Category: FASH455 course material

FASH455 Video Discussion: Vietnam Garment Factory Tour (updated: October 2025)

About the factory

  • The factory is a foreign direct investment (FDI) operation in central Vietnam specializing in ODM (Original Design Manufacturing) — producing ready-made designs that can be customized for private labels. Specific products include sportswear, casual wear, workwear, and uniforms.
  • The factory hires about 500 workers, and it aims to increase the size to 700-1000 workers, which was the pre-COVID level. The monthly pay averaged about $400.
  • The garment factory mainly exports to the U.S., Europe, and Brazil. The factory can do both full package sourcing (i.e., manages the entire production process, from procuring materials to manufacturing, quality control, and packaging—delivering finished goods ready for export) and CMT sourcing (i.e., cut make and trim–buyer provides the materials and designs, while the supplier only performs garment assembly, sewing, and finishing).
  • The factory mostly uses woven fabrics, and they are mainly sourced from China and Europe. Other sources include Taiwan, Thailand, and Malaysia. Some fabrics are Oeko-Tex certified, given the growing importance of using sustainable materials.
  • To meet the rules of origin requirements under free trade agreements (FTAs), such as the EU-Vietnam FTA, Vietnam is making efforts to enhance its local textile manufacturing capability.
  • To meet the clients’ needs, the factory has received several certifications related to social compliance and sustainability, including WRAP, BSCI, and ISO 9000.
  • Textile waste is partly sold or donated (e.g., blankets and jackets for local communities).

For FASH455 class: When writing your blog comment, consider addressing the following aspects:

  • How does the video help you understand the complexity of apparel sourcing?
  • Based on the video, what is your evaluation of the strengths of the factory as an apparel sourcing base for US fashion companies? Any specific area in which the factory can be improved?
  • If you have the chance to visit a garment factory, what would you focus on evaluating and why?

Additional reading: Vietnam overtakes China as US’s top apparel supplier (FDi intelligence, Financial Times, October 8, 2025)

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Nicole Bivens Collinson, Managing Principal and Practice Leader of International Trade and Government Relations, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

About the interview

When learning about apparel sourcing and trade, our students often notice how much they are affected by trade policies and regulations—from tariffs, and something called “de minimis” to UFLPA. These issues are not only critical for fashion companies but can also be quite technical.

We are fortunate to have Nicole Bivens Collinson, Managing Principal and Practice Leader of International Trade and Government Relations of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R), a true expert in trade policy and the legal aspects of trade, join us. In the interview, Nicole clarified key U.S. trade rules and provided valuable insights into their apparel sourcing and trade implications, including:

  • What is a tariff, and why is it a big issue for US fashion brands and retailers?
  • Why have the so-called IEEPA “reciprocal tariffs” imposed by the Trump administration so far this year raised so many concerns?
  • What does the term “transshipment” mean in international trade? And why did this issue emerge in the context of higher tariffs this year?
  • What is the “20% US content” rule and its implications for fashion companies?
  • What is “tariff engineering”? Is it legal or illegal? How have fashion companies used it to mitigate the tariff impacts, potentially?
  • What is de minimis? Why was it created, and then became controversial? Since the “de minimis” rule was officially terminated recently, what impacts could we expect now? 
  • What is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and what does it aim to do? How has the implementation of the UFLPA affected U.S. fashion companies’ apparel sourcing?
  • For fashion students interested in working in trade compliance, trade policy, or the legal aspects of the fashion industry, what steps can they take to get started?

About Nicole Bivens Collinson

Nicole Bivens Collinson is the Managing Principal and Practice Leader of International Trade and Government Relations with Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (ST&R). Nicole is a commentator on trade matters on MSNBC, NPR, and BBC the producer of the Two Minutes in Trade podcast.

Nicole has nearly 40 years of experience in government and public affairs and lobbying. She prepares countries, companies, and associations for negotiations with the United States on free trade agreements, trade and investment agreements, labor disputes, and preferential trade programs.

Prior to joining ST&R, Nicole served as assistant chief negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, responsible for the negotiation of bilateral agreements with Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Sub-Continent, and Africa. She also served as a country specialist in the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, where she was responsible for the preparation of negotiations on specific topics between the U.S. and Latin America, Eastern Europe, China, and Hong Kong as well as the administration of complex textile agreements.

Nicole holds a master’s degree in international relations from The George Washington University and a triple bachelor’s degree in political science, European studies, and French from Georgetown College. She also studied at the Université de Caen in France.

Nicole is past chair of the Women in International Trade Charitable Trust, past president of Women in International Trade, an advisory board member of America’s TradePolicy.com, treasurer and board member of the Washington International Trade Association, and a member of the Washington International Trade Association Foundation and Women in Government Relations. She serves on the board of trustees for Georgetown College and is the past executive director for the U.S. Hosiery Manufacturers Coalition, the U.S. Apparel Industry Coalition, and the U.S. Sock Distributors Coalition.

About Katie Yasik (moderator)

Katie Yasik is a master’s student & graduate instructor in Fashion and Apparel Studies (FASH) at the University of Delaware (UD). Katie graduated from UD & FASH with a B.S. in Fashion Design and Product Innovation & Sustainable Apparel minor. Driven by her strong passion for sustainability, she interned with the Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) in Spring 2024.

2025 World Trade Report: Making Trade and AI Work Together to the Benefit of All

The World Trade Organization (WTO) recently released its 2025 World Trade Report, which explored the complex and fast-evolving relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and international trade.

Below are the findings most relevant to the textiles and fashion apparel sector:

First, AI has the potential to boost global trade. However, the impact on different sectors varies. According to the report, AI is expected to significantly boost global trade by 34-37% between 2025 and 2040, with larger increases in digitally deliverable services (around 40% growth), followed by other services (around 30%). In comparison, the AI-driven growth of global trade in the manufacturing sector (22-24%) and the primary input sector (9.5-9.9%) will be much smaller.

Second, AI is helping to reduce trade costs through multiple channels. For example, as the report noted, AI can help reduce trade costs through “optimizing trade logistics, streamlining regulatory compliance and contract enforcement, reducing language barriers, enhancing international communication, and improving search and matching processes between suppliers and buyers.” As another example, the report noted that, “in retail, AI-supported scenario planning has helped firms to diversify suppliers and adjust sourcing calendars to align with changing tariff regimes.” All of these AI applications could be used in apparel sourcing and trade.

In a March 2025 survey conducted by the WTO and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) among firms currently using AI, 90 percent reported tangible benefits in trade-related activities, and 56 percent reported that AI enhanced their ability to manage trade risks. The survey also found that “Larger firms primarily use AI for compliance with trade regulations, contract analysis, and trade finance. Smaller firms, in contrast, tend to focus on market intelligence and improving communication.”

Third, AI’s impact on jobs seems to be complicated.  For example, the report suggests that AI will have limited impacts on low-skilled apparel manufacturing jobs, but could replace middle-skilled and high-skilled jobs (such as those in apparel wholesaling and retailing). According to the report, “The task substitution from human labor to AI is more pronounced for medium-skilled and high-skilled occupations than for low-skilled ones.”

Meanwhile, the report categorized textiles and apparel manufacturing (ISIC code 13-15) as a “low” AI-intensity sector, and wholesale and retail (ISIC code 45-47) as “medium” AI-intensive. Nonetheless, the report estimates only a modest share of tasks to be replaced by AI—about 3% for low-skilled and 7–9% for medium- and high-skilled workers.

Fourth, the report calls for “deliberate efforts” by policymakers to broaden AI access and ensure the gains from AI will be evenly distributed globally. In other words, without targeted, proactive policymaking, AI could worsen global inequalities rather than reduce them.

For example, the report suggests that AI could act as an equalizer by increasing the productivity of medium- and low-skilled workers in developing economies. Combined with lower trade costs for cross-border services, these improvements could create more opportunities for companies and professionals in developing economies to engage more actively in global markets.

However, the report also warned that “AI may shift comparative advantages in ways that reinforce inequality.” Notably, “AI adoption is not uniform, as it tends to cluster in large, urban, digitally connected firms in high-income economies… AI technology favors capital- and data-intensive production, which could erode the competitiveness of economies that rely on low-skilled and low-cost labor.”

Additionally, the report noted that trade barriers remain an issue for international trade in the AI era. For example, AI-enabling goods are increasingly affected by technical barriers to trade (TBT). Also, AI-intensive services still face significant restrictions on trade as countries have only made modest commitments under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Furthermore, regulations on cross-border data flows are still largely fragmented. This explains why the WTO could still play a vital role in supporting AI development, from promoting open markets in AI-related goods and services, to supporting AI innovation and diffusion through intellectual property rights protection, and to encouraging greater regulatory consistency on trade-related aspects of AI.

Summary by Sheng Lu

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

For FASH455 class: When writing your blog comment, consider addressing the following aspects:

  • How do you see the importance of the garment industry to Lesotho—economically, socially, and politically?
  • Why and how could the 15% additional tariff have a significant impact on Lesotho’s garment industry?
  • What responsibilities do U.S. fashion brands and retailers have toward Lesotho in the situation described in the videos?
  • 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.

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Karin De León, Investment and Promotion Director, Apparel and Textiles Association of Guatemala (VESTEX)

About Karin De León

Karin De León has been working in the textile and apparel sector in Guatemala for more than 25 years, promoting the development of the industrial cluster, participating in the creation of strategies, supporting the strengthening of the supply chain, and attracting investment.

As part of her role at the Apparel and Textile Association of Guatemala (VESTEX), for 10 years she held the position of Executive Director of CECATEC-RD (Central American and Dominican Council of Clothing and Textiles), the entity that integrates textile & apparel industry associations of Central America and the Dominican Republic and which is responsible for coordinating the inter-institutional relationship with public and private entities of the United States of America, Mexico and Colombia mainly.

From 2020 to the beginning of 2022, she served as Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Economy of Guatemala and later became General Coordinator of the National Competitiveness Program (PRONACOM), a government entity responsible for promoting the country and attracting investment.

Karin is currently VESTEX’s investment and promotion director, and representative of Guatemala in CECATEC-RD. She coordinates the inter-institutional relationship with government entities of the United States (such as the United States Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce) as well as private institutions mainly related to the United States, Mexico, and Colombia.

Sheng: Can you provide a brief introduction to VESTEX and a general overview of your member companies?

Karin: VESTEX is the Apparel and Textile Association of Guatemala, a private association representing the Guatemalan textile and apparel export sector. It focuses on promoting the industry’s exports through strategic alliances with public and private institutions at the national and international levels.  Its strategic axes are Sectoral Resilience, which seeks to position the industry as a generator of investment and formal employment in the country; Sectoral Sustainability, through the promotion of sustainability as a long-term strategy for industry continuity and compliance, providing companies in the sector with tools that facilitate compliance with the obligations established in the laws and regulations.

VESTEX partners comprise companies that integrate the entire supply chain of the apparel and textile sector, encompassing yarn and fabric manufacturers, apparel producers, as well as firms providing specialized services and accessories to the industry.

Sheng: Studies show that there is consistent interest among U.S. fashion companies in expanding nearshoring from the Western Hemisphere, including Guatemala. What is your observation? What makes Guatemala an attractive destination for apparel sourcing today? What are the unique advantages of sourcing from the country?

Karin:Guatemala has become an increasingly attractive destination for apparel sourcing due to its unique combination of industrial integration, geographic advantages, and strong compliance standards. The country offers a highly integrated apparel cluster that encompasses every stage of the supply chain—from spinning yarn and weaving fabrics to apparel manufacturing, printing, finishing, and packaging. This full-package model not only streamlines operations and enhances traceability but also allows for greater flexibility and product diversity, raising the added value of garments and positioning Guatemala as a competitive supplier for niche and complex products requiring skilled labor and high-quality materials.

Another key differentiator is Guatemala’s strategic location. With access to ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts—separated by only 249 miles—the country can efficiently serve both the East and West coasts of the United States. Guatemala manages the second-largest maritime cargo operation in Central America (after Panama), which is critical for companies seeking to balance and mitigate geopolitical and logistical risks. In addition, proximity to the U.S. substantially reduces environmental impact: sourcing from Guatemala lowers CO₂ emissions from maritime transport by approximately 84% compared to sourcing from Asia. Transit times are also highly competitive, with shipments reaching Miami in as little as three days, enabling U.S. buyers to manage inventories more effectively and respond to market demands with agility.

Equally important, Guatemalan apparel companies operate under a strong framework of labor and environmental compliance. Companies demonstrate a full-spectrum commitment to input traceability, adherence to strict rules of origin, and continuous process improvement to reduce resource consumption. Investments in monitoring and ESG systems underscore their transparency and alignment with global sustainability standards.

Taken together, this integration of cluster capabilities, geographic proximity, and compliance with international norms positions Guatemala as a reliable, sustainable, and strategically advantageous sourcing partner for U.S. fashion companies.

Sheng: How important is the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) in supporting Guatemala’s apparel exports to the U.S. market? What impact do CAFTA-DR’s apparel-specific rules of origin have on garment exporters’ supply chains and export strategies in Guatemala?

Karin:CAFTA-DR has provided certainty by encouraging long-term investments in textile infrastructure and capabilities. CAFTA-DR has been the basis for the development of Guatemala’s apparel industry.  The yarn-forward rule established under the agreement has not only fostered integration with the U.S. supply chain but also promoted stronger collaboration among Central American countries. By allowing the accumulation of inputs and processes within the region, CAFTA-DR has significantly strengthened intraregional trade.

This integration has facilitated the specialization of each Central American country. In Guatemala’s case, it has enabled the use of specific yarns and fabrics produced in other countries and manufactured locally, fostering a greater diversification of production.

According to OTEXA figures, in the year ending June 2025, 89.17% of Guatemala’s total apparel exports to the U.S. entered under the Free Trade Agreement preferences. Of this total, 79.69% qualified under the yarn-forward rule—that is, garments made with yarn from the U.S. or yarn produced within one of the Central American countries. CAFTA-DR, and particularly its rules of origin, have been the basis of Guatemala’s strategy in recent years, not only to attract foreign direct investment but also to encourage significant reinvestments.

Sheng: Data shows that an increasing share of yarns and fabrics used by Guatemala garment factories are now locally made in Guatemala and other Central American countries. Could you discuss the recent trends in textile manufacturing capacity building in Guatemala, as well as the industry’s current priorities in building a more vertically integrated regional supply chain?

Karin:Guatemala offers a series of competitive advantages that are reinforcing its role as a regional hub for textile and apparel manufacturing. At the country level, it benefits from a stable macroeconomy, a solid exchange rate, competitive electricity prices within the region, and a reliable energy supply. At the industry level, Guatemala stands out for its robust apparel and textile cluster and highly skilled workforce.

Since the pandemic in 2020, when many global companies accelerated nearshoring strategies, Guatemala has successfully attracted new foreign investment and supported the expansion of companies already established in the country, particularly in the spinning industry. Installed capacity is primarily focused on cotton, although blends are also produced. By the end of 2024, apparel exported to the U.S. consisted of 62.8% cotton, 36.4% synthetics, and 0.8% wool, reflecting the central role of cotton in the country’s production while also showing diversification into other fibers.

Driven by shifting market demand, textile production in Guatemala has been expanding beyond knits, with a modest increase in woven fabrics as well. Investments in innovation and technology have enabled the industry to offer specialized processes, including antimicrobial treatments, absorption, UPF protection, enzymatic washing, softening, and plush finishing, among others. A particularly important advancement has been the investment in elastic knit fabrics, which has opened the door to the production of categories such as sportswear, intimate apparel (seamless), shapewear (technical lingerie and compression fabrics), and medical textiles.

We recognize, however, that there remain challenges and opportunities to broaden the regional textile offering—particularly in the production of yarns and fabrics made from fibers not yet manufactured locally. Expanding capacity in these areas would further strengthen vertical integration and supply chain resilience.

In this context, VESTEX has taken a leading role in supporting and guiding companies interested in exploring these opportunities. In coordination with Guatemala’s foreign direct investment promotion agency, efforts are underway to identify high-demand inputs that are currently unavailable in the region but represent strategic opportunities for local production.

Sheng: Since April 2025, U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR countries, including Guatemala, are subject to a new 10% “reciprocal tariff.” How has this tariff increase and the Trump administration’s trade policy so far impacted Guatemala’s garment industry and exports? 

Karin:The main challenge for Guatemala’s apparel industry under the current U.S. trade policy has been the high degree of uncertainty. Markets and buyers demand stability, yet in recent months orders have slowed significantly as companies await clarity on the tariffs that will ultimately apply to each country. This hesitation has already resulted in lost opportunities: seasonal orders cannot be recovered once the selling window has passed.

Traditionally, Guatemala’s apparel sector grows between 3% and 5% annually; however, 2025 projections have been revised downward, and current expectations suggest growth closer to 1–2%. According to the Central Bank of Guatemala, as of June 2025, exports registered a modest 1.36% increase—well below what was anticipated under normal conditions.

Another major impact has been the need for companies to absorb additional costs to maintain contracts with international brands. This has reduced profit margins, limited reinvestment capacity, and increased pressure on already tight production cycles. Buyers face uncertainty as well: they do not know how much a garment ordered today will cost by the time it is delivered six to nine months later, since tariff rates are subject to abrupt changes. The volatility recalls past episodes in China, where tariffs under former President Trump rose as high as 145% before being reduced to 30%, creating unpredictable supply conditions.

That said, Guatemala continues to hold a relative tariff advantage compared with Asian competitors, where rates now reach 15%, 18%, 25%, or even higher. This gap may ultimately favor Guatemala if U.S. buyers reconfigure sourcing strategies to prioritize suppliers who are both geographically closer and more reliable. Indeed, global sourcing is shifting away from a purely low-cost model toward one that values resilience, speed to market, and compliance.

Sheng: The 2025 US Fashion Industry Association Benchmarking Study indicates that U.S. fashion companies are increasingly seeking sourcing destinations that can provide sustainable apparel products, including those made with preferred fibers such as organic, recycled, regenerative, and biodegradable materials. What strategies or recent initiatives has the Guatemalan textile and apparel industry undertaken to meet this demand for sustainability?

Karin: Guatemalan mills already source recycled polyester yarns, organic or regenerative cotton, and biodegradable materials. Brands are actively demanding these products. In fact, mills have obtained various certifications and adhere to practices focused on circular economy, science-based target initiatives, and other sustainability standards.

Traceability is key for the textile and apparel industry, and Guatemala has managed to implement measures such as data management and continuous improvement as a way to demonstrate this.

  • Adoption of Sustainable Certifications and Standards: Guatemalan manufacturers are obtaining certifications like GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), OEKO-TEX, Global Recycled Standard, Recycled Claim Standard, Blue Sign, Higg FEM, among others, ensuring their products meet international sustainability standards.
  • Investment in Technologies: Many mills are upgrading to water and energy-efficient machinery, as well as more sustainable dyeing and finishing processes.
  • Training and Capacity Building: Initiatives to train and certify workers and management on sustainable practices and standards are increasing, promoting a culture of sustainability throughout the industry.
  • Integration of Circular Economy Principles: Some mills are exploring design for recyclability techniques to align with circular economy goals.

These initiatives collectively position the Guatemalan textile and apparel sector as a viable sourcing destination for sustainable fashion, aligning with global market trends and buyer preferences for more sustainable products.

Sheng: In addition to the questions discussed earlier, what are the top business and policy issues facing Guatemala’s textile and apparel industry over the next 1–2 years?

Karin:Over the next 1–2 years, Guatemala’s textile and apparel industry will face several pressing business and policy issues that will shape its competitiveness.

1. Infrastructure and logistics.
A key issue remains the need to strengthen national infrastructure, particularly ports, customs processes, and internal transport routes.

2. Limited availability of regional inputs.
The industry continues to face constraints in the local production of certain yarns, fabrics, and specialized fibers. Inputs such as viscose, spandex, and rayon are not yet manufactured in the region at scale, which limits vertical integration and forces reliance on imports from outside the hemisphere. Expanding textile capacity in these areas is a central issue to ensure resilience and broaden the exportable supply.

3. Market visibility and buyer perception.
Despite its high level of integration, many international buyers remain unaware of Guatemala’s strengths in complex products, compliance, and sustainability. A persistent challenge is to raise global awareness of the country’s capabilities in order to capture greater sourcing opportunities.

4. Policy uncertainty and trade volatility.
The recent 10% reciprocal tariff applied to CAFTA-DR countries has introduced significant uncertainty. Buyers hesitate to place long-term orders when tariff levels are unclear, and this volatility affects sourcing decisions. Stability and predictability in trade policy remain critical issues for the sector.

5. Differentiation and specialization under nearshoring.
Another key challenge is sustaining competitiveness through higher-value products. Today, 54.11% of Guatemala’s apparel exports already include advanced finishing processes, and the industry is investing in spinning, woven fabrics, and technical textiles. However, scaling these capabilities requires reinvestment and foreign capital inflows—both of which are being constrained by global uncertainty. Given that Guatemala currently supplies only about 2% of U.S. apparel imports, a major issue ahead is how to convert this untapped potential into tangible growth.

In short, while the country is positioning itself strategically with competitive tariffs, geographic proximity, and an increasingly sophisticated textile base, the top issues over the next two years will be overcoming infrastructure and logistics bottlenecks, reducing dependence on imported inputs, strengthening promotion to buyers, and navigating trade policy volatility. Addressing these challenges will be crucial for Guatemala to capitalize on long-term opportunities in the ongoing global supply chain reconfiguration.

-The End-

2025 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The 2026 fashion industry benchmarking study is now available.

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)

[This blog post is no longer open for discussion and comment]

Impacts of Trump’s Escalating Tariffs on Apparel Sourcing: U.S. Fashion Companies’ Perspective

Updated study available: Updated Impact of Increasing Tariffs on U.S. Fashion Companies’ Sourcing and Businesses (October 2025)

(Note: The figure above shows how frequently the term “tariff” was mentioned alongside other key issues in the earnings calls. A higher frequency indicates a more significant impact and a closer connection between tariffs and a specific theme.)

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 approximately 25 leading publicly traded U.S. fashion companies were collected. These earnings calls, held between mid-May and June 2025, covered company performance in the first quarter of 2025. A thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted using MAXQDA.

Overall, the results indicate that the Trump administration’s escalating tariffs and policy uncertainties have financially hurt U.S. fashion companies and disrupted their apparel sourcing practices. To mitigate these impacts, most companies plan to further reduce their “China exposure,” maintain a geographically diversified sourcing base, and prioritize flexibility in sourcing and shipping. However, there is no clear evidence that the current policy environment has successfully incentivized U.S. companies to expand apparel sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, let alone commit to new long-term investments. Meanwhile, U.S. fashion companies have adopted a strategic pricing approach by not passing the entire cost increase to consumers through widespread retail price hikes.

A few key findings:

First, far from surprising, many leading U.S. fashion companies expressed concerns that the Trump administration’s escalating tariffs have resulted in higher sourcing costs and cut companies’ profit margins. For example:

  • Company G (specialty store): if current tariffs of 30% on most imports from China and 10% on most imports from other countries remain for the balance of the year, we estimate a gross incremental cost of approximately $250 million to $300 million.
  • Company O (a parent company of several leading apparel brands): We expect that gross margin will contract approximately 200 basis points for the year. This contraction includes $40 million in additional tariff costs.
  • Company V1 (underwear brand): gross tariff impact of approximately $120 million, which assumes 30% China tariffs and 10% non-China, with tariff mitigation of approximately $70 million for a net impact to fiscal year 2025 of approximately $50 million.

Second, with the hiking tariff rate on U.S. apparel imports from China and increasing strategic competition between the two countries, many leading U.S. fashion companies plan to reduce their apparel sourcing from China to a single-digit, if not move out of the country entirely. For example:

  • Company A1 (apparel brand): We’re on track to reduce our sourcing exposure to China to under 10% this year with fall and holiday season down to low single digits.
  • Company A2 (specialty store): For China specifically, we have worked for some time now to relocate the supply resources, and this year’s sourcing volume from China will be in the low single digits.
  • Company L (apparel brand): Less than 8% of our purchase order dollars last fiscal year were utilized on buys of China.
  • Company O (a parent company of several leading apparel brands): By the second half of 2026, we currently plan to be substantially out of China.
  • Company V2 (a parent company of several leading apparel brands): over the past several years we’ve strategically diversified our supply chain and proactively reduced our US finished goods sourced from China to less than 2%.
  • Company K2 (a parent company of several leading apparel brands): China for us is de minimis.

Third, maintaining a geographically diverse sourcing base remains a popular strategy for U.S. fashion companies to mitigate the impacts of increasing tariffs and ongoing policy uncertainties. Companies particularly intend to avoid “putting too many eggs in one basket” and limiting the reliance on any single supplying country. For example:

  • Company K1 (retailer): our talented and experienced global sourcing team has done an incredible job diversifying our countries of production to ensure that we are not overly reliant on any one country. Although tariffs remain a fluid and uncertain situation, the teams continue to work to reduce our exposure to high tariff countries by leveraging our diverse factory network to move production, adjusting orders based on pricing elasticity analysis.
  • Company G (specialty store): Most other countries represent less than 10%, Vietnam and Indonesia represented 27%, and 19% of our sourcing last year, respectively, and our goal is for no country to account for more than 25% by the end of 2026.
  • Company R (apparel brand): While tariffs will primarily impact our gross margins… we have a proven toolkit to manage cost inflation headwinds. This includes first, significant supply chain diversification…No single country accounts for more than 20% of our production volumes, with most countries representing a single-digit percentage.
  • Company U (retailer): The remaining third is strategically diversified across a number of other countries, each representing a low to mid-single-digit percentage. This deliberate diversification creates a well-balanced portfolio, reducing reliance on any single market and enhancing our ability to navigate geopolitical, costs and supply chain complexities from a position of strength.

Notably, while a limited few companies specifically mentioned the possibility of expanding sourcing from the Western Hemisphere amid the current business environment, most did not. For example:

  • Company L (apparel brand): We intentionally drove significant change in our supply chain as we accelerated production in the Western Hemisphere, giving us both speed and additional avenues to mitigate tariffs and provide resiliency.
  • Company G (specialty store): Diversification also means near-shoring as well as domestic investment.

Fourth, U.S. fashion companies have leveraged shipping timing, piled up inventory, and delayed or cancelled existing orders to mitigate the tariff impacts as much as possible. For example:

  • Company C (sportswear): For products that are impacted by the reciprocal tariffs, we are accelerating shipments to the extent possible in order to receive products during the 90-day tariff.
  • Company K1 (retailer): Inventory was up 1.7% compared to last year, driven by inventory strategies implemented to navigate the tariff pressure, including the pull forward of receipts and pack in holding seasonal inventory to be sold in the back half of the year.
  • Company B (off-price retailer): Our reserve inventory was 48% of our total inventory versus 40% of our inventory last year. In dollar terms, our reserve inventory was up 31% compared to last year, reflecting the great deals we were able to make to get ahead of tariffs.
  • Company M (retailer): With the recent announcement of these tariffs, we’ve renegotiated orders with suppliers, and we’ve canceled or delayed orders where the value proposition is just not where it needs to be.

It should be noted, however, that adjusting shipping and inventory could incur additional costs. For example:

  • Company V1 (underwear brand): More than half of the gross margin rate pressure in the quarter was due to a combination of elevated and expected airfreight rates, some tariff-related order adjustments…

Fifth, despite higher sourcing costs and increasing financial pressures, many U.S. fashion companies have avoided widespread price hikes but have implemented selective increases in less price-sensitive apparel categories. For example:

  • Company V1 (underwear brand): [price increase driven by higher tariffs] And so we are going to sort of play in the middle where we see value. So and it won’t be across all categories. As we think about our business, it’s really that strategic case by case, category by category look that we’re taking.
  • Company U (retailer): gently and sparingly raising some prices. Please note that any price increases will be very strategic, protecting opening price points and only targeting areas where we believe we could raise prices without affecting the overall customer experience.
  • Company A2 (specialty store): we are not planning broad-based ticket increases. As we’ve done season after season, our goal is to deliver high-quality product and align inventory and promotions with our customers’ value perception.
  • Company P (a parent company of several leading apparel brands): We will evaluate strategic discounts to mitigate the potential tariff impact. While we are focused on delivering price value for the consumer, we are also ready to take calibrated targeted pricing actions where we have pricing power.

by Sheng Lu

Additional reading: Tariffs Upend Fashion Sourcing and Disrupt Cash Flow Amid Widening Trade Gap (Sourcing Journal, June 27, 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 21st 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 21st 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.

USDA Released 2025 China Cotton Report

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released its latest annual China cotton report. Below are the key findings most relevant to U.S. apparel sourcing from the country.

First, China’s retaliatory tariffs could severely impact US cotton exports. Faced with geopolitical tensions and rising competition from other suppliers like Brazil, U.S. cotton exports to China fell sharply by 73% in the first seven months of Marketing Year (MY) 24/25 (i.e., August 2024-February 2025), resulting in a decrease in the U.S. market share to 17.1%, down from 29.6% during the same period in MY 23/24. As noted in the report, “Beijing’s imposition of 140 percent tariffs on U.S. cotton will all but stop further imports from the United States.” Meanwhile, China’s overall demand for raw cotton could fall to a five-year low in MY 24/25, due to insufficient domestic demand and limited growth in textile and apparel exports.

Second, Xinjiang still dominated cotton production in China. Despite the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), Xinjiang accounted for approximately 92.3% of cotton production in China during MY 24/25 (note: was 90.9% in MY 23/24) and enjoyed an 11.4% year-on-year increase in total production. According to the USDA report, cotton production, yarn spinning, and textile manufacturing in Xinjiang received numerous subsidies from the government, such as support provided to farmers and cotton planting incentives.

The USDA report also noted that, in addition to raw cotton, textile production has experienced substantial growth in Xinjiang. For example, by the end of 2024, Xinjiang’s yarn spinning capacity reached 29.1 million spindles with 62,400 looms in operation, both marking the highest growth rates in history. “The spinning capacity is expected to rise further as the Xinjiang government plans to spin 45 to 50 percent of the Xinjiang cotton by 2028,” according to the USDA.

Third, China’s textile and apparel exports are facing growing headwinds. The USDA report predicted that “With ongoing market turbulences and uncertainties, China’s textile and apparel exports are expected to decrease in the remainder of MY 24/25” due to higher tariffs and the de minimis rule changes. While large-scale textile and apparel companies in China have been relocating some production to Southeast Asia, small-scale companies with limited resources may struggle to adapt. Additionally, according to the USDA, citing industry sources, the profit margin on China’s clothing exports to the US might be 10% or even lower and “the established textile manufacturers will face increased costs and administrative burdens for all import values, potentially disrupting their supply chains and reducing profit margins” due to the recent de minimis rule changes.

Further reading: U.S. and Xinjiang Cotton Are Locked in a Trade War of Their Own (Sourcing Journal)

Impacts of Tariffs: Gen Z’s Perspective

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 the impact of the recent tariff increases.

Students’ responses reveal that the impacts of the tariff increase on ordinary U.S. consumers are real, direct, and significant. Like other consumer groups, our Gen Z students express deep concern about the adverse effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy, market uncertainties, and the fashion industry’s growth prospects this year. While shopping for clothing, many students have noticed price increases and reduced product availability due to tariff hikes and related disruptions.

On the other hand, as Gen Z consumers, students send a strong message to fashion brands and retailers—sustainability still matters. In fact, in this environment, students have become ever more conscious of sustainability, asking critical questions such as: Do I really need to buy more clothing? Where was the clothing made? Was the clothing produced ethically? In other words, we may see a growing shift toward “slow fashion” among Gen Z consumers, who expect apparel brands and retailers to make even stronger commitments toward sustainability and social responsibility, instead of compromising these values for “cost mitigation.”

Likewise, students expect higher-quality products or items that can last longer to justify the higher price they pay. Regularly shopping for secondhand clothing, driven by its affordability, environmental benefits, and unique styles, could also become increasingly popular. This leaves an interesting question about the future of cheap but low-quality fast fashion and its attractiveness among Gen Z consumers.

The mini series is available through Just-style. Below are selected comments from students:

Gen Z consumers care about tariffs in the news

Rachel Zemel (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): As a Fashion Merchandising and Management major, I’ve definitely been paying closer attention to how tariffs impact what we see on the sales floor. Learning about global sourcing and trade agreements in class has made me more curious about where products are coming from and how political or economic shifts can directly affect the retail industry. I’ve caught myself checking clothing labels more often to see where things are made and understand why certain brands are shifting their production away from countries like China. I think what used to feel like a distant conversation now feels very connected to the way I shop and think about product availability.

Annabelle Gensler (Fashion Merchandising & Management and Fashion Design & Product Innovation double majors): The tariff discussion has been far more impactful on my shopping habits than I would have imagined…I’d like to consider myself a thoughtful consumer in that I rarely make impulse purchases, and I do what I can to avoid feeling any sense of buyer’s remorse. This has become exceptionally true in today’s evolving state of trade policy and manifests itself in a few ways…As a fashion student, I have a good understanding of what constitutes a fair price for fashion and apparel goods. I try to use these strengths of mine by paying close attention to fiber content, care instructions, origin of materials, and manufacturing location. Overall, I’d say the tariff discussion makes me think twice, three times, ten times before making a purchase.

Alexandra Untu (Fashion Merchandising and Management and Philosophy double majors): As a fashion student and fashion lover, I closely follow tariff updates and actively try to educate myself to gain a more objective and informed perspective on the changes introduced by the current administration. Although I started shopping more consciously a while ago, I’m now more intentional than ever with my purchases…I pay attention to where clothes are made and take the time to research their country of origin and production practices. I’ve also been focusing on buying pieces made from high-quality materials, with timeless styles that are versatile enough to be worn in different outfits and settings.

Lola Kulis (Fashion merchandising and management major and 4+1 graduate student): As a Fashion Merchandising student, I’ve been especially invested in the ongoing discussion around tariffs and their impact on retail pricing. From an industry perspective, it’s scary; as someone preparing to enter the field, I feel uncertain about what the future holds. And as a consumer, I feel frustrated. We’re facing the direct impact of global trade decisions influencing the pricing and accessibility of apparel. The worst part is the uncertainty. The constant policy changes and back and forth are only putting more stress on business owners, consumers, the working class, etc.. The media coverage surrounding these trade policies has made me realize how interconnected global sourcing and retail pricing really are. I’ve started paying closer attention to where garments are manufactured and how those origins might impact cost, availability, and even quality. I’ve shifted my perspective, not only as a student but also as a consumer. 

Madison Toth (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): The tariff discussion in the media has definitely increased my interest in where exactly my clothing is being made. As I shop, I have started to check labels on where these apparel items are being manufactured. It is fascinating to me that the most popular and successful U.S retailers are globally sourcing apparel, yet the increase in tariffs is being thrown into policy. Admittedly, I struggle to keep up with the news, but I’m very intrigued by the current tariff discussion. I follow closely because it will affect my job in the future as I enter my career in the fashion industry, but also as a consumer.

Price hikes and reduced product availability due to tariffs concern Gen Z consumers

Rachel Zemel (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): Since April, I’ve definitely noticed price increases…I’ve also noticed a shift in product availability, especially when I shop online. Certain sizes and styles are gone faster than usual and don’t seem to get restocked. In stores, the selection feels limited too. It seems like brands are being more careful with how much they’re producing, maybe to avoid excess inventory or reduce risk. As someone who shops a lot and also studies this industry, it’s interesting to see how these challenges are playing out in real-time. It makes me think differently about what goes into every piece I buy.

Annabelle Gensler (Fashion Merchandising & Management and Fashion Design & Product Innovation double majors): The majority of the shopping I’ve done since April has occurred online, and the biggest difference I’ve noticed since the tariff discourse has started, is the stock of goods available. It’s rare that I stumble upon a product offering that has all sizes and colors in-stock. Now, when I filter my search for a graduation dress in the size and color I prefer, fewer and fewer items populate. In the past, retailers might have been able to bulk order goods to maintain stock domestically, or ship from international locations directly to the consumer; tariffs have halted these practices. Items I’m considering purchasing no longer feel safe in my cart because of how quickly stockouts are occurring. This, paired with an expectation of drastic increases in price, has created an internal sense of urgency when I have items in my cart. I know it’s unlikely that the item will be available at a certain price point, or at all, and so the conscious consumerism I try to practice is really being put to the test.

Alexandra Untu (Fashion Merchandising and Management and Philosophy double majors): Based on my own and my friends’ experience, the changes have been subtle so far, but noticeable. Prices have been going up gradually across all types of products, including clothing, but the availability of products hasn’t yet turned into a cause for concern. While the current situation is not dramatic as of now, there is undoubtedly a change that is happening, and we are expecting more striking changes in the near future that could affect our shopping behavior quite significantly.

Madeline Osbourn (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): The tariff increase has affected merchandise orders for my sorority. The tariffs have made the prices rise on orders that we planned on making. This creates an issue with prepaid and future orders, keeping in mind the members’ willingness to transition and conform to the higher-priced merchandise that is designed.

Lola Kulis (Fashion merchandising and management major and 4+1 graduate student): Because inflation has been on the rise for some time now, it’s hard to differentiate the cause of these price changes. Prices for basics, like denim, cotton tops, and even activewear, are outrageously high. Over the past year, I’ve observed a significant decline in promotional activity. Retailers are offering fewer discounts, and even Black Friday, once known for major deals, felt noticeably underwhelming. Considering the current global trade and policy changes, I only see this worsening. On the availability side, popular sizes and color options tend to sell out much more quickly, leading to a more competitive shopping experience.

Madison Toth (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): To be honest, I have been reluctant to shop with popular fashion retailers because of the current tariff discussions. I have strayed away from shopping online and in-store due to the uncertainty of the economic climate. While apparel prices are increasing, as well as other products, it is vital for me to take all of that into consideration. Tariffs affect more than apparel, and as a college student, some purchases take priority over clothing. Because of this, I am unable to comment on price and product availability since the tariff discussion began. I have simply decided that, for me personally, in the current economic climate, apparel shopping should be placed on the back burner.

Sustainability matters even more

Rachel Zemel (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): Sustainability matters even more to me now. When prices go up, it forces me to think about the long-term value of what I’m buying. I want to spend my money on items that are made with quality materials and with people and the planet in mind. It’s hard to justify spending more on something that was cheaply made or won’t last beyond a few wears. I think price increases actually help push the conversation toward more conscious consumption. Even with a student budget, I try to prioritize brands that are transparent about their production or at least make some effort toward ethical practices. It’s not always possible to buy 100% sustainably, but I try to balance things. thrifting, supporting small designers, and not overconsuming are just a couple of changes that can have a big impact. Sustainability isn’t just about buying the “right” thing, it’s about shifting the way we shop. That mindset doesn’t go away just because prices are rising.

Alexandra Untu (Fashion Merchandising and Management and Philosophy double majors): Sustainability has always been a core value for me, and that won’t change, even if prices rise. Sustainability isn’t just a trend; it goes far beyond money – it’s a life-or-death issue. It’s a moral responsibility we have to future generations, and we shouldn’t treat it lightly or abandon it. Shopping with sustainability in mind isn’t always the easiest or the cheapest route, but it’s the right one. Now, more than ever, we should be doing -or learning to do – the right thing. Every purchase sends a message about the change we want to see. Every purchase is a small step toward a better, more responsible future for us and for our children.

Lola Kulis (Fashion merchandising and management major and 4+1 graduate student): Sustainability matters even more to me in the face of rising prices. As clothing becomes more expensive, we become more hesitant in purchasing. I think more about what I’m investing in, starting with being intentional about supporting brands that are transparent, responsible, and committed to reducing their environmental impact. I’d rather buy less and choose more wisely than spend more on items that contribute to overproduction and waste. I’ve realized more than ever that sustainability is not a trend, it’s our future. As I prepare to enter the fashion industry, it’s important that I practice what I preach and support the long-term goals.

Madison Toth (Fashion Merchandising and Management major): Sustainability is something that I do genuinely care about. When shopping, I tend to lean more towards brands that practice ethical sourcing and are more transparent about where their items come from. From my time as a student, I have learned many of the horrible outcomes of the fashion industry related to sustainability. From seeing videos of workers begging for higher wages, seeing dyes dumped into bodies of water, and looking at the incredibly tall piles of textile waste, it sticks with me both as a student and a consumer…If a price increase meant that apparel manufacturers were getting paid fair wages, I would purchase those items. However, now, due to tariffs, I am more likely to dodge popular retailers. Sustainability is very important to my generation, and I value the efforts that brands have made to become more sustainable. But it raises the question, when is a price so high that sustainability no longer matters? To that, it’s hard to say. I think it depends on the economic status of each consumer. From sustainable companies with higher prices, there are purchases that I just cannot justify paying. I do care about sustainability, but there does come a point where it becomes financially unattainable.

Katie Yasik (Fashion Design and Product Innovation major): Yes, sustainability still matters to me, even with rising prices. It’s not always easy to prioritize, especially on a student budget, but I try to make more conscious choices like buying fewer, longer-lasting pieces or shopping secondhand. I think it’s important to consider the environmental and social impact of fast fashion, and if prices are going up anyway, I’d rather invest in something that aligns with my values.

Isabella DiGiulio (Fashion merchandising and management major and 4+1 graduate student): I think that the tariffs may bring a new wave of interest in sustainability, specifically for donation-based, second-hand clothing stores. These stores will likely be able to maintain their low pricing because they do not need to account for operational expenses in apparel production. Even if there is to be a price increase, their prices may still remain relatively lower and more affordable compared to first-hand clothing brands…Furthermore, sustainable shopping doesn’t solely refer to purchasing second-hand goods or buying from brands with biodegradable fabrics or ethical labor practices. Sustainable shopping can also refer to the abstinence from shopping. With influences such as social media and fast fashion, overconsumption has become an extremely normalized practice through which many people, especially Gen Z, feel compelled to consistently refresh their wardrobes to follow trends and keep up with the ever-changing standards of style and identity.

Explore more:

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

For FASH455 class: When writing your blog comment, consider addressing the following aspects:

#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?  

Patterns of U.S. Apparel Sourcing and Imports (updated April 2025)

The following analysis was based on the latest trade statistics from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce.

First, the growth of U.S. apparel imports significantly slowed as fashion companies shifted from eagerly piling up stock to the wait-and-see mode. Specifically, in February 2025, U.S. apparel imports moderately went up 3.2% in value and 1.5% in quantity, much lower than the 18-19% increase seen in late 2024 and January 2025. The much-slowed growth confirmed that the earlier U.S. apparel import surge was largely driven by fashion companies’ worries about the upcoming tariff hikes rather than an actual increase in consumer demand.

Adding to the concern, U.S. consumer confidence fell sharply, which could lead to a steep drop in U.S. apparel imports ahead. For example, the Consumer Confidence Index dropped to a two-year low of 92.9 in March 2025, down from 100.1 the previous month (1985=100). Similarly, the Expectations Index—which measures consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions—plunged to 65.2, marking its lowest level in 12 years. With the announcement of reciprocal tariffs and the growing likelihood of an economic recession, U.S. consumer demand for clothing may decline significantly, potentially leading to the cancellation of many sourcing orders.

Second, apparel imports have become more expensive. Measured in dollars per square meters equivalent (SME), the unit price of U.S. apparel imports averaged $3.06/SME in the first two months of 2025, up from $3.03/SME a year ago (or a 1.3% increase). The unit price of U.S. apparel imports from many leading Asian countries rose at a notably higher rate, including China (up 2.9%), Vietnam (up 3.6%), and Bangladesh (up 2.6%), as well as those from Mexico (up 4.7%) and CAFTA-DR (up 0.6%). This result reflected the growing pressure of sourcing and production costs facing U.S. fashion companies and their suppliers, driven by rising labor costs and raw material prices among other factors. Indeed, if Trump’s reciprocal tariffs ultimately take effect, import prices could increase even more significantly.

Third, U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing diversification efforts appeared to slow amid rising uncertainty. In February 2025, Asian countries collectively accounted for 71.5% of the total value of U.S. apparel imports—unchanged from a year earlier. Similarly, in the first two months of 2025, the top five suppliers (China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and India) made up 63.7% of total apparel imports by value, up from 59.7% during the same period in 2024. Even China’s market share remained largely stable at 18.4% in value and 32% in quantity, compared to a year ago.

These figures suggest that U.S. fashion companies somehow have become more hesitant to adjust their sourcing base in response to the universal tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which target nearly all U.S. trading partners. As a result, U.S. fashion companies may find the sourcing diversification strategies no longer as effective as in the past in effectively mitigating their sourcing risks.

Meanwhile, data from the United Nations (UN Comtrade) show that Asian countries’ dependence on the U.S. market for apparel exports varied. In 2024, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and ASEAN members exported about 40% of their apparel to the U.S., whereas the U.S. accounted for only about 20% of China’s and Bangladesh’s total apparel exports to the world. At the same time, the U.S. remained the single largest export market for Mexico and CAFTA-DR members, due to the integrated Western Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain.

Fourth, no evidence shows that the current trading environment has benefited from near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere. On the contrary, measured in quantity, in February 2025, only 7.6% of U.S. apparel imports came from CAFTA-DR members, a notable drop from 9.6% a year ago. Similarly, Mexico accounted for 2.3% of U.S. apparel imports in February 2025, also lower than 2.4% a year earlier.

As a silver lining, the utilization rate of CAFTA-DR reached 81.1% in 2025 (January to February), much higher than 73.8% over the same period in 2024. About 75.3% of U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR in 2025 (January to February) complied with the yarn-forward rules of origin compared to 67.4% a year ago. However, the use of “short-supply” remained low–only about 2.0% in 2025 so far.

by Dr. Sheng Lu

Related analysis: Lu, S. (2025). Patterns of U.S. Apparel Imports in 2024. Global Textile Academy, International Trade Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.

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

Exploring the “Pink Tariff”

Begin at 36 minutes; Students are expected to form their own independent assessments of the topic.

Additional readings:

Discussion questions:

  • What do you think about the pink tariff? How does the pink tariff affect different stakeholders, including consumers and fashion companies?
  • How can fashion companies respond to or navigate pink tariffs in their global sourcing, particularly considering the tariff escalation in 2025?
  • What role can governments and international trade organizations play in addressing pink tariffs, and what policy changes could help eliminate the disparities? What are the challenges?

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

About Ally Botwinick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Sheng Lu

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

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

Gap CEO talks tariff impacts (Feb 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

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

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

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

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

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

For FASH455: the blog comment assignment can address the following questions:

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

Additional reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

About Hannah Laurits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

About Jillian Silverman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–The End–

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

About the Event

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

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

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

Panelists (Bios here)

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

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

FASH455 Video Discussion: The Global Journey of a Sneaker

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

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

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

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

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

[Discussion is closed]

Is Free Trade Worth the Cost? (Video discussion)

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

Further reading: Is Free Trade Worth the Cost?

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

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

Key findings:

Rise in sustainability certification in the garment and footwear industry

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

Sustainability certification requirements and motivations

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

Types of sustainability certification in the garment and footwear industry

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

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

Role of sustainability certification in trade and market access

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

Challenges related to sustainability certification in the garment and footwear sector

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

Can Garment Production Survive in A Developed Economy in the 21st Century? A Study of “Made in Ireland”

Abstract

This study explored the survival strategies of apparel manufacturing in a high-wage developed economy using “Made in Ireland” as a case study. Based on a statistical analysis of 4,000 apparel items for sale in the retail market from January 2018 to December 2021, the study found that:

First, unlike the conventional views like the factor proportion trade theory and the global value chain theory, the study’s results showed that garment manufacturing did NOT disappear in Ireland as a high-wage developed country.  Notably, garments “Made in Ireland” demonstrated many unique attributes, such as:

  • statistically more likely to target luxury and high-end markets than foreign-made apparel imported into Ireland;
  • statistically more likely to highlight their Irish cultural heritage and mention keywords such as “traditional,” “centuries-old,” “craftsmanship,” and “historical” in the product description;
  • statistically more likely to focus on manufacturing specific product categories with a world reputation, including jumpers and kilts;
  • statistically less likely to be seen in categories with an abundant supply from lower-cost imports, such as bottoms;

In other words, economic theories need to incorporate non-price competition factors and better explain the development patterns of a country’s garment sector, particularly in developed economies.      

Second, the findings called for a rethink of the strategies supporting the garment-manufacturing sector in a high-wage developed country. Current industry practices and government policies aiming to promote garment manufacturing in a developed country primarily focus on implementing protectionist trade measures (i.e., restricting imports) or investing in modern technologies like automation. However, the study’s findings suggested new approaches. For example, using disaggregated product data at the Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) level, the study indicated that a substantial portion of garments “Made in Ireland” was sold overseas. Thus, promoting exports instead of curbing imports could be a more effective way of expanding garment production in a high-wage developed country.

On the other hand, the popularity of “Made in Ireland” jumpers and kilts in the world marketplace suggested that garment manufacturers in a high-wage developed country could survive their business by leveraging cultural heritage, history, and traditional craftsmanship instead of fancy new technologies. Likewise, to a certain extent, the value of maintaining garment manufacturing in a high-wage developed country in the 21st Century may not necessarily be about replacing imports, improving “speed to market,” or creating jobs but preserving a country’s unique cultural heritage and history.

Third,  the study’s findings revealed the challenges facing garment manufacturers in a high-wage developed country like Ireland. For example, garments “Made in Ireland” were more likely to be sold with a discount, implying their price competition with foreign-made imports might not be entirely avoidable despite all the efforts from targeting the niche markets to differentiating product assortments.

On the other hand, garments “Made in Ireland” often targeted the high-end market, requiring the workforce to obtain demanding skills such as advanced sewing, craftsmanship, and a deep understanding of the Irish culture. However, the aging workforce and the shortage of skilled labor, a common problem facing developed countries, could also prevent the expansion of apparel manufacturing in Ireland in the long run. Thus, prompting the traditional Irish culture and apparel production craftsmanship, especially to attract the young generation to garment factories and be willing to pursue a career there, would be critical for sustaining the garment manufacturing sector in Ireland and other high-wage developed countries.

Background

Ireland has a long history of making garments, and specific categories of apparel “Made in Ireland” are famous worldwide, such as jumpers and kilts. As of 2020 (i.e., the latest data available), about 340 garment factories still operate in Ireland, a notable increase from 293 in 2010 (Eurostat, 2022). Meanwhile, the output of Ireland’s apparel manufacturing sector totaled $68 million in 2020 (measured in value-added), a substantial drop from $142 million ten years ago (Eurostat, 2022).

Meanwhile, export was critical in supporting apparel “Made in Ireland” today. Statistics show that Ireland’s apparel exports totaled $270 million in 2019 before the pandemic, down about 19% from 2005 (UNComtrade). However, over that period, Ireland’s apparel exports to most developed countries enjoyed positive growth, such as Spain (up 151%), the Netherlands (up 4.5%), Germany (up 14.5%), France (up 61.6%), and Japan (up 20.2%). Further, Ireland’s top four largest apparel export markets were all developed Western EU countries (UNComtrade, 2022). Geographic proximity and the specific product structure of Ireland’s apparel exports could be important factors behind these distinct export patterns.

by Miriam Keegan (FASH MS student, Fulbright-EPA scholar) and Sheng Lu

Full paper: Keegan, M. & Lu, S. (2023). Can garment production survive in a developed economy in the 21st century? A study of “Made in Ireland”. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel. (ahead of print)  https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-09-2022-0113

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?

(FASH455: this post is for in-class discussion only; please do not leave your comment)

Outlook 2025–Key Issues to Shape Apparel Sourcing and Trade

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

What’s next for apparel sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparel industry challenges and opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

by Sheng Lu

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

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

India’s Textiles and Apparel Production

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

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

India’s Apparel Export

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

Why Sourcing from India?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflections

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

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

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

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