Manager at LoveShackFancy

About the interview

In this exclusive FASH455 interview, we are thrilled to welcome Shannon Brady, Import and Product Operations Manager at LoveShackFancy and a proud UD & FASH alum, to share her experiences navigating global apparel sourcing for fashion students. Shannon offered first-hand insights into the latest sourcing trends in the fashion apparel industry and reflected on her career journey in sourcing and trade. Specific topics covered in the interview include:

Apparel sourcing process in general
The current U.S. tariff situation and its impacts on apparel sourcing
Why do apparel sourcing orders still mostly go to Asia?
Outlook for apparel on-shoring and near-shoring
Sustainability and sourcing in practice
Career opportunities in apparel sourcing and trade

Note: This interview is for informational purposes only and reflects Shannon’s personal perspectives. What was shared in this interview should not be taken as, and does not constitute, official policy, position or guidance from LoveShackFancy.

About Shannon Brady

Shannon Brady is the Import and Product Operations Manager at LoveShackFancy. With over four years of experience in product development and sourcing, she specializes in driving vendor performance, optimizing supply chains, and leading cross-functional initiatives. Before her current role, she worked for the U.S. Fashion Industry Association in Washington, D.C., and then joined Party City as a Sourcing Operations Manager.

Shannon graduated magna cum laude from the University of Delaware with a B.S. in Fashion Merchandising. She was a 2018 UD summer scholar, and her co-authored case study Managing the used clothing trade was published in the Bloomsbury Fashion Business Cases.

About Emilie Delaye (moderator)

Emilie Delaye is a master’s student & graduate instructor in Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware, with a specific interest in supply chain, global sourcing, and sustainability.

FASH455 Video Discussion: The Lesotho Garment Industry in the Shadow of Trump’s Tariffs

Discussion questions: (for students in FASH455, please address at least two questions below in your response. There is no need to repeat the question, but please mention the question #)

#1 How do you see the importance of the garment industry to Lesotho—economically, socially, and politically?
#2 Why and how could the 15% additional tariff have a significant impact on Lesotho’s garment industry?
#3 What responsibilities do U.S. fashion brands and retailers have toward Lesotho in the situation described in the videos?
#4 If you were a U.S. garment worker, would you support more favorable trade terms for Lesotho? Why or why not?

Background

According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), textiles and apparel accounted for 56.6% of Lesotho’s manufactured goods exports in 2023.
UNComtrade data shows that between 2023 and 2024, about half of Lesotho’s apparel exports went to the United States, its largest export market. Other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) made up an additional 44% of Lesotho’s apparel exports.
Industry sources further indicate that between January 2024 and July 2025, about 60% of apparel labeled “Made in Lesotho” for sale in the U.S. retail market were tops, including 41% of T-shirts. All of these clothes targeted the mass and value market segments, and they were typically priced even lower than those “Made in Bangladesh.”
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program enacted in 2000, has played a critical role in supporting Lesotho’s apparel export to the U.S. market.
Data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce shows that U.S. apparel imports from Lesotho totaled $151 million, or 0.19% of total U.S. apparel imports, in 2024. Notably, all of these imports claimed the AGOA duty-free benefits, and 96.8% were entered under the “third-country fabric” provision, which allows least developed countries (LDCs) like Lesotho to use textile raw materials sourced from third countries.

[Discussion is closed for this post]

FASH455 Video Discussion: Inside the Costs and Challenges of Making Textiles and Apparel in the U.S.

Video 1: How an Oklahoma denim-maker supports creating American-made jeans

Video 2: President Trump’s Tariffs Backfire on US Textile Exporters

Discussion questions (note: for students in FASH455, please respond to at least two questions listed below in your comment)

Based on the videos, what is your evaluation of the opportunities and challenges of making textiles and apparel in the U.S.?
In what ways has international trade influenced the growth, decline, or transformation of U.S. textile and apparel production?
What do you think about the Round House Jeans owner’s strategy of selling imported jeans from Bangladesh at a higher profit margin to “subsidize” its low-margin U.S.-made jeans? Do you think this could be a sustainable business model in the long run?
Based on the videos, why do you think U.S. textile and apparel production experienced even greater losses in the first half of 2025, despite higher tariffs on imports? [Detailed data HERE]
If you were invited to offer policy recommendations to boost U.S. domestic textile and apparel manufacturing, what would you propose, and why?

Additional reading:

2025 August Sourcing at MAGIC Recap

The latest Sourcing at MAGIC, one of the largest and most influential fashion apparel trade shows in North America, was held from August 18 to 20, 2025 in Las Vegas. Drawing thousands of apparel manufacturers, textile raw material suppliers, brands, and retail buyers from over 30 countries around the globe, the event provides a unique opportunity to observe the latest U.S. apparel sourcing trends and market sentiment.

Aligned with the results of the 2025 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), the hiking tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and ongoing policy uncertainty were among the top concerns for MAGIC attendees. One major tariff impact often heard at the MAGIC show was the growing inflationary pressure. It was a prevailing view among vendors, brands, and retailers that a price increase had begun and would become even more noticeable to U.S. consumers in the upcoming months. Some also argue that “tariff is no longer a sourcing problem,” but how brands and retailers should handle their “profit margin, product assortment, and pricing.”

Meanwhile, apparel suppliers care significantly about the additional “reciprocal tariff” rates they face compared to their key competitors. For instance, a jeans supplier from Pakistan said they were relieved to see more order inquiries come in, as their Indian competitors faced significantly higher tariff rates threatened by the Trump administration.

Still, nearly 600 exhibitors from China attended MAGIC, making it the largest delegation from any country. Two interesting phenomena revealed how Chinese suppliers try to stay competitive in today’s challenging business environment. One is to offer various value-added sourcing services beyond physical products. For example, there was a dedicated session at this year’s MAGIC show that featured Chinese manufacturers that provide services such as drop shipping (i.e., when a customer places an order, the retail store never physically handles the product. Instead, the manufacturer is responsible for inventory, packing, and shipping), director to consumer (DTC) e-commerce and warehousing. Meanwhile, some Chinese vendors accept small orders (i.e., 6 pieces or less) or low minimum orders (i.e., 300 pieces) and promise a short lead time of 45 days. In comparison, the minimum order quantity (MOQ) required by suppliers in other Asian and Western Hemisphere countries typically exceeds thousands of pieces.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see that vendors from Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, or even Egypt and Ghana were actually owned by Chinese investors. Several Chinese factories purposefully highlight that they own factories across the world, from China and Southeast Asia to Africa. According to the USFIA benchmarking study, some U.S. fashion companies also prefer vendors with production capabilities in multiple countries to reduce sourcing risks.

As U.S. fashion companies continue to diversify their sourcing beyond the traditional top three—China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh—emerging destinations are increasingly optimistic about their U.S. export prospects. For instance, a supplier from Jordan noted that recent U.S. tariff hikes have boosted Jordan’s competitiveness, given the zero most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff under the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and a 15% reciprocal tariff rate, which was lower than many Asian suppliers face.Jordanian suppliers speak highly of the capacity-building support from international organizations such as the International Trade Centre (ITC), particularly in areas like skills training and market intelligence.

Similar to Jordan, Egypt’s apparel exports can benefit from a zero most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff, provided they meet the rules of origin under the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZ) initiative. However, unlike Jordan, suppliers from Egypt tend to specialize in cotton and other natural-fiber–intensive apparel, leveraging their advantages in producing locally made, high-quality natural textile fibers.

Clothing made from preferred sustainable fibers, particularly those incorporating recycled textiles, has grown increasingly popular. Nearly every country represented at MAGIC, including developing nations in Asia and Africa, showcased such products.

It should be noted, however, that producing clothing with sustainable textile fibers requires suppliers to obtain certifications such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), Global Recycled Standard (GRS), and Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). Although these certifications add costs, most vendors view sustainability as an opportunity to enhance export competitiveness rather than a threat in the long term. Some also mentioned that buyers were often willing to pay a premium for products made with sustainable materials, providing a significant financial incentive.

On the other hand, achieving sustainable sourcing and production is becoming increasingly comprehensive, requiring continuous innovation in both technology and business models. For example, at the show, some vendors showcased apparel products that integrated multiple sustainability concepts, ranging from material development and eco-design to social responsibility and post-consumption solutions.

by Sheng Lu

2025 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The full report is HERE.

Key findings of this year’s report:

#1 This year, the top business challenges facing U.S. fashion companies center on the Trump Administration’s escalating tariff policy and its wide-ranging impacts on companies’ sourcing and business operations.

100 percent of respondents rated “Protectionist U.S. trade policies and related policy uncertainty, including the impact of the Trump tariffs” as one of their top business challenges in 2025. This included as much as 95 percent of respondents who ranked the issue among their top two concerns.
Respondents also expressed significant concerns about the wide-ranging effects of Trump’s tariff policy, including “Inflation and economic outlook in the U.S. economy” (80 percent), “Increasing production or sourcing cost” (nearly 50 percent), and “Protectionist trade policies and policy uncertainty in foreign countries, including retaliatory measures against the U.S.” (52 percent).
Over 70 percent of surveyed companies reported that the higher tariffs increased sourcing costs, squeezed profit margins, and led to higher consumer prices. Approximately half of the respondents reported a decline in sales, and 22 percent stated that they had to lay off employees due to increased tariffs.

#2 Maintaining a geographically diverse sourcing base has been one of the most popular strategies adopted by U.S. fashion companies to mitigate the impact of rising tariffs and policy uncertainty.

This year, respondents reported sourcing apparel products from 46 countries, similar to the 48 countries reported in 2024 and an increase from 44 countries in 2023. At the firm level, approximately 60 percent of large companies with 1,000+ employees reported sourcing from ten or more countries in 2025, a notable increase from the 45–55 percent range reported in 2022 and 2023 surveys.
- Amid escalating tariffs and rising policy uncertainty, Asia has become an ever more dominant apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies in 2025. Respondents reported increased use of several Asia-based sourcing destinations other than China in 2025 compared to the previous year, including Vietnam (up from 90 percent to 100 percent), Cambodia (up from 75 percent to 94 percent), Bangladesh (up from 86 percent to 88 percent), Indonesia (up from 75 percent to 77 percent), and Sri Lanka (up from 39 percent to 53 percent).As part of their sourcing diversification strategy, U.S. fashion companies are also gradually increasing sourcing from emerging destinations in the Western Hemisphere and beyond, such as Jordan, Peru, and Colombia.
- Most respondents intend to build a more geographically diverse sourcing base and broaden their vendor network over the next two years. Nearly 60 percent of respondents plan to source apparel from more countries, and another 40 percent plan to source from more suppliers or vendors. Reducing sourcing risk, especially to minimize the impact of rising tariffs and tariff uncertainty, is a key driver of companies’ sourcing diversification strategies

#3 U.S. fashion companies remain deeply concerned about the future of the U.S.-China relationship during Trump’s second term and intend to further “reduce China exposure” to mitigate sourcing risks.

While 100 percent of respondents reported sourcing from China this year, a record-high 60 percent of respondents reported sourcing fewer than 10% of their apparel products from China, up from 40 percent in 2024. Approximately 70 percent of respondents no longer used China as their top apparel supplier in 2025, representing a further increase from 60 percent in 2024 and significantly higher than the 25-30 percent range prior to the pandemic.
Despite the announcement of the reaching of a U.S.-China “trade deal” in May 2025, more than 80 percent of respondents plan to further reduce their apparel sourcing from China over the next two years through 2027, hitting a new record high. Many large-scale U.S. fashion companies are already limiting or plan to limit their apparel sourcing from China to a “low single-digit” percentage by 2026 or earlier, mainly due to concerns about the increasing geopolitical and trade policy risks associated with sourcing from the country.
Still, respondents rated China as highly economically competitive as an apparel sourcing base compared to many of its Asian competitors regarding vertical manufacturing capability, low minimum order quantity (MOQ) requirements, flexibility and agility, sourcing costs, and speed to market. However, non-economic factors, particularly the perceived extremely high risks of facing U.S. import restrictions, geopolitical tensions with the U.S., and concerns about forced labor, are driving U.S. fashion companies to continue their de-risking efforts.

#4 No evidence indicates that the Trump Administration’s tariff policy has successfully encouraged U.S. fashion companies to increase domestic sourcing of “Made in the USA” textile and apparel products or to expand sourcing from the Western Hemisphere.

Only about 44 percent of respondents explicitly say that they would expand sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, and even fewer respondents (17 percent) plan to source more textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” amid the tariff increase.
This year, fewer respondents reported sourcing apparel from Mexico and Canada (down from 60 percent in 2024 to 50 percent in 2025) and members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA-DR (down from 75 percent in 2024 to 64 percent in 2025).
About half of the respondents plan to expand apparel sourcing from Mexico and CAFTA-DR members over the next two years. Notably, nearly all of these companies also intend to increase sourcing from Asia, indicating that U.S. fashion companies view near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere as a complement, not a replacement, to their broader sourcing diversification strategy.
Respondents consider the most urgent capacity-building needs within CAFTA-DR lie in the production of textile raw materials (e.g., spandex) and accessories (e.g., zippers, threads, and buttons). Meanwhile, USMCA members are considered to have relatively stronger capacities in yarn and fabric production but face more pressing shortages in accessories.

#5 Respondents overall remain highly committed to sustainability, social responsibility, and compliance issues in the sourcing process.

This year, the top sustainability and compliance areas where respondents plan to allocate more resources include “Investing in technology to enhance supply chain traceability or isotopic testing” (53 percent), “Providing sustainability and social compliance training for internal employees” (50 percent) and “Providing sustainability and social compliance training for suppliers” (50 percent).
As part of U.S. fashion companies’ sustainability efforts, all respondents (100 percent) report sourcing clothing made with “sustainable textile fibers” in 2025. Having 11–50% of apparel products containing various “sustainable textile fibers” is the most common (40 percent of respondents), followed by having 1–10% of the total sourcing value or volume(30 percent of respondents).
Moreover, most respondents (over 70 percent) plan to increase their use of various “sustainable fibers” in clothing over the next three years. This trend is especially strong for recycled materials, with 80 percent of respondents indicating they intend to increase their use.
The top three positions with the highest demand among respondents from 2025 through 2030 are “Environmental sustainability-related specialists or managers,” “Trade compliance specialists,” and “Data scientists”—more than 40 percent of respondents plan to increase hiring. There is also strong demand for “Textile raw material specialists” and “Sourcing specialists.”

#6 With the upcoming expiration of the trade preference program this September, respondents again underscore the importance of immediate renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and extending the agreement for at least another ten years.

Due to the upcoming expiration of AGOA and uncertainty about its future, this year, respondents sourced from only six SSA and AGOA members (i.e., Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Tanzania), fewer than the seven countries in 2024. And none of these countries were used by more than 20 percent of respondents.
Nearly 80 percent of respondents support “renewing AGOA for at least another ten years,” and no one opposes. This shows a consistent and wide base of support for AGOA among U.S. fashion companies.
More than 70 percent of respondents say that securing a long-term renewal of AGOA for at least ten years is essential for expanding apparel sourcing from the region. Similarly, another 60 percent of respondents believe that a long-term renewal of AGOA is necessary for U.S. fashion companies and their supply chain partners to commit to new investments in the region.
Respondents warned that AGOA’s pending renewal has already begun to harm the region’s prospects as an apparel sourcing base. Approximately 30 percent of respondents explicitly stated that they had already reduced sourcing from AGOA members due to the uncertainty surrounding the agreement’s renewal.

About the study

Authored by Dr. Sheng Lu in collaboration with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), this year’s benchmarking study was based on a survey of executives from 25 leading U.S. fashion companies from April to June 2025. The study incorporated a balanced mix of respondents representing various businesses in the U.S. fashion industry. Approximately 85 percent of respondents were self-identified retailers, 60 percent were self-identified brands, and about 50 percent were importers/wholesalers.

The survey respondents included large U.S. fashion corporations and medium-sized companies. Around 90 percent of respondents reported having over 1,000 employees; the rest (10 percent) represented medium-sized companies with 100-999 employees.

Average Tariff Rates for U.S. Apparel Imports under Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariff” Policy (Updated July 2025)

The latest data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) indicates that Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariff” has led to higher import duties on U.S. apparel imports, although the impact on sourcing appears to be more nuanced than expected. Specifically:

As a result of the reciprocal tariff, the average tariff rate for U.S. apparel imports (HS Chapters 61 and 62) reached 23.8% in May 2025, increased further from 20.8% in April 2025 and much higher than 13.9% in May 2024 and 14.7% in January 2025, prior to Trump’s second term. This tariff rate also hit its highest level in decades. Similarly, while the value of U.S. apparel imports in May 2025 decreased by 7% from May 2024, the import duties skyrocketed by nearly 60% over the same period. [View detailed data HERE]

Due to numerous punitive tariffs beginning in February 2025, the average tariff rate for U.S. apparel imports from China reached an unprecedented 69.1% in May 2025, a further increase from 55.0% in April 2025, 37.0% in March 2025 and 22.1% in January 2025. In theory, U.S. apparel imports from China in May should be subject to a tariff rate of over 145%, as mandated by a series of executive orders. However, as “goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025,“ were excluded from Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, it explains why the actual tariff rate in April and May 2025 appeared lower than the theoretical one.

Nonetheless, affected by the high tariffs, the value of US apparel imports from China in May 2025 was cut by more than half from a year ago (down 52%). China’s market share in US apparel imports in May 2025 also dropped to 9.9%, a new low in decades (note: was 19.9% in May 2024). [View detailed data HERE]

Additionally, the average tariff rate for U.S. apparel imports from countries other than China reached 18.9% in May 2025, up from 15.2% in April 2025. Although this rate was higher than approximately 12-13% before Trump’s second term in early 2025, the increase was still much more modest than the theoretical 10% universal reciprocal tariff rate announced by the Trump administration. The average tariff rates for U.S. apparel imports from leading Asian suppliers such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia followed similar patterns (i.e., higher tariff rates but well below a 10% increase). Similar to China’s case, it appears that U.S. apparel imports from other countries in April 2025 included a significant proportion of products that were exempt from reciprocal tariffs because they were “loaded onto a vessel” early enough. [View detailed data HERE]

It is interesting to note that the reciprocal tariff resulted in the most significant increase in tariff rates on U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members. While imports from these countries were supposed to be duty-free under the trade agreement, the average tariff rate reached 10% in May 2025, up from 6.7% in April 2025. In other words, the short shipping distance unintentionally “disadvantaged” near-shoring imports from being exempted from the reciprocal tariffs, as they could be mostly loaded after the deadline.

Overall, it remains uncertain how the U.S. apparel tariff rates will continue to evolve in response to Trump’s shifting tariff policy. It appears that the trade volume and timing of shipment will be highly sensitive to short-term tariff rate changes, whereas adjusting sourcing bases and product structures will be a consideration for U.S. fashion companies in the medium to long term.

By Sheng Lu

Additional reading: Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April (Sourcing Journal, June 13, 2025)

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Matthias Knappe, Head of Fibres, Textiles and Clothing Unit, International Trade Centre

About the interview

Textile and apparel trade matters. Even today in the 21^st century, apparel could still account for 80—90% of a developing country’s total merchandise export and play a critical role in promoting economic growth, poverty reduction, and gender equality. The interview explored several key topics:

Why textile & apparel trade matters for development in the 21^st century
How ITC provides capacity building support and enhances the export competitiveness of garment exporters in developing countries
Sustainability movement’s impact on apparel sourcing and export competitiveness of developing countries
The promise and complexity of circularity in tackling used clothing challenges
Empowering women entrepreneurs through SheTrades
Skills and education needed to thrive in the global fashion apparel trade

About Matthias Knappe (speaker)

Matthias Knappe is the Head of Fibres, Textiles and Clothing Unit at the International Trade Centre (ITC), which is co-run by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations (UN). Matthias has over 30 years of diversified professional experience in international trade and development. He has worked at the enterprise, institutional, and governmental levels. Matthias is leading ITC’s textile and apparel and light manufacturing unit. Over the last 20 years, he has been working with the T&C sector around the world to increase its export competitiveness. He designed and currently manages ITC’s Global Textiles and Clothing (GTEX) programme and various other fibre, apparel and light manufacturing projects. The Unit’s present portfolio includes projects in 15 countries.

About Emilie Delaye (moderator)

Emilie Delaye is a master’s student in Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware, with a specific interest in supply chain, global sourcing, and sustainability. With a background in Entrepreneurship and Fashion Management, Emilie’s passion lies in improving the fashion industry through innovative problem-solving and collaboration. She has worked on projects exploring sourcing destinations and emerging sourcing trends, as well as collaborated with Macy’s on an initiative centered around Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations. Emilie’s work is driven by a commitment to fostering innovation and ethical practices in fashion, positioning her as a future leader in driving the industry toward greater sustainability and responsibility.

FASH455 Current Event Discussion: Ongoing Tariff War and Apparel Sourcing and Trade (Updated April 2025)

Video 1: Is U.S. Clothing Manufacturing at Risk? Tariffs and Competition Threaten Jobs (RT≠ Endorsement)

Video 2: Northern Virginia T-shirt brand faces challenges (RT≠ Endorsement)

Video 3: Tariffs could raise wedding dress prices for American brides (RT≠ Endorsement)

Video 4: Bangladeshi garment industry sweating on Trump tariffs (RT≠ Endorsement)

Video 5: Trump’s Tariff Twist: Can Pakistan’s Textiles Fill China’s Shoes? (RT≠ Endorsement)

Video 6: Tariffs: Europe’s textile sector holds its breath

Discussion questions (note: you may answer any of the following questions. However, you must watch all the videos above and use examples from the videos to support your viewpoints and arguments. For this learning activity, students are expected to form their own independent assessments of the topic.)

#1 Based on the videos, how do you expect the apparel sourcing strategy of US fashion companies to evolve in response to the tariff increase? For example, will companies continue to diversify sourcing, wait and see, or focus on expanding sourcing to countries or regions regarded as “safe havens”?

#2 Do you expect the higher tariffs on U.S. imports, including textiles and apparel, to benefit domestic “Made in the USA” production? Why or why not?

#3 As consumers, how do you perceive the impact of the tariffs on your shopping behavior and experiences? Have you noticed any changes, such as in price and product availability, while shopping for clothing recently? Feel free to share your observations.

#4 Are there any other notable impacts of the tariff increase on the global fashion apparel industry that we should be aware of? What additional questions do you have in mind about the tariff impacts?

State of U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing, Employment and Trade (updated April 2025)

Textile and apparel manufacturing in the U.S. has significantly decreased over the past decades due to factors such as automation, import competition, and the changing U.S. comparative advantages for related products. However, thanks to companies’ ongoing restructuring strategies and their strategic use of globalization, the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector has stayed relatively stable in recent years. For example, the value of U.S. yarns and fabrics manufacturing (NAICS 313) totaled $24 billion in 2023 (the latest data available), up from $23.3 billion in 2018 (or up 2.8%). Over the same period, U.S. made-up textiles (NAICS 314) and apparel production (NAICS 315) moderately declined by only 1.8% and 1.6%.

More importantly, the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector is evolving. Several important trends are worth watching:

First, “Made in the USA” increasingly focuses on textile products, particularly high-tech industrial textiles that are not intended for apparel manufacturing purposes. Specifically, textile products (NAICS 313+314) accounted for over 83% of the total output of the U.S. textile and apparel industry as of 2023, much higher than only 56% in 1998 (U.S. Census, 2025). Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are growing particularly fast in some product categories that are high-tech driven, such as medical textiles, protective clothing, specialty and industrial fabrics, and non-woven. These products are also becoming the new growth engine of U.S. textile exports. Notably, between 2019 and 2022, the value of U.S. “nonwoven fabric” (NAICS 31323) production increased by 12.32%, much higher than the 1.15% average growth of the textile industry (NAICS 313). Similarly, while U.S. textile exports decreased by 13.75% between 2019 and 2024, “nonwoven fabric” exports surged by 10.48%--including nearly 40% that went to market outside the Western Hemisphere (U.S. International Trade Commission, 2025).

Second, U.S. apparel manufacturers today are primarily micro-factories, and they supplement but are not in a position to replace imports. As of 2021 (the latest data available), over 76% of U.S.-based apparel mills (NAICS 315) had fewer than 10 employees, while only 0.7% had more than 500 employees. In comparison, contracted garment factories of U.S. fashion companies in Asia, particularly in developing countries like Bangladesh, typically employ over 1,000 or even 5,000 workers.

Instead of making garments in large volumes, most U.S.-based apparel factories are used to produce samples or prototypes for brands and retailers. In other words, replacing global sourcing with domestic production is not a realistic option for U.S. fashion brands and retailers in the 21st-century global economy. Nor are U.S. fashion companies showing interest in shifting their business strategies from focusing on “designing + managing supply chain+ marketing” back to manufacturing.

Meanwhile, due to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and to leverage economies of scale, approximately 5% of U.S. textile mills (NAICS313) had more than 500 employees as of 2021–this is a significant number, considering that textile manufacturing is a highly capital-intensive process.

Third, employment in the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector continued to decline, with improved productivity and technology being critical drivers. As of 2024, employment in the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector (NAICS 313, 314, and 315) totaled 270,700, a decrease of 18.4% from 33,190 in 2019. Notably, U.S. textile and apparel workers had become more productive overall—the labor productivity index of U.S. textile mills (NAICS 313) increased from 89.7 in 2019 to 94.4 in 2023, and the index of U.S. apparel mills (NAICS 315) increased from 105.8 to 110.78 over the same period.

On the other hand, clothing retailers (NAICS 4481) accounted for over 75.7% of employment in the U.S. textile and apparel sector in 2024.

Fourth, international trade, BOTH import and export, supports textiles and apparel “Made in the USA.” On the one hand, U.S. textile and apparel exports exceeded $12.5 billion in 2024, accounting for more than 30% of domestic production as of 2023 (NAICS 313, 314 and 315). Thanks to regional free trade agreements, particularly the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the Western Hemisphere stably accounted for over 70% of U.S. textile and apparel exports over the past decades. However, for specific products such as industrial textiles, markets in the rest of the world, especially Asia and Europe, also become increasingly important. Thus, lowering trade barriers for U.S. products in strategically significant export markets serves the interest of the U.S. textile and apparel industry.

On the other hand, imports support textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” as well. A 2023 study found that among the manufacturers in the “Made in the USA” database managed by the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Textile and Apparel, nearly 20% of apparel and fabric mills explicitly say they utilized imported components. Partially, smaller U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers appear to be more likely to use imported components–whereas 20% of manufacturers with less than 50 employees used imported input, only 10.2% of those with 50-499 employees and 7.7% with 500 or more employees did so. The results indicate the necessity of supporting small and medium-sized (SME) U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers to more easily access their needed textile materials by lowering trade barriers like tariffs.

By Sheng Lu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Ally Botwinick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

Gap CEO talks tariff impacts (Feb 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

About Hannah Laurits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

About Jillian Silverman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

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

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

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

Featured speakers (bios here) from JCPenney include:

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

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

Video 1: Threads of Resilience: China’s textile manufacturing goes automated

Video 2: Asian factories struggling to keep young workers

Video 3: How Millions Of Jeans Get Recycled Into New Pairs in Pakistan

Video 4: Vietnam becomes second biggest garment exporter globally

Discussion questions:

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

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

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

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

Outlook 2025–Key Issues to Shape Apparel Sourcing and Trade

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

What’s next for apparel sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparel industry challenges and opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

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

Discussion instructions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Michael Lambert

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

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

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

About Emilie Delaye (Moderator)

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

Mega Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region and Textiles and Apparel Trade (Updated August 2024)

Speaker: Dr. Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director of the Asian Trade Centre and the President of the Asia Business Trade Association. The clip was part of the webinar “Asia’s Noodle Bowl Of Trade” (March 2023).

Background

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 2022, ASEAN members have a combined nominal GDP of $3.6 trillion and a population of 671.6 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 (as of March 2024).

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 2022.

ASEAN and RCEP members also hold significant market shares in the world textile and apparel exports (over 50%). Meanwhile, the US and EU are indispensable export markets for ASEAN and RCEP members.

Because of the inclusion 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 offer significant duty-saving opportunities for textile and apparel products.

Additionally, the UK’s membership in CPTPP may have a limited direct impact on the textile and apparel sector, at least in the short to medium terms. For example, current CPTPP members only accounted for about 6% of the UK’s apparel imports in 2022.

2024 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The full report is HERE

Key findings of this year’s report:

#1 Respondents reported growing sourcing risks of various kinds in 2024, from navigating an uncertain U.S. economy, managing forced labor risks, and responding to shipping and supply chain disruptions to facing rising geopolitical tensions and trade protectionism.

Over half of the respondents ranked “Inflation and economic outlook in the U.S.” and “Managing the forced labor risks in the supply chain” as their top business challenges in 2024.
The issues of “Shipping delays and supply chain disruptions” and “Managing geopolitics and other political instability related to sourcing” have newly emerged among respondents’ top five concerns in 2024.
About 45 percent of respondents rated “Protectionist trade policy agenda in the United States” as a top five business challenge this year, a jump from only 15 percent in 2023.

#2 U.S. fashion companies leverage sourcing diversification to respond to the growing sourcing risks and market uncertainty in 2024.

Nearly 70 percent of large-sized companies with 1,000+ employees reported sourcing from ten or more countries, significantly higher than the 45-55 percent range in the past few years. It also has become more common for medium to small-sized companies with fewer than 1,000 employees to source apparel from six or more countries in 2024 than in the past.
Nearly 80 percent of respondents plan to source from the same number of countries or even more countries through 2026, aiming to mitigate sourcing risks more effectively. However, their approaches differ at the firm level—some U.S. fashion companies plan to work with fewer vendors, while others intend to source from more.

#3 Managing the risk of forced labor in the supply chain continues to be a top priority for U.S. fashion companies in 2024.

U.S. fashion companies have adopted a comprehensive approach to comply with UFLPA and mitigate forced labor risks. On average, each surveyed company has implemented approximately six distinct practices across various aspects of their business operations this year, up from an average of five in 2023.
More than 90 percent of respondents say they are “Making more efforts to map and understand our supply chain, including the sources of fibers and yarns contained in finished products.” Notably, nearly 90 percent of respondents report mapping their entire apparel supply chains from Tier 1 to Tier 3 in 2024, a significant increase from about 40 percent in the past few years.
More than 80 percent of respondents say they “intentionally reduce sourcing from high-risk countries” in response to the UFLPA’s implementation. Another 75 percent of respondents explicitly state that their company has “banned the use of Chinese cotton in the apparel products” they carry.
About 45 percent of respondents have been actively “exploring sourcing destinations beyond Asia to mitigate forced labor risks.” However, this year, fewer respondents (i.e., under 10 percent) plan to cut apparel sourcing from Asian countries other than China directly, implying a more targeted and balanced approach to mitigating risks and meeting sourcing needs.
Based on field experience, respondents call for greater transparency in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s UFLPA enforcement, specifically in shipment detention and release decisions and in targeted entities and commodities information. Respondents also suggested that CBP reduce repeated detentions, focus on “bad actors” only, clarify enforcement on recycled cotton, and continue to partner with U.S. fashion companies on UFLPA enforcement.

#4 U.S. fashion companies remain deeply concerned about the deteriorating U.S.-China bilateral relationship and plan to further “reduce China exposure” to mitigate risks.

A record 43 percent of respondents sourced less than 10 percent of their apparel products from China this year, compared to only 18 percent in 2018. Likewise, nearly 60 percent of respondents no longer use China as their top apparel supplier in 2024, much higher than the 25-30 percent range before the pandemic.
Respondents rated China as economically competitive as an apparel sourcing base compared to many of its Asian competitors regarding vertical manufacturing capability, relatively low minimum order quantity (MOQ) requirements, flexibility and agility, sourcing costs, and speed to market. However, non-economic factors, particularly the perceived high risks of forced labor and geopolitical tensions, are driving U.S. fashion companies to move sourcing out of China. This trend applies to surveyed U.S. fashion companies selling products in China.
Nearly 80 percent of respondents plan to reduce their apparel sourcing from China further over the next two years through 2026. Consistent with last year’s results, large-size U.S. fashion companies with 1,000+ employees currently sourcing more than 10 percent of their apparel products from China are among the most eager to “de-risk.”

#5 U.S. fashion companies are actively exploring new sourcing opportunities, with a particular focus on emerging destinations in Asia and the Western Hemisphere.

This year, more respondents reported sourcing from India (89 percent utilization rate) than from Bangladesh (86 percent utilization rate) for the first time since we began the survey. Also, nearly 60 percent of respondents plan to expand apparel sourcing from India over the next two years, exceeding the planned expansion from any other Asian country.
For the second year in a row, three non-Asian countries made it to the top ten most utilized apparel sourcing destination list in 2024, including Guatemala (ranked 7th), Mexico (ranked 7th), and Egypt (ranked 10th). All three countries also witnessed an improved utilization rate in 2024 compared to last year’s survey results.
This year, a new record 52 percent of respondents plan to expand apparel sourcing from members of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), over the next two years, up from 40 percent in 2023. However, most U.S. fashion companies consider expanding near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere as part of their overall sourcing diversification strategy. For example, nearly ALL companies that plan to increase sourcing from CAFTA-DR over the next two years also plan to increase sourcing from Asia.
75 percent of respondents identified the “lack of sufficient access to textile raw materials” as the main bottleneck preventing them from sourcing more apparel from CAFTA-DR members. Respondents say the local manufacturing capability for yarns and fabrics using fiber types other than cotton and polyester, such as spandex, nylon, viscose, rayon, and wool, was modest or low in the CAFTA-DR region, even when including the United States.
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) entered into force on July 1, 2020, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Within the context of expanding nearing-shoring from the Western Hemisphere, in 2024, about 65 percent of respondents reported sourcing from Mexico and Canada (or USMCA members), a noticeable increase from about 40 percent in 2019-2020. About 36 percent of respondents say their companies “expanded apparel sourcing from USMCA members because of the agreement.”

#6 Respondents underscore the importance of immediate renewal of AGOA before its expiration in September 2025 and extending the agreement for at least another ten years.

This year, respondents reported sourcing from seven AGOA members or countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), including Lesotho, Ethiopia (note: lost AGOA eligibility in 2022), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Tanzania, and Ghana, an increase from four countries in 2023, and six countries in 2022. Most respondents sourcing from AGOA in 2024 are typically large-scale U.S. fashion brands or retailers with 1,000+ employees. Generally, these companies treat AGOA as part of their extensive global sourcing network.
Over 86 percent of respondents support renewing AGOA for at least another ten years, and none object to the proposal. This reveals U.S. fashion companies’ strong support for the trade preference program and the non-controversial nature of continuing this agreement.
Over 70 percent of respondents say another 10-year renewal of AGOA is essential for their company to expand sourcing from the region.
About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had already held back sourcing from AGOA members due to the pending renewal of the agreement and associated policy uncertainty. This figure could increase to half of the respondents if AGOA is not renewed by the end of 2024.
Another 30 percent of respondents indicate that keeping the flexible rules of origin in AGOA, such as the “third country fabric provision” for least-developed members, is essential for their company to source from the region.

Other topics the report covered include:

5-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry, including companies’ hiring plan by key positions
The competitiveness of major apparel sourcing destinations in 2024 regarding sourcing cost, speed to market, flexibility & agility, minimum order quantity (MOQ), vertical integration and local textile manufacturing capability, social and environmental compliance risks and geopolitical risks (assessed by respondents)
Respondents’ detailed sourcing portfolio in 2024 for garments and textile materials (i.e., yarns, fabrics and accessories)
Respondents’ latest strategies to mitigate forced labor risks in the supply chain and fashion companies’ suggestions for CBP’s UFLPA enforcement based on field experience
U.S. fashion companies’ latest social responsibility and sustainability practices related to sourcing
U.S. fashion companies’ trade policy priorities in 2024

About the study

This year’s benchmarking study was based on a survey of executives from 30 leading U.S. fashion companies from April to June 2024. The study incorporated a balanced mix of respondents representing various businesses in the U.S. fashion industry. Approximately 80 percent of respondents were self-identified retailers, 60 percent were self-identified brands, 41 percent were importers/wholesalers, and 3 percent were manufacturers.

The survey respondents included large U.S. fashion corporations and medium-sized companies. Around 80 percent of respondents reported having over 1,000 employees; the rest (20 percent) represented medium-sized companies with 100-999 employees.

New Study: Is Sub-Saharan Africa Ready to Serve as an Alternative Apparel Sourcing Destination to Asia for U.S. Fashion Companies? A Product-Level Analysis

Full paper: Lu, S. (2024), “Is Sub-Saharan Africa ready to serve as an alternative apparel-sourcing destination to Asia for US Fashion companies? A product-level analysis“, Competitiveness Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2024-0041

Summary:

The prospect of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as an apparel-sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies has been a growing heated debate. On the one hand, U.S. fashion companies, driven by increasing geopolitical concerns and other market factors, were eager to diversify apparel sourcing away from Asia. The SSA region was often regarded as one of the most popular alternative sourcing destinations thanks to its large population, relatively low labor costs, and shorter shipping distance to U.S. ports compared to most Asian. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program enacted in 2000, in particular, allowed eligible apparel exports from SSA countries to enter the United States import duty-free, creating substantial financial incentives for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region.

However, empirical trade data shows that U.S. apparel imports from SSA members have stagnated over the past decades without evident growth. Notably, with little change from 2010, SSA countries collectively accounted for only 1.8% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, with no single SSA member achieving a market share of more than 1%. In contrast, over the same period, despite China’s declining market shares, the following five largest Asian suppliers—Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia—jointly accounted for 43.0% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, a notable increase from 27.4% in 2010.

This study aims to evaluate SSA countries’ capacity to serve as an alternative apparel sourcing destination to Asian suppliers for US fashion companies. Specifically, the study examined the detailed product information of a total of 10,000 stock keeping units (SKUs) of clothing items sold in the U.S. retail market from January 2021 to December 2023. Half of these items were sourced from the six largest apparel-exporting countries in SSA: Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Tanzania. Together, these countries accounted for over 96% of the value of U.S. apparel imports from the SSA region between 2021 and 2023. The remaining half came from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Indonesia, the six largest Asian apparel exporters, which stably accounted for approximately 90% of U.S. apparel imports from Asia over the past decade.

Key findings:

First, the results revealed that U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategies for SSA countries appeared more subtle and complicated than simply treating the region as another low-cost sourcing destination, as suggested by previous studies. Instead, according to the results, U.S. fashion companies seemed to leverage SSA countries as suppliers of “niche products,” such as those relatively simple and basic apparel categories containing African cultural elements and targeting the luxury and premium market segment. Meanwhile, the demand for such products could be much smaller than regular apparel items sold in the value and mass market. This allows SSA countries to fulfill these smaller orders despite their limited production capacity, often family-owned or involving handmade processes.

Second, the study’s findings identified significant challenges for SSA countries serving as immediate alternatives to sourcing from Asia for U.S. fashion companies. While SSA countries could offer relatively low sourcing costs, the range of apparel products available for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region remained significantly more limited than those from Asia. For example, results show that U.S. fashion companies preferred sourcing relatively basic and technologically simple categories like knitwear, T-shirts, and bottoms from SSA countries. However, imports from SSA countries offered more limited sizing and color choices and were less likely to include womenswear and relatively more sophisticated or specialized product categories such as outerwear and swimwear. As another example, U.S. apparel imports from SSA countries were primarily made of cotton and polyester, with less use of other fiber types, including nylon, rayon, viscose, wool, and those made from recycled textile materials (see table below).

Third, building on the previous point, the results call for new thinking on strengthening SSA countries’ genuine competitiveness as an apparel-sourcing destination. Over the past decades, trade preference programs such as AGOA have mainly focused on improving the price competitiveness of SSA countries’ apparel exports. However, as this study’s findings illustrate, AGOA and other trade preference programs seemed inadequate in assisting SSA countries in developing capacity beyond basic apparel categories and securing a sufficient variety of textile materials. As U.S. fashion companies have placed greater emphasis on factors beyond price in their sourcing decisions, such as flexibility, agility, sustainability, and vendors’ capability to make a wide variety of products, this could put SSA countries at even more significant disadvantages down the road to being considered alternatives to Asia for apparel sourcing.

The results also reminded us that AGOA’s liberal rules of origin, which allowed least-developed SSA countries to use textile materials from anywhere worldwide, cannot replace the crucial need to develop the local textile manufacturing capacity within the SSA region. Without a robust local textile manufacturing sector, SSA countries would encounter significant challenges in diversifying their product offerings to include more complex and versatile clothing categories, such as outerwear and women’s dresses. These categories typically require a wide variety of raw textile materials and accessories, making it highly impractical and inefficient to rely solely on imports for their supply.

On the other hand, the findings reveal the necessity of creating a stable and foreseeable business environment, such as the long-term renewal of AGOA, to attract more long-term investments in SSA. For example, investing in and strengthening SSA countries’ local supply of sustainable textile materials, such as recycled or organic fibers, could strategically enhance SSA countries’ competitiveness in meeting the increasing demand from U.S. fashion companies for sustainable apparel products.

Additional reading:

Sourcing Journal: Report: As African Apparel Imports Dwindle, the Time for AGOA Renewal is Now
Melissa Nelson (General Counsel of SanMar Corporation)’s Senate Finance Committee Testimony about apparel sourcing from AGOA (June 5, 2024)

The Puzzling US Apparel Import Data…

The latest US apparel import data raises several puzzles that deserve to be investigated further.

Question 1: Why did imports suddenly surge, and is this surge sustainable?

Unexpectedly, US apparel imports experienced a significant surge in February 2024. This surge was marked by a 12.9% increase in quantity and a 2.9% increase in value compared to the previous year. Seasonally adjusted US apparel imports in February 2024 were also nearly 10% higher than in January 2024. The import surge was particularly surprising given that the value of US clothing sales in February 2024 was only 1.3% higher than a year ago and even 0.5% lower than in January 2024 (seasonally adjusted).

That being said, US total merchandise imports also enjoyed a 2.2% increase year over year in February 2024, the best performance since last fall. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s latest April 2024 forecast predicted the world merchandise trade volume to grow by 2.6% in 2024 as opposed to a 1.2% decline in 2023.

Therefore, it will be important to watch whether the US apparel trade has indeed reached a turning point and will continue growing in the coming months and throughout the year.

Question 2: Could the volume of US apparel imports in 2023 have been underreported?

With over 98% of clothing sold in the US retail market being imported today, there exists a strong correlation between US apparel retail sales (NAICS code 4481) and the volume of apparel imports. Between 2015 and 2022, the US clothing sales to clothing import ratio remained consistently around 3.0-3.2 (seasonally adjusted). In other words, the value of retail sales was approximately three times the value of apparel imports. However, in 2023, this ratio increased to 4.0-4.5.

One suspicion is that as more apparel imports came into the US through the de minimis, the official US apparel import data in 2023 was somewhat underreported. Notably, according to Euromonitor, about 40% of US apparel retail sales were achieved through e-commerce in 2023, a substantial increase from 9.4% in 2010. Likewise, with US customs tightening controls on “small package shipments” and enhancing UFLPA enforcement, more imports likely began entering through the standard procedure in recent months, which explains why the US apparel sales to import rato fell back to 3.8 in February 2024.

On the other hand, some say the lowered US apparel import volume in 2023 was due to retailers’ efforts to control inventory levels. Data shows that US clothing stores’ stock-to-sales ratio in the last quarter of 2023 averaged 2.34, slightly lower than 2.43 from 2015 to 2019, but was higher than 2.19 back in 2021. In other words, while there was some effort by retailers to control inventory (as seen by the ratio being lower than pre-pandemic levels), it wasn’t a significant enough change to have a large impact on import demand. Also, considering that apparel is a seasonal product, it doesn’t seem too likely that retailers would risk losing sales opportunities during the most critical selling season of the year (i.e., 4^th quarter) by promoting outdated items instead of stocking new ones on the shelf.

Question 3: Why did Asian countries export more apparel to Mexico?

As a developing country, Mexico is not traditionally a leading apparel import market due to consumers’ limited purchasing power and the sufficient local apparel supply. Take China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia, the four top Asian apparel exporting countries (Asia4), for instance. Between 2018 and 2020, Mexico typically accounted for 0.4%-0.7% of Asia4’s total apparel exports. However, since 2022, Asia4 has almost doubled its apparel exports to Mexico (i.e., increased to 1.5%-2.0%). Moreover, during the same period, the percentage of Asia4’s apparel exports to the United States declined from 27% to below 20%, especially in the last quarter of 2023.

What’s behind the increase in Asian countries’ apparel exports to Mexico needs to be investigated further. As noted earlier, Mexico itself is a leading apparel-producing country. Also, according to Euromonitor, the clothing market in Mexico stayed relatively stable at around 7.6%-7.9% of the size of the US from 2017 to 2023 (in quantity). In other words, Mexico’s increased import demand for Asian clothing doesn’t make much sense.

Others suspect some Asian apparel exports to Mexico eventually entered the US market either by taking advantage of the de minimis rule or the US-Mexico-Canda (USMCA) trade agreement. However, the exact size of this particular trade flow calls for further investigation.

By Sheng Lu

Current Event Discussion: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Textile Enforcement

#1: On April 5, 2024, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its new enhanced strategy to combat illicit trade and level the playing field for the American textile industry and the estimated over 500,000 US textile jobs*. *note: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2023, the US textile and apparel manufacturing sector employed about 272,400 workers (seasonally adjusted), including 89.3K in NACIS313 textile mills, 95.6K in NAICS314 textile product mills and 87.5K in NAICS315 apparel manufacturing. As of December 2023, NAICS 4482 apparel retail stores employed about 850,000 workers (seasonally adjusted).

According to DHS, the new enforcement plan will focus on the following areas:

Cracking down on small package shipments to prohibit illicit goods from U.S. markets by improving screening of packages claiming the Section 321 de minimis exemption for textile, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and other violations, including expanded targeting, laboratory and isotopic testing, and focused enforcement operations.
Conducting joint Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-Homeland Security Investigation (HIS) HSI trade special operations to ensure cargo compliance. This includes physical inspections; country-of-origin, isotopic, and composition testing; and in-depth reviews of documentation. CBP will issue civil penalties for violations of U.S. laws and coordinate with HSI to develop and conduct criminal investigations when warranted.
Better assessing risk by expanding customs audits and increasing foreign verifications. DHS personnel will conduct comprehensive audits and textile production verification team visits to high-risk foreign facilities to ensure that textiles qualify under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). (note: As CBP noted, most US free trade agreements and trade preference programs have complex textiles and apparel-specific rules of origin requirements. CBP is “responsible for ensuring that the trade community complies with all statutory, regulatory, policy, and procedural requirements that pertain to importations under free trade agreements and other trade preference programs.”)
Building stakeholder awareness by engaging in an education campaign to ensure that importers and suppliers in the CAFTA-DR and USMCA region understand compliance requirements and are aware of CBP’s enforcement efforts.
Leveraging U.S. and Central American industry partnerships to improve facilitation for legitimate trade. (note: The Biden Administration aims to leverage textile and apparel trade as part of the solution to address “root causes of migration in Central America. According to the White House Fact Sheet released in March 2024, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Central American Trade Agencies and textiles and apparel industry stakeholders will work together to build a directory with detailed profiles of manufacturing and sourcing companies in the region, including information on business practices and production capabilities, to facilitate transparent sourcing, and bolster the region’s supply chain.)
Expanding the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List to identify malign suppliers for the trade community through review of additional entities in the high-priority textile sector for inclusion in the UFLPA Entity List. (note: Once an entity is on this list, in general, it is prohibited from exporting its goods to the United States. Importers are required to ensure the supply chains of their imported products are free from entities on the Entity List).

#2: Several US textile and apparel industry stakeholders have publicly responded to DHS’s new strategy.:

The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), representing the US textile manufacturing sector, made several points in its statement:

“We strongly commend DHS for the release of a robust textile and apparel enforcement plan today. We also greatly appreciate Secretary Mayorkas’ personal engagement in this urgent effort and believe it’s a strong step forward to addressing pervasive customs fraud that is harming the U.S. textile industry.”

“The essential and vital domestic textile supply chain has lost 14 plants in recent months. The industry is facing severe economic harm due to a combination of factors, exacerbated by customs fraud and predatory trade practices by China and other countries, which has resulted in these devastating layoffs and plant closures. DHS immediately understood the economic harms facing the industry and deployed the development of a critical action plan.”

“The industry requests include

Ramped up textile and apparel enforcement with regard to Western Hemisphere trade partner countries, including onsite visits and other targeted verification measures to enforce rules of origin as well as to address any backdoor Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) violations.
Increased UFLPA enforcement to prevent textile and apparel goods made with forced labor from entering our market, including in the de minimis environment.
Immediate expansion of the UFLPA Entity List, isotopic testing, and other targeting tools. Intensified scrutiny of Section 321 de minimis imports and a review of all existing Executive Branch authorities under current law to institute basic reforms to this outdated tariff waiver mechanism. “

Joint Association Statement on New DHS Textile Trade Enforcement from the American Apparel & Footwear Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the United States Fashion Industry Association:

“We appreciate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s announcement today outlining enhanced enforcement activities to prevent illicit trade in textiles. Our members support 55 million (more than one in four) American jobs and invest considerable time and resources in their customs compliance programs. Many of our members are Tier 3 participants in Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). They are trusted traders and meet the high standards required to receive that designation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and DHS. Our members are on the front lines for ensuring that they have safe and secure supply chains.

“While DHS launches this enforcement plan, we urge it to partner with our associations and our associations’ members. A successful enforcement plan must include input from all stakeholders, clear communication with the trade, and coordinated activities with importers, especially if DHS finds illicit activity happening in the supply chain. The results of any illicit activities must be shared so that our members and other importers can act quickly to address the issue. As our members look to diversify their supply chains, especially back to the Western Hemisphere, we must make sure efforts are included to incentivize and not deter new investments.”

#3 Comments: Overall, the new DHS textile enforcement plan suggests several key US textile and apparel trade policy directions: 1) revisit the current de minimis rules that are used by many e-commerce businesses; 2) further strengthen the UFLPA and forced labor enforcement; 3) expand the Western hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain and encourage more US apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members; 4) scrutinize US apparel imports from China and imports from other Asian countries that heavily use textile raw material from China.

Discussion questions for FASH455 (please answer them all):

How do the perspectives of the US textile industry and US fashion brands and retailers diverge concerning CBP’s new strategy? What are the areas in which they share common ground?
Building on the previous question, how can the difference between the US textile industry and US fashion brands and retailers be explained regarding their response to DHS’s new enforcement strategy?
As a sourcing manager for a major US apparel brand with global operations, how do you plan to adjust your company’s sourcing practices in light of DHS’s new strategy? You can list 1-2 detailed action plans and provide your analysis.

Background

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), responsible for “regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, enforcing U.S. trade laws, and protecting the nation’s borders.”

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is also a division within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), responsible for “investigating transnational crime and threats, specifically those criminal organizations that exploit the global infrastructure through which international trade, travel and finance move.”

Product Development and Apparel Sourcing: FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Abby Edge, Product Development Associate at Eileen Fisher

About Abby Edge

Abby Edge is the Product Development associate at Eileen Fisher, where she supports key initiatives in sourcing and sustainability. She graduated from the University of Delaware (UD) in 2020 with a degree in Fashion Merchandising. During her time at UD, she developed a passion for sustainable sourcing and social responsibility, which led her to pursue a career with a company that aligns with these values. Abby also served as a teaching assistant for FASH455 in Spring 2020 and was the co-author of How will EU Trade Curb Affect Cambodia’s Apparel Industry published in Just-Style.

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

Sheng: What does a Product Development Associate do? Can you walk us through your typical day at Eileen Fisher? Also, what makes you love your job?

Abby: Product development can mean different things at different companies, but at Eileen Fisher (EF) it means costing and development prior to product development (PO). All samples, fabrics, and costs need to be approved during the Product Development period before the business teams place their buys. Every day, I communicate with our vendors to cost styles and create time & action plans so that delivery will be met. We work with our vendors and fabric mills to align and finalize pricing to achieve our margin goals. We also must think strategically about material and vendor allocation to improve lead times and mitigate carbon footprint.

I work hybrid, and our beautiful office is on the Hudson River in Irvington, New York. I enjoy going into the office to spend time with my team and review the product in person. I love my job because I am exposed to so many new and exciting sustainability initiatives every day. I admire everything that EF stands for and that we can promote a “less is more” wardrobe.

Sheng: What are the key steps involved in product development, and how do you collaborate with your sourcing team throughout this process?

Abby: At Eileen Fisher, there are two main stages of the product development process before “commitment”: “development” and “dupe.” At the development stage, we focus on any new materials that are being added to the line. We make sure the costing, testing, and lead times are workable. Then, at the dupe stage, we cost and sample the entire product line so that the merchandising and buying teams have all the information they need to place their buys. After commitment, we pass the baton to the Production team to finalize quantities, issue purchase orders, and track orders. Together, the Product Development

Sheng: Sustainability is a key focus in the fashion apparel industry today. From the product development perspective, what notable improvements have been made in recent years, and where do opportunities lie for further progress?

Abby: Eileen Fisher is leading the way in sustainability within the fashion industry, and it has been incredibly rewarding to be a part of a team where this principle is integrated into every aspect. For example, materials are at the core of EF. We focus on natural, organic, and regenerative materials and steer away from synthetics. Regenerative organic cotton is a new material that I’m really excited about. It all starts with the health of the farm and the people growing our cotton. The regenerative organic certification means that the cotton is grown holistically and healthily, contributing to the soil’s health and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Additionally, the certification has strict social responsibility guidelines, requiring a living wage and safe working conditions for all farmers. This is just one example of innovative improvements that are being made in the material sector. Others include Lenzing Tencel lyocell, regenerative responsible wool, and organic linen.

Another key initiative at Eileen Fisher is our take-back program called “Renew,” where customers bring back their old EF garments in exchange for a $5 store credit. Since the program started in 2009, 2 million garments have been collected. Of the 2 million, 660,885 have been re-sold in stores, and the rest have been donated, repurposed, or downcycled. Some of my favorite EF pieces have actually been purchased from the store’s renewal section! It is also great to see other brands following suit and creating take-back and recycling programs. Clothing waste is an industry-wide problem; we need all hands on deck to make a difference.

Sheng: From your observation, how has the adoption of digital technologies transformed the practices of product development and apparel sourcing?

Abby: Our Product lifecycle management (PLM) system— Centric— has helped streamline the design and product development process tremendously. All teams have access to the PLM system, which allows everyone to be on the same page and easily access any information they might need. For example, designers use the system to set up styles and tech packs, whereas the merchandising team uses the system to line plan and set retails. In my role, I use PLM to enter and land costs and analyze margins. It is dynamic and provides everyone the key tools to succeed while working on multiple seasons at once.

Sheng: Are there any other major trends in the fashion industry that we should closely monitor in the next 1-2 years, particularly in product development and sourcing?

Abby: Traceability and transparency have become increasingly important in the industry. Technology platforms are emerging that can ensure transparency throughout all supply chain tiers using a digital “fiber coin.” The specific platform we use— Textile Genesis—maps the supply chain from fiber to retail to verify any sustainable fibers so that all claims we make are valid. In other words, they ensure the “transactions” between each supply chain step (fiber to yarn to fabric to garment) are authentic. It has been very exciting to see this project come to life, and I feel that platforms like this will become increasingly more prominent in the coming years.

Sheng: What reflections can you share from your experiences at UD and FASH? what advice would you offer to current students preparing for a career in product development and apparel sourcing?

Abby: I am so grateful for my time at UD in the FASH program. I made so many connections with my peers, professors, and alums that have helped me get to where I am now. My advice to current students is to get involved as much as possible, whether through study abroad programs, internships, or clubs. Don’t limit yourself or close yourself off to areas of the industry and embrace any opportunity you get, as you never know where it could lead. My internship with Under Armour in Hong Kong through the FASH study abroad program really helped me grow personally and professionally and I would not be where I am without that experience.

–End–

	Clothing prices fall… on Minimum Wage Level for Garment…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Patterns of Global Textile and…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Hot Button Apparel Trade and S…
	livsupa on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Julia Lampone on New Study: Explore U.S. Retail…
	Julia Lampone on VF Corporation’s Evolving Appa…
	Julia Lampone on Gap Inc.’s Evolving Apparel So…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: