FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing
Copyright© 2012-2026 Dr. Sheng Lu, Professor, Department of Fashion & Apparel Studies, University of Delaware
Do you think the U.S. trade deficit is a problem or not? Please feel free to share your thoughts based on our lectures, the video above as well as a recent op-ed written by Peter Navarro (Director of the White House National Trade Council) for the Wall Street Journal.
Free trade agreements (FTAs) are arrangement among two or more countries under which they agree to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff (NTB) barriers on trade among themselves (Cooper, 2014). Theoretically, companies shall be interested in increasing imports from FTA regions because of the duty-free treatment (i.e., the trade creation effect). Particularly, not paying import tariff duty can be a great cost advantage for textile and apparel (T&A) companies given the fact that the average US import tariff rate was still as high as 8% for textiles and 11.6% for apparel in 2016 (WTO, 2017).
Despite the potential benefit of using FTAs, data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel show that 85.7% of US T&A imports came from non-FTA regions in 2016. Interesting enough, although more FTAs have taken effect in the United States, T&A imported under FTA as a percent of total T&A imports dropped from 15.1% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2016.
Among the FTAs in force, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican-Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) altogether accounted for 75.9% of the value of total U.S. T&A imports under FTAs in 2016.
Statistics further reveal that sometimes companies did not claim duty free benefits of FTAs even though they imported T&A from the FTA region. For example, in 2016 about 29.9% of U.S. T&A imports from South Korea, 24.3% from CAFTA-DR and 16.3% from NAFTA and 12.9% from Columbia did not enjoy the duty free treatment granted by the respective FTAs.
Some industry experts say the complex T&A rules of origin is a major factor why US T&A companies are not using FTAs enough. According to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), there are more than 20 different tariff lines dealing with various T&A rule of origin situations under respective FTAs.
Additionally, U.S. T&A importers seem to use the “short supply list” mechanism–an exception to the yarn forward rules of origin under FTAs, more actively. For example, in 2016 around 2.4% of US T&A imports under FTAs took advantage of the “short supply list” mechanism, increased from only 1.2% in 2008. Similarly, a record high of 6.2% of U.S. T&A imports under the CAFTA-DR used the short supply list in 2016.
Sheng Lu
The following results are preliminary findings from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) 2016 survey. The survey was administrated by YouGov/Polimetrix and conducted from September to October 2016.
Acknowledgement:
Thanks to the University of Delaware Office of the Provost, Social Science Data Analytics Initiative, and Center for Political Communication in support of the data collection. For questions about the data, please contact Dr. Sheng Lu (shenglu@udel.edu).
From left to right: Julia Hughes (president of USFIA), Auggie Tantillo (president & CEO of NCTO) and Robert Antoshak (Managing Director of Olah Inc., moderator)
In a panel discussion hosted by Kingpins on February 9, 2017, Julia K. Hughes, President of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), and Augustine Tantillo, President and Chief Executive of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) shared their respective perspectives on key trade issues facing the U.S. textile and apparel industry in 2017.
Trade and job creation in the United States
Julia Hughes: Discussion on the relationship of trade and jobs in the public is often misguided. We support U.S. manufacturing. But along the supply chain, from product development, sourcing, marketing to retailing, fashion brands and retailers have also created many well-paid non-manufacturing jobs in the United States. Study further shows that 70%-80% of the retail value of an imported clothing actually stays in the United States.
Auggie Tantillo: Pleased and excited to see the discussion on the possibility of bringing back/expanding manufacturing in the United States. Still the United States produces $65—70 billion worth of textiles annually, which support many manufacturing jobs in the sector. The U.S. textile industry also makes around $2 billion investment annually (updating machines and equipment). We need to acknowledge the baseline value of manufacturing in the United States.
Border Adjustment Tax(BAT)
Julia Hughes: BAT is a complicated issue. However, if the current BAT proposal is adopted, it will raise the retail price (meaning ordinary US consumers will have to pay more) and appreciate the U.S. dollar (meaning U.S. exports will get hurt). This is why USFIA along with 100+ companies and industry associations opposes any BAT.
Auggie Tantillo: NCTO strongly believes that updating the tax structure in the United States is long overdue. NCTO welcomes a serious look at the BAT proposal, since the United States is the only major economy in the world that does not adopt BAT. The United States doesn’t need to run such a high trade deficit. Instead, we need to make the tax structure supporting the U.S. manufacturing base.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Julia Hughes: NAFTA is 20 years’ old and it can be improved. However, raising import tax (tariff) is NOT a good idea. NAFTA supports the Western-Hemisphere supply chain, which is critical for the U.S. textile and apparel industry. We need to defend this supply chain.
Auggie Tantillo: NAFTA works and benefits its members on all sides of the border, including the United States. NCTO supports the continuation of NAFTA as well as to update and modernize the agreement as necessary.
Yarn-forward Rules of Origin (RoO)
Julia Hughes: Apparel is a global industry and apparel supply chain needs to be nimble. The yarn-forward RoO prevents apparel companies and retailers from fully enjoying the duty-free benefits under a free trade agreement (FTA) since not always the FTA region makes the needed products or their textile components. Exceptions to the yarn-forward rules such as the tariff preference level (TPL), provide necessary flexibility.
Auggie Tantillo: The yarn-forward RoO has been a great success and we need to keep it (in existing and future trade agreements). The only things that need to be improved is the exception to the yarn-forward RoO (such as short supply list and trade preference level). RoO is supposed to keep benefits of a free trade agreement to its members only, yet these exceptions create loopholes and cause damages (to the U.S. textile industry).
On China
Julia Hughes: We need China, which still provides 40% of textiles and apparel consumed in the United States. It will be a disaster to trigger a trade war between the two countries.
Auggie Tantillo: We need to better help the Western-Hemisphere producers (in competing with textile and apparel made in China). China’s 40%+ market shares in the U.S. textile and apparel import market are not all based on its genuine competitiveness. Rather, China’s unfair trade practices such as IPR violation, government subsidy and unacceptable factory working conditions & environmental practices are of grave concerns.
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Julia Hughes: TPP is not dead. On the other hand, countries around the world are actively negotiating new bilateral/regional free trade agreements. The United States doesn’t want to be left behind.
Auggie Tantillo: TPP is “in deep hibernation”, but trade agreement will never be really dead. It is still hopeful that TPP will come back later—but very likely to be in a different form, such as bilateral trade agreements. To be noted, many TPP members have already established bilateral/regional trade agreements with the United States.
Discussion questions: 1) Why do you think Julia Hughes and Auggie Tantillo disagree on many trade issues? On which topics they actually agree with each other and why? 2) What’s your response to Julia Hughes and Auggie Tantillo’s comments on trade issues above? 3) Based on the panel discussion, why do you think textile and apparel companies need to care about trade policy? Please feel free to share your views.
As of 2015, over 40% of textile exports still come from high income countries. Meanwhile, upper middle income countries are quickly expanding exports and gaining more market shares from 2000 to 2015. However, textile exports from low income countries remain minimal.
From 2000 to 2015, shares of apparel exports from high income countries dropped from 50% to 31%. Meanwhile, market shares of upper middle income countries increased from 32% to 46%. However, low income countries are becoming even more marginalized in apparel exports: their market shares slipped from 0.3% in 2000 to only 0.1% in 2015.
Additionally, textile and apparel exports in general are economically more important for lower income countries than higher income countries. However, the percentage of textile and apparel in a country’s total merchandise exports seem to be declining across all income groups except for low-income countries. Meanwhile, for a good number of low-income and lower-middle income countries such as Bangladesh, Gambia, Pakistan and Cambodia, textile and apparel remain one of their very few exporting opportunities.
Data source: World Trade Organization (2017), World Bank (2017); Country list (by income groups) can be found HERE
Acknowledgement: Thanks to Sheiron Crawford for assisting the data collection.
In January 2017, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry leaders and scholars in its Outlook 2017–Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead management briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. Welcome for any suggestions and comments.
1: What do you see as the biggest challenges – and opportunities – facing the apparel industry in 2017, and why?
I see the uncertainty in the global economy will pose one of the biggest challenges facing the apparel industry in 2017. Apparel business is buyer-driven. A great number of studies have suggested that economic growth is by far the most effective and reliable predictive factor for apparel consumption. Unfortunately, it seems apparel companies have to deal with another year of economic volatility and weak demand in 2017. For example, according to the latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast released in October 2016, global economic growth in 2017 is projected to only recover to 3.4 percent from 3.1 percent in 2016. There is no particular excitement among major apparel consumption markets either: outlook of the U.S. economy in 2017 is complicated by the strong U.S dollar, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy as well as the uncertain trade and tax policy to be adopted by the new Trump administration; Economic growth in the EU region next year will continue to be hindered by the unknown fallout from UK’s referendum on leaving the EU, pervasive geopolitical uncertainties, high unemployment rates and the rising protectionist tendencies; Japan’s economic growth is projected to be as low as 1.0 percent in 2017 according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); And China’s economic growth in 2017 could slow again to 6.5 percent, which would be the slowest pace in more than 25 years. Reflecting the trend, we might see a stagnant growth or even a decline of global textile and apparel trade in 2017 as well.
Nevertheless, companies’ continuous investments on technology and innovation will create exciting new opportunities for the apparel industry. Particularly, growing areas in the apparel industry such as 3D printing, wearable technology, digital prototyping and e-commerce have made many “non-traditional” players now interested in fashion, including technology giants like Google and Apple. I think we can expect the apparel industry to become even more modern and high-tech driven in the years to come. The changing nature of the apparel industry will also increase demand for talents from an ever more diversified educational background, such as engineering, physical therapy and business analytics.
2: What’s happening with sourcing? How is the sourcing landscape likely to shift in 2017, and what strategies can help apparel firms and their suppliers to stay ahead?
One observation from me is that textile and apparel (T&A) supply chain is becoming more regional-based. For example, data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that 91.4 percent of textiles imported by Asian countries in 2015 came from other Asian countries, up from 86.6 percent in 2008. This suggests that Asian countries togetherare building a more integrated T&A supply chain. Likewise, in 2015 close to 90 percent of apparel exported by North, South and Central American countries went to the United States and Canada and 81 percent of apparel exported by EU countries went to other EU countries too. To be noted, all of these three major T&A supply chains are facilitated by respective free trade agreements in the region such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), ASEAN–China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and of course the common market enjoyed by the EU members. On the other hand, fashion brands and apparel retailers often use the Western-Hemisphere supply chain and EU-based supply chain as a supplement to the Asia-based supply chain for more fashion-oriented or time-sensitive items. I think such a dual-track sourcing strategy will continue in 2017.
Related, I think supply chain management will play a growing important role helping apparel companies control sourcing cost, improve speed to market and better meet consumers’ demand in 2017. An interesting phenomenon revealed by the 2016 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association is that around 30 percent of respondents say they plan to consolidate rather than diversify their sourcing base in the next 2 years. As one respondent commented, “(Our) focus right now is really finding efficiencies and maximizing productivity in the supply chain. While we won’t necessarily move out of any countries, we are consolidating the base within regions.”
Last but not least, I think in 2017 apparel companies will continue to give more weight to sustainability and social responsibility in their sourcing decisions. Building a more transparent and sustainable supply chain is an irreversible trend in the apparel industry.
3: What should apparel firms be doing now if they want to remain competitive into the future? What will separate the winners from the losers?
To remain competitive into the future, apparel companies need to be prepared to change and be willing to try something new. Indeed, revolution is coming for the apparel industry, including the way products are made and sourced (example: 3D printing and various digital manufacturing tools), how consumers shop (example: the see-now-buy-now trend) and where and how to sell (example: the booming e-commerce and omni-channel retailing). In the past, small and medium sized companies (SME) were regarded more vulnerable than big players in the apparel industry for business survival. However, nowadays, without embracing the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship, even large companies can quickly become “dinosaurs” and find their business struggling.
4: What keeps you awake at night? Is there anything else you think the apparel industry should be keeping a close eye on in the year ahead? Do you expect 2017 to be better than 2016, and why?
One thing that keeps me awake at night as a professor is what needs to be changed or updated in our curriculum to better prepare our students for the needs of the apparel industry. Fashion programs like us directly prepare future professionals for the fashion apparel industry. This also means we are not immune to the big shift in the industry either. For example, our course offerings currently include textile science, product development, merchandising, branding and sourcing and trade. But in addition to these conventional topics, what else should be added to the curriculum? What new skill setsor knowledge points will be highly expected by the apparel industry for our students in the future? Personally I think talent training is a critical area that the apparel industry and our fashion educational programs can and should form closer partnership. And the outcomes will be mutual beneficial too.
Trade policy is another area that keeps me awake at night. Trade policy matters for the apparel industry because it affects the quantity, price and availability of products in the market. Specifically, in 2017 I will be watching closely about the following trade agendas: 1) the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which is nearing entering into force. TFA aims to make customs and border procedures easier, speed up the passage of goods between countries and lower cost of trade.
2) negotiation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). In 2015, the sixteen RCEP members altogether exported $369 billion worth of textile and apparel (50% of world share) and imported $124 billion (34% of world share). Since the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) won’t be implemented anytime soon, RCEP has the potential to influence and reshape the T&A supply chain in the Asia-Pacific region.
3) a possible revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is a critical factor facilitating and maintaining the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain. A recent study of mine shows that ending the NAFTA would significantly hurt apparel manufacturing in Mexico and textile manufacturing in the United States, largely because apparel “Made in Mexico” today often contains yarns and fabrics “Made in USA”.
4) Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). Although many people think these two agreements are dead, I disagree. TPP and T-TIP are NOT conventional free trade agreements (FTAs) that deal with tariffs and non-tariff barriers only. Just like why we need traffic rules, TPP and T-TIP address our needs to update international trade regulations on 21st century trade agendas such as digital trade, state-owned enterprises, labor and environmental standards, small and medium sized enterprises and trade related investment. On the other hand, both TPP and T-TIP still have a solid and broad supporting base, which includes the fashion apparel industry. If trade politics is why TPP and T-TIP are in trouble, for the same reason, we should expect a reversal of the fate of these two agreements when time arrives. Plus, we should never underestimate the creativity and wisdom of trade policymakers.
Sheng Lu
Although the trade relationship with China is often blamed for causing job losses in the United States, a new study prepared for the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) by Oxford Economics suggests overall positive impacts of China on the US economy. According to the study:
In terms of the textile and apparel (T&A) sector, the report suggests that:
The report can be downloaded from HERE.
The latest Just-Style State of Sourcing Survey conducted in December 2016 suggests a few trends of apparel sourcing in 2017:
Respondents of the survey include manufacturers (29%), importers, agents or sourcing office executives (23%), retailers (12%), fiber, yarn, or fabric suppliers (11%), consulting, research, government, trade institute, NGO and university fields (14%) and software suppliers (2.6%).
Full report of the survey is available HERE.
The presentation is the outcome of Jillian Luetje‘s honor project in FASH455 (Fall 2016). In the project, Jillian explored the facts and future of “Made in USA” textile and apparel based on her research of existing literature and interviews with U.S. trade officials. The presentation intends to help the audience (especially those new to the area of textile and apparel trade and trade policy) have a basic understanding of the topic.
Key findings:
Welcome for any comments and suggestions!
TPP is in trouble, but NOT dead
David Spooner, Partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Former Chief Textile & Apparel Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration: “it will be a tough road to pass it (the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP) during the Trump Administration…However, there may be opportunities for the (fashion) industry if Trump brings new faces to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and takes a fresh look at trade agreements.” Source: https://www.usfashionindustry.com/news/off-the-cuff-newsletter/2803-recap-28th-apparel-importers-trade-transportation-conference
Jeffrey J. Schott, Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: “What’s the future for TPP? Most likely, Trump will simply not implement it. Without US participation, the pact cannot definitively enter into force. It’s death by malign neglect.” “But the 11 other TPP countries may not sit idly on the sidelines waiting for US ratification. Instead, they could agree among themselves to extend the TPP benefits to each other on a provisional basis, leaving the door open for US participation in the future. If the United States subsequently ratifies the TPP, the pact would then enter into force on a permanent basis.” Source: https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/tpp-could-go-forward-without-united-states
Steve Warner, President/CEO BeaverLake6 Group LLC, former President and CEO of the Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI): “TPP was dead going forward. TPP isn’t actually bad for the technical textiles industry except in a few instances. The real bad culprit, though, is the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which I opposed when it was being hotly debated in 2015. TPA gave no wiggle room for lawmakers to make even slight changes in the TPP when it was presented by the Obama administration that could at least mollify a representative’s constituents. You couldn’t just like parts of the agreement; you had to like all of it. Thus, you were either with it entirely or have to go against it. It proved to be safer to go against it. As for T-TIP, it was going to be a tough deal to conclude when the European Union insisted a primary objective for them was the elimination of the Berry Amendment protection for US domestic manufacturers” Source: http://www.beaverlake6.com/in-my-opinion/
Face uncertainties but with hope
Michael Singer, vice president of customs compliance at Macy’s and chairman of the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA): “I do see some opportunities believe it or not, and I had to struggle really hard to come up with something positive. From the regulatory basis, there may be an opportunity for some easing of government laws and mandates.” “One of the key issues we now face is how the administration and Congress will handle trade issues in 2017… We all know how important trade and the access to world markets is in our ability to provide our customers the choices and products they expected, and yet there is no doubt the protectionist sentiment in our country is at historic levels. USFIA will be doing our best to make sure that this remains a top priority and we clearly communicate the importance and benefit of trade to U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy.” Source: http://wwd.com/business-news/government-trade/donald-trump-on-trade-taxes-and-regulations-10702130/
Julia Hughes, President of the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA): “A lot of folks were surprised by the (election) outcome… We can see we have our work cut out for us…We’re going to be dealing with a lot of unknowns even with the continuation of a Republican Congress.” Source: http://www.just-style.com/analysis/tpp-is-not-going-to-happen-in-a-trump-administration_id129272.aspx
Daniel J. Ikenson, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies: “If he (Trump) is able to expand and diversify the pool of people advising him, there is a reasonable chance that President Trump’s actions will be less bellicose than his rhetoric has been. After all, as someone who wants to make America “great again,” President-elect Trump will want the policies implemented by his administration to help grow the economy. Trade agreements have succeeded in that regard and, in addition to the TPP, there are plenty of countries and regions willing to partner, including the European Union and the United Kingdom (separately), and plenty of alternative negotiating platforms for accomplishing trade and investment liberalization. ” Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/shifting-gears-contemplate-trumps-trade-policies
David Spooner, Partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Former Chief Textile & Apparel Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration: “I think there’s some opportunity in a Trump administration…Assuming chaos provides opportunities, and if Trump brings in new faces to USTR, it might give us an opportunity to do new things in trade. We’ve been screwed by the yarn-forward rule for decades. Maybe there’s an opportunity to do things, even if it’s around the margins.” Source: https://sourcingjournalonline.com/tpp-ttip-wont-happen-trump-administration/
Robert Antoshak, managing director at Olah Inc.: “First, (Trump) he’ll let TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership) just wither on the vine. It’s pretty easy to kill TPP by doing nothing; Congress hasn’t voted on it yet. Next, he may activate the escape clause in NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico), which gives signatories a six-month window to exit the agreement. During that time, he could use an exit for political gain in the media – imagine the headlines about the US pulling out of NAFTA – but in reality, he could use the time to renegotiate portions of the agreement. And then there’s T-TIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership free trade deal with the EU. Personally, I’m going to keep a close eye on relations between the White House and 10 Downing Street. The commonalities between the forces supporting Brexit and Trump are all too similar. Why negotiate with all of the EU, when it may be more politically expedient for Trump to negotiate a separate economic-trade deal with Theresa May?” “I am confident that he (Trump) will attempt to alter the global hierarchy. One way of changing the system will be to focus on trade. He can make tactical adjustments to trade policy that will not only give him the front-page news he craves, but will enact the kind of systemic change upon which he ran for president.” Source: http://www.just-style.com/comment/trump-trade-policy-who-knows-what-hell-do_id129295.aspx
US-China Trade War? Keep a close watch
Augustine Tantillo, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO): “(I) would be surprised if Trump does not take some steps to crack down on currency devaluation, particularly as it relates to China.” Source: http://wwd.com/business-news/government-trade/donald-trump-on-trade-taxes-and-regulations-10702130/
Chad Bown, Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: “What he (Trump) has said is that they (China) manipulate their currency and he has threatened to impose tariffs upwards of 45%. The concerns with doing that is that we (USA) do have a trade agreement with 163 other economies of the world, the WTO. China is a part of that and by doing that (imposing tariffs upwards of 45%) unilaterally, would be violating our commitments, legal commitments to our trading partners under that deal and China would be authorized and probably would retaliate and strike back and probably do the same thing against the United States which would mean U.S. companies and exporters that make goods and agricultural products, and send those to China would suffer as a retaliatory response.” Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?417891-3/washington-journal-chad-bown-trade-policy-trump-administration
Textile and apparel industry needs NAFTA
Steve Lamar, executive vice president for the American Apparel & Footwear Association(AAFA): “It is well established that CAFTA and NAFTA are critical for the U.S. textile and apparel industry. The things we have continued to argue is how to find ways to make it better… NAFTA was negotiated when there were no other free-trade agreements and the world was surrounded by quotas and rules of origin that catered to the United States. But the industry has evolved.” “Trump will renegotiate NAFTA and is only threatening to abrogate the free-trade accord… Trump likes to build up leverage to get the best possible deal, and he can view trade with that same lens.” Source: https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2016/nov/17/how-would-end-nafta-affect-la-apparel-industry/
Augustine Tantillo, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO): “there will be a ‘level of caution,’ when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA. This agreement has been in place for a while and it would be clearly disruptive to simply walk away from it at this point.” Source: http://wwd.com/business-news/government-trade/donald-trump-on-trade-taxes-and-regulations-10702130/
Leonie Barrie, Managing editor of Just-Style: “Will a Trump administration revisit NAFTA? Such a prospect is a concerning one because NAFTA’s free trade framework with Mexico has been at the heart of many sourcing strategies in North America. The US exported $6.5bn of apparel and textiles to Mexico last year and, in turn, Mexico shipped $4.2bn to the US. Earlier this year executives told just-style that if Trump went ahead with threats to build a 3,200-kilometre fence on the Mexican-American border to stem immigration, it could cut $2.2bn or 20% of the $11bn in US-Mexican textiles and apparel trade in its first year.” Source: http://www.just-style.com/comment/what-might-a-trump-presidency-mean-for-apparel_id129260.aspx
Please feel free to respond to any comments above or leave your thoughts.
This video is a great supplement to our discussion on the U.S. trade policy this week. To be noted, the next president’s trade policy will affect millions of Americans, as well as the health and competitiveness of the country’s economy. Done right, trade policy can also advance strategic interests like strengthening the economies of allies, deepening diplomatic ties, and promoting global cooperation that acts as a bulwark against conflict.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on the video, including any points you agree, disagree or find interesting. Additional resources that can facilitate the discussion are also welcome.
#1 How have US importers/retailers/fashion brands which source from China reacted to China’s rising labor cost in recent years? Any specific examples of companies’ practices and strategies?
#2 It is widely reported that China’s labor cost has been rising quickly in recent years (around 14% annually between 2010 and 2014). But trade data didn’t show a significant drop of China’s textile and apparel exports to the US. Why is that?
#3 Why do you think people have a conception of China being a “highly reliable” sourcing destination for textile and apparel? What is China’s unique competitiveness?
#4 Many domestic and foreign firms have started investing in textile/fiber factories in Vietnam because of the yarn forward rules of origin in TPP. Would it be in the United States’ best interest to become one of these investors? Why or why not?
#5 In the class we discussed the “flying geese model” and the phenomenon of “Factory Asia”. Particularly, Asian countries are forming an ever more integrated textile and apparel supply chain—for example, apparel manufacturers in Asia are gradually using more textile inputs made in Asia rather than made outside the region. Does it mean that the United States has no role to play in Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain? Will the TPP make a difference?
#6 Should US allow China to join the TPP? Why or why not? If China joins the TPP, what will be the implications for the pattern of textile and apparel trade in the Asia-Pacific region?
#7 What is the relationship between the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Alternatives? Competitors? Friends? Foes? Why are there so many different free trade agreements (FTA) in the same region?
Please feel free to share your thoughts and recommend any additional articles/readings/resources relevant to the discussion. Please mention the question # in your reply.
We all know that China is the single largest supplier of textile and apparel to the U.S. market. But on Oct 20, 2016, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced Tianyuan Garments Company, a Chinese sport apparel manufacturer based in Suzhou, China will invest $20 million to build a new garment factory in the Little Rock area of Arkansas.
Tianyuan, founded in 1998, is a garment maker specializing in the production of casual and sport apparel, including garment for Adidas, Reebok and Armani. With five facilities in China, Tianyuan was named one of the top 100 garment companies in China in 2015. Tianyuan’s annual production rate is nearly 10 million articles and clothing. The company currently supplies 90% of the garments marketed by Adidas, which is the second-largest global sports and apparel maker behind Nike. Tianyuan was also one of several suppliers for the 2014 World Cup and for the Italian Olympic Team in 2016.
According to the Memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Hutchinson and Tianyuan executives, the Chinese apparel giant will hire 400 full-time workers primarily from Arkansas within four years of starting operations in central Arkansas. It is said that these workers will be paid around $14/hour.
As part of the deal, Arkansas offers an incentive package that will include five-year, 3.9% annual tax rebate worth nearly $1.6 million annually. Other incentives include a $1 million infrastructure assistance grant for building improvements and equipment purchases, as well as a $500,000 stipend for worker training.
Arkansas will also help provide assistance in helping Tianyuan get 20 work visas for company executives who will live in Arkansas or travel between the U.S. and China on business related to the Little Rock manufacturing plant. Furthermore, the Chinese garment maker will receive abatement of up to 65% of property taxes from the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County.
Tianyuan is not the only Chinese textile and apparel company that invests in the US in recent years. Back in 2013, Keer Group, a Chinese textile company founded in 1995 and based in Zhejiang, China opened a new facility in Lancaster County, South Carolina as the base of operations for Keer Group’s expansion into the North American market. With $218 million total investment in 5 years, Keer America plans to open one plant with manufacturing capacity of 30,000 metric tons of yarn per year and another plant with 75,000 spindles to make 50 metric tons of yarns daily.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on the following discussion questions:
[Discussion for this post is closed]
The following summary of the event is written by Natalie Smith, a student in FASH455 Fall 2016.
A few things that stuck out to me from this dialogue included Forman’s belief of California being the state to benefit the most from the TPP. Currently, California exports $170 billions of goods and are strong in manufacturing, agricultural, entertainment, IP industries, etc. I also found it interesting that he continually reiterated that we have not lost jobs in the U.S. solely because of globalization but mainly because of automation.
#1 Overall, do you think the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) reflect the commercial interests of the U.S. textile industry and/or U.S. apparel industry? Why?
#2 We know that the U.S. textile industry (such as NCTO) strongly supports a strict yarn-forward RoO in TPP whereas apparel retailers and fashion brands (such as USFIA and AAFA) say the yarn-forward style RoO is outdated and unworkable for apparel companies’ global apparel supply chain. If you were U.S. policymakers, what would you do to “balance” these two conflicting arguments?
#3 Research shows that many free trade agreements enacted in the United States are with a very low utilization rate. Will TPP face the same fate? Why or why not?
#4 It is said that TPP has the strongest protections for workers of any trade agreement in history, requiring all TPP Parties to adopt and maintain in their laws and practices the fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization (ILO). But why do most U.S. labor unions still oppose the agreement?
#5 Will TPP exert a negative impact on the Western Hemisphere supply chain? Why or why not? How should apparel manufacturers in the NAFTA and CAFTA-DR region respond to the potential impact of TPP, especially the intensified competition from Vietnam?
Please feel free to share your thoughts and recommend any additional articles/readings/resources relevant to the discussion. Please mention the question # in your reply.
Updated statistics: Global Apparel Market 2018-2022
Data source: Euromonitor Passport (2016)
Related: Market Size of the Global Textile and Apparel Industry: 2015 to 2020
A timely, informative and intellectual discussion with Roberto Azevêdo, Director General of the World Trade Organization on the state of global trade and its governance. Some important key points during Roberto’s presentation/discussion:
Questions for thinking:
By Sheng Lu
In the class, we briefly introduced the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which has played a critical role in the past decades both financially helping trade-displaced workers and tactically facilitating trade liberalization agendas in U.S. trade policy.
Rationale and purpose of TAA
It is widely acknowledged that trade liberalization can benefit consumers and create new market-access opportunities for export-oriented firms. However, expanded trade may also exert negative and often concentrated effects on domestic industries and workers that face increased import competition. Freer trade is not entirely free, but bears the cost of economic adjustment. TAA program therefore is designed to provide readjustment assistance to firms and workers that suffer dislocation (job loss) due to foreign competition or offshoring. To be noted, TAA has been a significant tool to assist workers in the U.S. textile and apparel industry.
According to official statistics, since 1974, 2.2 million American workers have benefited from the TAA program, which provides workers with opportunities to obtain the skills, credentials, resources, and support they need to obtain good jobs in an in-demand occupation — and keep them. TAA was last authorized in June 2015 to continue through June 30, 2021.
Eligibility for TAA
To be eligible for TAA, petitioning workers must establish that foreign trade contributed importantly to their loss of employment. The role of foreign trade can be established in one of several ways:
Additionally, workers who lost jobs from firms that have been publicly identified by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) as injured by a market disruption (for example, in anti-dumping, countervailing duty or safeguard cases) or other qualified action can also submit TAA petition.
Workers’ Benefits under TAA
TAA benefits for individual workers include:
Financial Cost of TAA
TAA is financially covered by the federal government (i.e. taxpayers’ money) through annual appropriations. Appropriations for the program in FY2016 were $861 million, of which $450 million was for training and reemployment services and the remaining $411 million was for income support and other activities.
Role of TAA in U.S. trade policy
TAA is “presented as an alternative to policies that would restrict imports, and so provides assistance while bolstering freer trade and diminishing prospects for potentially costly tension (retaliation) among trade partners.”(Hornbeck, 2013)
Back in 1992, newly elected President Clinton oversaw the implementation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but did so only after a number of conditions were attached, including TAA. In 2002, President Bush and the Republicans pushed hard to renew the long-expired trade promotion authority (TPA), but Democrats were unwilling to provide it unless TAA was reauthorized. TAA was also directly linked to the passage of three free trade agreements (FTAs) by US Congress in 2011, including US-Korea, US-Columbia and US-Panama FTAs.
Concerns about TAA
Critics strongly debate the merits of TAA on equity, efficiency, and budgetary grounds:
Reference:
Collins, B. (2016). Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers and the TAA Reauthorization Act of 2015, Congressional Research Service, R44153
Hornbeck, J.F. (2013).Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Its Role in U.S. Trade Policy, Congressional Research Service, R41922
U.S. textile and apparel imports enjoy steady growth from 2000 to 2015. Specifically, the value of U.S. textile imports reached $26,763 million in 2015, up 4.2 percent from 2014 and 85.1 percent from 2000. The value of U.S. apparel imports reached $85,165 million in 2015, up 4.1 percent from 2014 and 48.8 percent from 2000. It is forecasted that the value of U.S. textile and apparel imports could reach $27,355 million (up 2.2 percent) and $85,719 million (up 0.7 percent) respectively in 2016.
Because the United States is no longer a major apparel manufacturer but one of the largest apparel consumption markets in the world, apparel products accounted for 76.1 percent of total U.S. textile and apparel imports in 2015, followed by made-up textiles (16.9 percent), fabrics (5.8 percent) and yarns (1.3 percent).
In terms of source of products, U.S. imported apparel from as many as 150 countries in 2015. However, Herfindahl index reached 0.15 for knitted apparel (HS chapter 61) and 0.18 for woven apparel (HS chapter 62) in 2015, suggesting this is a market with a high concentration of supplying countries. Specifically, all top apparel suppliers to the United States in 2015 (by value) are developing countries and most of them are located in Asia, including China (35.9 percent), Vietnam (12.4 percent), Bangladesh (6.3 percent), Indonesia (5.8 percent), India (4.3 percent) and Mexico (4.2 percent).
U.S. textile and apparel imports are also becoming even cheaper. For example, U.S. apparel imports in 2015 on average was only 85.7 percent of the price in 1990 and the price of imported fabrics cut almost by half over the same period.
From 2013 to 2015, the fastest growing textile and apparel import categories unusually include several fabric products, such as blue denim (OTEXA code 225, up 74.8%), Cheesecloths (OTEXA code 226, up 74.3%) and woven fabrics (OTEXA code 611, up 49.3%). It is likely that the growing business of apparel “Made in USA” has led to an increased demand for imported fabrics.
Additionally, U.S. apparel imports overall mirror the pattern of apparel retail sales in the U.S. market. This reflects the fact that the performance of the U.S. economy is the leading factor shaping the size of demand for imported apparel. It is also interesting to note that the value of U.S. apparel imports grew at a faster rate than the value of U.S. apparel retail sales in 2015 (4.1 percent v.s. 1.7 percent), suggesting import penetration ratio (i.e. the percentage of apparel consumed in the United States that is supplied by imports) continues to rise.
Data source: Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), U.S. Department of Commerce
by Sheng Lu
New landscape of sourcing
Made in USA
Updates of sourcing destinations
Sustainability
The awareness of social responsibility and sustainability has much improved: everyone in the industry is talking about them and have a view on them. On a voluntary basis, some companies are making efforts to improve traceability of their products, i.e. to help consumers know exactly where their clothing comes from and what is happening at the upstream of the supply chain. Yet, how to encourage factories to share their information and control tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers remain a challenge.
by Sheng Lu
Note: Sourcing at Magic is one of the largest and most influential annual textile and apparel sourcing events hosted in the United States. Special thanks to the Center for Global and Areas Studies at the University of Delaware for funding the trip.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently launched a new website “Made In America: A Buyer’s Guide for Donald Trump”, which highlighted hundreds of U.S. manufacturers for products ranging from men’s ties, suits to furniture.
Joseph Abboud is one of the companies highlighted by the website for making “Made in America” suites and shirts. But does “Made in America” mean a Joseph Abboud branded suit or shirt is 100% made in the United States from yarns, fabrics to the cut-and-sew process? Not necessarily!
According to information submitted by Joseph Abboud to the “Made in USA” database managed by the Office of Textiles and Apparel under the U.S. Department of Commerce, some of its products actually are “partially made in U.S.A. with imported fabrics”.
This is evidenced both by Joseph Abboud’s product label and information provided by some retailers which sell Joseph Abboud’s branded products (See pictures below).
Hamilton Shirts of Houston is another company highlighted by Clinton’s “Made in USA” website. But similar as the case of Joseph Abboud, a Hamilton branded shirt priced at $215-$245 is typically “Hand cut and sewn in the USA. 100% cotton Italian fabric.”
Actually, Joseph Abboud is a brand owned by JA Holding, Inc., which was acquired by Tailored Brands for $94.9 million on August 6, 2013. As of June 2016, Tailored Brands also owns the Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank.
Like most other US apparel companies/fashion brands today, Tailored Brands commits to global sourcing. In fiscal year 2015, the company “sourced approximately 60% of direct sourced merchandise from Asia (36% from China) while 13% was sourced in the U.S., 12% in Mexico, and 15% was sourced in other regions.” (Source: Tailored Brands Annual Report, 2015)
Tailored Brands uses the factory in New Bedford, MA (the one highlighted by Clinton’s website) to make tailored clothing under the Joseph Abboud label, including designer suits, tuxedos, sport coats and slacks which they sell in Men’s Wearhouse stores as well as Joseph Abboud’s flagship store. Tailor Brands also sells Joseph Abboud branded products in Moores stores, which are made in Canada by a third party.
Related article: Clothing Label Reveals the Global Nature of the Textile and Apparel Industry
Disclaimer: All blog posts on this site are for FASH455 educational purposes only and they are nonpolitical and nonpartisan in nature. No blog post has the intention to favor or oppose any particular presidential candidate, nor shall be interpreted in that way.
Please feel free to share your views on the following discussion questions based on the video:
China is no longer one of the cheapest places to produce garments. The minimum monthly wages in China have far exceeded those in Bangladesh, India and Cambodia:
Appendix: State of China’s Apparel Exports in 2015
According to the UNComtrade, China remains the world’s largest apparel exporter in 2015 (37.4% world share for knitted apparel, HS61 and 34.9% for woven apparel, HS62).
From 2011 to 2015, “Made in China” continues to acquire more market shares in some key apparel import markets in the world, including the United States and UK (i.e. China’s apparel exports to these markets grew at a faster rate than these countries’ apparel import growth from the world—bubbles in blue in the figures below). Nevertheless, in some other markets (bubbles in yellow in the figures below), notably Japan and Germany, China is losing market shares to other garment exporters such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.
The World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2016 is now available
According to the newly released World Trade Statistical Review 2016 by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current dollar value of world textiles (SITC 65) and apparel (SITC 84) exports totaled $291 billion and $445 billion respectively in 2015, but decreased by 7.2 percent and 8.0 percent from a year earlier. This is the first time since the 2009 financial crisis that the value of world textiles and apparel exports grew negatively.
However, textiles and apparel are not alone. The current dollar value of world merchandise exports also declined by 13 percent in 2015,to $16.0 trillion, as export prices fell by 15 percent. In comparison, the volume of world trade grew slowly at a rate of 2.7 percent, which was roughly in line with world GDP growth of 2.4 percent. WTO says that falling prices for oil and other primary commodities, economic slowdown in China, a severe recession in Brazil, strong fluctuations in exchange rates, and financial volatility driven by divergent monetary policies in developed countries are among the major factors that contributed to the weak performance in world trade.
Textile and apparel exports
China, the European Union and India remained the top three exporters of textiles in 2015. Altogether, they accounted for 66.4 percent of world exports. The United States remained the fourth top textile exporter in 2015. The top ten exporters all experienced a decline in the value of their exports in 2015, with the highest declines seen in the European Union (-14 percent) and Turkey (-13 percent). The smallest decline was recorded in China (-2 percent).
Top three exporters of apparel include China, the European Union and Bangladesh. Altogether, they accounted for 70.3 percent of world exports. Among the top ten exporters of apparel, increases in export values were recorded by Vietnam (+10 percent), Cambodia(+8 percent), Bangladesh (+6 percent) and India (+2 percent). The other major exporters saw stagnation in their export values (United States) or recorded a decline (all other top ten economies).
Additionally, despite reported rising production cost, China’s market shares in world textile and apparel exports continued to rise in 2015 (see the figure above).
Textile and apparel imports
The European Union, China and the United States were the top three importers of textiles in 2015. However, altogether they accounted for only 37 percent of world imports, down from 52.8 percent in 2000. Because a good proportion of textiles made by developed countries (such as the United States) are exported to developing countries for apparel manufacturing purposes, the pattern reflects the changing dynamics of world apparel manufacturing and exports in recent years.
Because of consumers’ purchasing power (often measured by GDP per capita) and size of the population, the European Union, the United States and Japan remained the top three importers of apparel in 2015. Altogether, they accounted for 59 percent of world imports, but down from 78 percent in 2000. This indicates that import demand from other economies, especially some emerging markets, have been growing faster over the past decade.
Before the 2016 Source Africa Trade event in June 2016, CNBC interviewed Tim Armstrong, Investment Promotion Director for the Textile Development Unit at the Ministry of Industry and Trade in Tanzania. Three questions were discussed during the interview:
What is your view on these issues?
The International Labor Organization (ILO) releases a new study, which looks at how the increasing number of labor provisions in free trade agreements are impacting the world of work. According to the study:
Labor provisions in free trade agreements take into consideration any standard which addresses labor relations or minimum working terms or conditions, mechanisms for monitoring or promoting compliance, and/or a framework for cooperation. (See appendix: evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements).
As of December 2015, there were 76 trade agreements in place (covering 135 economies) that include labor provisions, nearly half of which came into existence after 2008. This represents more than one-quarter (28 percent) of the trade agreements which the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been notified of, and which are currently in force. Over 80 percent of agreements that came into force since 2013 contain such provisions. Countries most active in promoting labor provisions in free trade agreements include: Canada, the European Union, the United States, Chile, New Zealand and Switzerland. Some South-South free trade agreements also include labor provisions.
The study finds that there is NO evidence to support the claim that implementation and enforcement of labor standards leads to reduced trade. The findings show that trade agreements, with or without labor provisions, boost trade between members of the agreement to a similar extent. For country-partner pairs that have a trade agreement with labor provisions in force, bilateral trade is estimated to be on average 28 percent greater than what would be expected without such an agreement.
Results further show that, on average, trade agreements that contain labor provisions impact positively on labor force participation rates, bringing larger proportions of male and female working-age populations into the labor force and, particularly, increasing the female labor force. The study assumes that labor provisions in trade agreements can raise people’s expectations of better working conditions, which in turn increases their willingness to enter the labor force.
However, the study found NO statistically significant relationship between labor provisions and labor market outcomes such as wages, share of vulnerable employment or gender gaps at the aggregate level (i.e. consider all countries). On the one hand, this implies that labor provisions at least do not lead to the deterioration of other labor standards in a country. On the other hand, it indicates that labor provisions in free trade agreements have limited impact on the outcomes of the labor market.
Additionally, the study stresses that interaction among stakeholders, capacity-building and monitoring mechanisms – with the support of social dialogue are critical to achieve positive outcomes in the labor market. In a case study on the Cambodia–US Textile Agreement specifically, the report finds strong firm-level intervention, such as monitoring and compliance, improved wages at the firm level, including a notable reduction of the gender wage gap. In another case study, it is found that capacity-building measures brought to Bangladesh after the Rana Plaza tragedy have resulted in some visible improvements with respect to the number of trade unions, building safety and amendments in labor law in the country.
Appendix: Evolution of labor provisions in US free trade agreements
Source: http://www.thirdway.org/memo/tpp-in-brief-labor-standards
According to Thanh Nien News, Vietnam’s textile and apparel (T&A) exports only increased 5.1 percent to $10.7 billion in the first half of 2016. This was the lowest growth rate since 2010. Data from the General Statistics Office of Vietnam shows that Vietnam’s T&A exports totaled $22.63 million in 2015, up 8.2 percent from a year earlier.
In the U.S. market, apparel imports from Vietnam also see a much slower growth in the first five months of 2016: 4.1% by value (compared with 13.1% on average between 2010 and 2015) and 5.0% by quantity (compared with 11.8% on average between 2010 and 2015).
The new trade data echos the findings in the latest 2016 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study. Although Vietnam remains one of the top sourcing destinations, respondents seem to be more conservative about Vietnam’s growth potential in the next two years. Only 4 percent of respondents expect a strong increase of sourcing value or volume from the country, which is a substantial drop from 21.4 percent in the 2015 study.
In its newly released Economic Impact of Trade Agreement Implemented under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a quantitative assessment on the impact of trade on manufacturing jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel industry. According to the report:
The 2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study is now available.
The report can be downloaded from HERE
Key Findings of the study:
I. Business environment and outlook in the U.S. Fashion Industry
II. Sourcing practices in the U.S. fashion industry
III. Trade policy and the U.S. fashion industry
The benchmarking study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2016 based on a survey of 30 executives from leading U.S. fashion and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers. In terms of business size, 92 percent of respondents report having more than 500 employees in their companies, while 84 percent of respondents report having more than 1,000 employees, suggesting that the findings well reflect the views of the most influential players in the U.S. fashion industry.
For the benchmarking studies in 2014 and 2015, please visit: https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study
China as the top textile and apparel sourcing destination for U.S. companies remains “unshakable”, according to product level data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Specifically, based on the import value in 2015:
In comparison, Vietnam, the second largest textile and apparel supplier to the United States, was the top supplier for only four categories of apparel (3.8% of the total 106 categories).
For many textile and apparel products, China not only is the largest supplier, but also holds a lion’s market share. Specifically, for those textile and apparel product categories that China was the top supplier in 2015 (by value):
by Sheng Lu
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 