EU Textile and Apparel Industry and Trade Patterns: Discussion Questions from FASH455

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

#1: How do the ‘double transformation‘ rules of origin in most EU free trade agreements benefit or hurt the EU textile and apparel industry? What are the economic, geographic and policy factors behind the growing intra-region textile and apparel trade in the EU?

#2: The EU region is a leading producer of textiles and apparel. What effect do you think the proposed EU-US trade agreement will have on big-name EU fashion brands such as Hugo Boss?  What effect do you think the agreement will have on textile and apparel production in the EU as a whole?

#3: Why or why not do you think the EU textile and apparel industry is immune to the ongoing US-China tariff war?

#4: Comparing VF Corporation with Hugo Boss, what are the similarities and differences of their sourcing strategies? How might their respective sourcing strategy involve in the next 3-5 years and why?

#5: With such an emphasis on the merging of technology, data analytics, and differentiation in the textile and apparel industry worldwide, do you think it is possible for a small European apparel brand to compete with larger companies in the region? If so, how?

Additional reading; The EU-28 Textile and Clothing Industry in the year 2018

(Welcome to our online discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two questions and mention the question # in your reply)

VF Case Study Update (October 2019)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

(Slide above: VF Corporation European Headquarter; Photo Credits: Hannah Wilson)

VF Business Operation General

V.F. Corporation (VF) designs, manufactures, distributes and markets branded lifestyle apparel, footwear and accessories. The company offers Jeanswear, outdoor and action sports, image wear, sportswear, and contemporary brands. The company markets its products under brands namely, the North Face, Wrangler, Timberland, Vans, Lee, and Nautica, among others. It sells its products to specialty stores, department stores, national chains, and mass merchants, as well as through direct-to-consumer channel consisting of VF operated stores and internet sites.

VF forecasts to achieve $13.7 billion revenue in the fiscal year 2019, up 11% 4.6 from 2018. Gross margin% of the company improved from 48.3% in 2016 to 50.5% in 2018 as benefits from pricing, lower product costs, and a mix shift toward higher-margin businesses. However, gross margin% was partially offset by changes in foreign currency and the impact of restructuring charges. 

Untitled

VF Sourcing Strategy

Untitled.jpg

VF’s centralized global supply chain organization is responsible for producing, procuring and delivering products to its customers. On an annual basis, VF sources or produces approximately 473 million units spread across more than 30 brands. In 2019, VF’s products are obtained from 19 VF-operated manufacturing facilities and approximately 700 independent contractor manufacturing facilities in over approximately 60 countries. [Note, in 2017, VF’s products were obtained from its 21 self-operated manufacturing facilities and approximately 1,000 contractor manufacturing facilities in over 50 countries.] No single supplier represents more than 10% of VF’s total cost of goods sold. Further, in 2019, 13% of VF’s units were manufactured in VF-owned facilities (down from 23% in 2017) and 87% were obtained from independent contractors. 

VF operates manufacturing facilities in the U.S., Mexico, Central, and South America, the Caribbean and Europe. A significant percentage of denim bottoms and occupational apparel is manufactured in these plants, as well as a smaller percentage of footwear and other products. 

For VF’s self-owned production facilities, VF purchases raw materials from numerous U.S. and international suppliers to meet their production needs. Raw materials include products made from cotton, leather, rubber, wool, synthetics, and blends of cotton and synthetic yarn, as well as thread and trim (product identification, buttons, zippers, snaps, eyelets, and laces). Products manufactured in VF facilities generally have a lower cost and shorter lead times than products procured from independent contractors.

Independent contractors generally own the raw materials and ship finished, ready-for-sale products to VF. These contractors are engaged through VF sourcing hubs in Hong Kong (with satellite offices across Asia) and Panama. These hubs are responsible for managing the manufacturing and procurement of products, supplier oversight, product quality assurance, sustainability within the supply chain, responsible sourcing and transportation and shipping functions. In addition, VF’s hubs leverage proprietary knowledge and technology to enable certain contractors to more effectively control costs and improve labor efficiency. Substantially all products in the Outdoor & Action Sports and Sportswear coalitions, as well as a portion of products for VF Jeanswear and Imagewear coalitions, are obtained through these sourcing hubs.

Products obtained from contractors in the Western Hemisphere generally have a higher cost than products obtained from contractors in Asia. However, contracting in the Western Hemisphere gives VF greater flexibility, shorter lead times and allows for lower inventory levels.

This combination of VF-owned and contracted production, along with different geographic regions and cost structures, provides a well-balanced, flexible approach to product sourcing. VF intends to continue to manage its supply chain from a global perspective and adjust as needed to changes in the global production environment (VF Annual Report, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019).

“Third-Way” Sourcing Update

1

VF has the goal of 40/40/20 for factory ownership. They want to own 40% of the factories they use, utilize the third-way approach in 40% of the factories, and use transactional sourcing for the other 20% (Glaser, 2014).

VF has expanded its Third-Way manufacturing program to sub-Sahara Africa, in addition to the third way factories VF works within Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Dominic Republic, and Nicaragua. VF is looking into Africa because, while Africa may not be as efficient as Asia currently, there is potential to get it to 80% efficiency in the coming years. It could also be cheaper to source from Africa given the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) with the United States

Since its creation, VF has split its “Third-Way” factories into three different categories: light, medium, and heavy. Light Third-Way is having engineers consult with the factories and visit each week. The medium Third-Way involves having an engineer on site and a long-term commitment to the supplier from VF. Lastly, the heavy Third-Way involves profit-share and open book costing as well as sharing of research and development (R&D) (Barrie, 2015). 

Trust continues to be a central theme in Third-Way sourcing, as does having the right people on board with the initiative. VF also believes that any positive changes made to the factories because of the Third-Way program will ultimately help the whole industry and drive positive change, even if the changes are used for other companies that source from the same vendor (Barrie, 2015).

On May 22, 2019, VF finished spin off the group’s denim and outlet businesses into an independent, publicly-traded company. The new company, called “Kontoor Brands Inc“, comprises VF’s jeans brands, including Wrangler Lee, and the VF Outlet business.  VF says that the move will sharpen its focus as a global clothing and footwear powerhouse focused on lifestyle brands such as The North Face, Timberland and Vans. However, VF also admits that the Kontoor Brands spin-off could result in substantial tax liability to the company and its stockholders.

Japan’s Apparel Sourcing Patterns

Untitled.jpg

(The full article is available HERE)

Key findings:

First, the total value of Japan’s apparel imports has been growing steadily in line with consumption patterns. Between 2010 and 2018, the value of Japan’s apparel imports enjoyed a 2.7% compound annual growth rate, which was lower than the US (3.4%), but higher than the EU (1.9%) and the world average (1.3%) over the same period.

Second, while China remains the top supplier, Japanese fashion brands and retailers are also diversifying their sourcing bases. Similar to their counterparts in the US and EU, Japanese fashion brands and retailers are actively seeking alternatives. Imports from Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have been growing particularly fast, even though their production capacity and market shares are still far behind China.

helmut-lang-cream-silk-v-neck-asymmetrical-sweaterpullover-size-0-xs-4-0-960-960.jpg

Third, Japanese fashion companies are increasingly sourcing from Asia. As of 2018, only 7.5% of Japan’s apparel imports came from non-Asian countries (mostly western EU countries), a notable drop from 11.4% back in 2000. A good proportion of Japan’s apparel imports from Asia actually contain fibers and yarns originally made in Japan. For example, it is not difficult to find clothing labeled ‘Made in China’ or ‘Made in Vietnam’ that also includes phrases such as ‘Using soft, slow-spun Japanese fabric’ and ‘With Japanese yarns’ in the detailed product description.

Fourth, overall, Japan sets a lower tariff barrier for apparel than other leading import countries. As of September 2019, there were around 15 FTAs and TPAs in force in Japan, whose members include several 1st tier apparel supplying countries in Asia, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia. Most of these trade programs adopt the so-called “fabric-forward” rules of origin (also known as “double-transformation” rules of origin). Additionally, Japan is actively engaged in negotiations on a trilateral free trade agreement with China and South Korea, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which involves Japan, South Korea, China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) countries. Once reached and implemented, these trade agreements will provide new exciting duty-saving sourcing opportunities, including from China, the top apparel exporter in the world.

New Report: Fashion’s New Must-have—Sustainable Sourcing at Scale

Untitled

The study was based on a survey of 64 sourcing executives from vertical apparel retailers, hybrid wholesalers, and sportswear companies, with a total sourcing volume of $100 billion. Below are the key findings of the report:

  • More sourcing executives now focus on process improvements in their companies, such as sustainability and transparency (56% of respondents), digitalization of sourcing process and related areas (45% of respondents), consolidation of supplier base (42% of respondents), end-to-end process efficiency (41% of respondents) than shifting sourcing countries (20% of respondents). Related, as cost gaps between sourcing destinations are narrowing, apparel companies are shifting from minimizing the price of supply to a focus on customer-centric, agile product development to meet customer demand. Digitalization, such as intelligent sourcing, is one of the most promising areas.
  • Affected by the on-going U.S.-China tariff war, two-thirds of surveyed companies expect their overall sourcing cost to increase in the years ahead, including 37.5% expecting a 2-4% increase and 25% expecting 1-2% increase. However, only 3.1% of respondents expect a significant cost increase (>4%).
  • Echoing the findings of other recent studies, respondents plan to source relatively less from China through 2025. Bangladesh, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Ethiopia are among the top alternative sourcing destinations. Meanwhile, more companies are considering near-sourcing. The biggest challenge, however, is limited fabric production capacity, NOT higher wages.
  • Sustainable apparel sourcing is regarded as a must—70% of EU companies and 35% of North American companies surveyed say “responsible and sustainable sourcing was on the CEO agenda.” Top challenges to achieve sustainable apparel sourcing include “no common, objective industry standard on sustainable sourcing”, “consumers lack a clear picture of what sustainable fashion is all about”, “mixed influence of the sourcing function in company-wide sustainability strategy.” Further, more companies prioritize environmental-sustainability initiatives (issues such as sustainable material, recycled material, traceability, and packing) than social sustainability initiatives (issues such as) fair on living wage and decent work). Additionally, respondents hold competing views on whether sustainability will increase sourcing costs overall. Around 58% of respondents see additional costs for sustainable sourcing between 1% and 5%.
  • Sustainability will play an increasingly important role in how apparel companies select their suppliers. Some surveyed apparel brands and retailers say they have upgraded their supplier ratings over the last couple of years, moving away from viewing sustainability simply as a compliance-based hygiene factor and instead embracing criteria that are more sophisticated.
  • There is also a need to shift from the transactional-based, season-by-season and the low-commitment relationship between apparel companies and their vendors to strategic partnerships between the two. Around 73% of respondents plan to consolidate their supplier base by at least 5% over the next few years. Related, apparel companies increasingly empower suppliers for self-auditing with tools like the Higg Index.

Textile and Apparel Products Covered by the U.S.-China Tariff War Reference List (updated October 2019)

(You may also download this post in PDF

picture 1

2

US China tariff war reference list (September 12, 2019)_Page_4.jpg

Appendix: Links for the Product List (updated October 14, 2019)

by Sheng Lu

State of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: Output, Employment, and Trade (Updated September 2019)

1

The size of the U.S. textile and apparel industry has significantly shrunk over the past decades. However, U.S. textile manufacturing is gradually coming back. The value added of U.S. textile manufacturing totaled $19 billion in 2018, up 25% from 2009 and reaching its highest level in the past ten years. In comparison, U.S. apparel manufacturing dropped to $9.2 billion in 2018, its lowest level in history (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019).

2

Nevertheless, the share of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropped to only 0.14% in 2018 from 0.57% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019).

3.jpg

The U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing is also changing in nature. For example, textiles had accounted for nearly 70% of the total output of the U.S. textile and apparel industry as of 2018, up from 58% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019). Meanwhile, clothing had only accounted for 12% of the total U.S. fiber production by 2012, suggesting non-apparel textile products, such as industrial textiles and home textiles have become a more important part of the industry (Census Bureau, 2019).

4.jpg

5

Despite the growing popularity of “Made in the USA”, manufacturing jobs are NOT coming back to the U.S. textile and apparel industry. From January 2005 to August 2019, employment in the U.S. textile manufacturing (NAICS 313 and 314) and apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315) declined by 44.3% and 59.3% respectively (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). However, improved productivity is one important factor behind the job losses.

7

6

8

10

Consistent with the theoretical prediction, U.S. remains a net textile exporter and a net apparel importer. In 2018, the U.S. enjoyed a $1391million trade surplus in textiles and suffered a $79,406 million trade deficit in apparel (USITC, 2019). Notably, over 40% of U.S.-made textiles (NAICS 313 and 314) were sold overseas in 2018, up from only 15% in 2000. Meanwhile, from 2009 to 2018, the value of U.S. yarns and fabrics exports increased by 31.3% and 43.6% respectively (OTEXA, 2019). On the other hand, because of the regional trade patterns, close to 70% of U.S. textile and apparel export still, go to the western hemisphere today.

by Sheng Lu

Discussion questions:

  1. Why or why not do you think the U.S. textile industry and the apparel industry are in good shape?
  2. Based on the statistics, do you think textile and apparel “Made in the USA” have a future? Please explain.
  3. What are the top challenges facing the U.S. textile industry and the apparel industry in today’s global economy?

WTO Reports World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2018

1

2.jpg

According to the World Trade Statistical Review 2019 newly released by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current dollar value of world textiles (SITC 65) and apparel (SITC 84) exports totaled $315 billion and $505 billion in 2018 respectively, increased by 6.4% and 11.1% from a year earlier. This has been the fastest growth of world textile and apparel trade since 2012. Specifically: 

I. Textile export

China, European Union (EU28), and India remained the world’s top three exporters of textiles in 2018. Altogether, these top three accounted for 66.9% of world textile exports in 2018, a new record high since 2011. Notably, China and EU (28) also enjoyed a faster-than-world-average export growth in 2018, up 7.9% and 6.9% respectively. The United States remained the world’s fourth top textile exporter in 2018, accounting for 4.4% of the shares, down slightly from 4.6% in 2017.

II. Apparel export

China, the European Union (EU28), Bangladesh, and Vietnam unshakably remained the world’s top four largest exporters in 2018. Altogether, these top four accounted for as much as 72.3% of world market shares in 2018, which, however, was lower than 75.8% in 2017 and 74.3% in 2016—primarily due to China’s declining market shares. Notably, even though apparel exports from Vietnam (up 13.4%) and Bangladesh (up 11.1%) enjoyed a fast growth in absolute terms in 2018, their gains in market shares were quite limited (up 0.3 percentage point from 5.9% to 6.2% for Vietnam and up 0.1 percentage point from 6.4% to 6.5% for Bangladesh). This result once again suggests that due to capacity limits, no single country has emerged to become the “Next China.” Instead, China’s lost market shares in apparel exports were fulfilled by a group of countries, a phenomenon which can be linked with fashion brands and retailers’ sourcing diversification strategy.

III. Textile import

The European Union (EU28), the United States, and China were the top three largest importers of textiles in 2018, accounting for 37.5% of the world’s total textile imports that year. Although the market shares of the top three in 2018 were close to 37.7% a year earlier, it nevertheless was much lower than over 50% back in the 2000s. The increasing diversification of textile import market is associated with the shifting pattern of world apparel manufacturing and export closely.

IV. Apparel import

Affected by consumers’ purchasing power (often measured by GDP per capita) and size of the population, the European Union, the United States, and Japan remained the world’s top three importers of apparel in 2018. Altogether, these top three absorbed 61.5% of world apparel in 2018, which, however, was lower than 62.3% in 2017 and a significant drop from 84% back in 2005. Behind the result, it is not the case that consumers in the EU, U.S., and Japan are importing less clothing. Instead, several emerging economies (such as China) are becoming fast-growing apparel consumption markets and starting to import more. As consumers’ purchasing power in these emerging economies continues to improve, we could expect a more diversified world apparel import market in the years ahead.

textile

clothing.jpg

Additional reading: Latest trends in world textile and apparel trade