FASH455 Learning activity: After watching the two video above, please explore the following topics with the assistance of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools:
The significance and complexity of container shipping for U.S. fashion brands and retailers
Current issues related to container shipping for U.S. fashion brands and retailers
In your response, please include the following elements:
Questions: list at least three questions you asked ChatGPT or other AI tools that helped generate the most information and insights.
Summary and reflections: summarize the key points from the answers you received from the AI tool and share your reflections (e.g., were there any surprising insights? the outlook for the issues discussed)
Further Reading: Suggest 1-2 additional articles from national or international press that offer deeper insights into the topics. The readings need to be published after 2024. Please share the article link and briefly explain why you recommend them.
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) released its new fact-finding report examining the competitiveness of Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan as apparel suppliers to the United States. The study was conducted in 2024 based on input from secondary sources (e.g., trade statistics, public hearings, and desk studies) and fieldwork. Below are summaries of the key findings regarding apparel export competitiveness.
Factors that affect export competitiveness in the global apparel sector
One key issue the study explored is what factors affect a country’s apparel export competitiveness and how to become a preferred apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies.
The studies suggest that four types of factors are most important (see the figure above). However, consistent with existing literature, the USITC report could not determine which factor is decisive in fashion companies’ apparel sourcing decisions. For example, the report found that:
“cost—the price buyers pay their suppliers—plays a key role in sourcing decisions, although opinions vary regarding the importance of cost relative to other factors.”
“Depending on the product, target consumer, and identity of a brand or buyer, apparel buyers will place varying degrees of importance on product differentiation factors such as quality, specialization, product mix, and full package offerings, which include design services, finishing, packaging, and logistics.”
“The emphasis on reliability has particularly grown in response to various recent disruptions to global apparel supply chains such as a global pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, and trade policy.”
“Although emerging research suggests that compliance programs concerning wages, social inclusion, and climate change mitigation may increase competitiveness, buyers and brands remain divided on the topic…the relative importance, or “weight,” of such compliance in sourcing decisions remains a topic of active study and discussion within the industry.”
Cost and export competitiveness
The USITC report highlighted the complex and nuanced relationship between “costs” and a country’s apparel export competitiveness. Several patterns are noteworthy:
Apparel is a buyer-driven industry, meaning “the global apparel supply chain gives buyers the power to negotiate based on price, which can push down prices and transfer greater costs to the supplier.”
The ability to produce textile raw materials locally can provide cost advantages in garment production—“Material inputs are widely recognized as the largest component in the cost of a final apparel product, and these prices are largely determined by the presence of a domestic textile industry or costs of importing textiles.”
It is difficult to compare wages across countries to measure labor competitiveness. In particular, low labor costs “do not reflect the true cost of doing business (e.g., via wage suppression)” in a country and “they can harm a country’s reputation for social compliance and negatively affect labor productivity.”
Buyer-supplier relationships in apparel sourcing
The USITC report revealed some positive developments in the buyer-supplier relationships involving U.S. fashion companies.
Fashion companies increasingly recognize the value of building long-term relationships with their vendors. Buyers emphasize that maintaining these relationships is a key factor in sourcing decisions, largely due to the cost and time involved in finding and establishing relationships with new suppliers.
Fashion companies’ efforts to improve supply chain transparency and traceability also need “suppliers who will act in line with their brand’s values.”
Suppliers benefit from the long-term relationship, too. As the USITC report noted, some fashion companies guarantee suppliers a particular profit margin to ensure their continued operation. Additionally, some buyers gain a deep understanding of their suppliers’ cost structures, enabling them to calculate the costs of compliance with various standards and assist suppliers in reducing costs where possible.
Subcontracting is still regarded as necessary for the garment industry. As noted in the USITC report, apparel orders fluctuate seasonally, making it impractical for suppliers to hire additional permanent workers or invest in machinery for peak demand. To meet buyer expectations during busy periods, manufacturers often subcontract parts of orders and increase overtime or rely on temporary contract workers. This practice is seen as essential for ensuring a reliable supply of apparel.
Social and environmental responsibility and apparel sourcing
The USITC report acknowledged the growing importance of social and environmental compliance to a country’s apparel export competitiveness. However, the relationship remains complex.
The extent to which voluntary social and environmental responsibility programs and their associated auditing practices have influenced outcomes, especially regarding worker rights, remains unclear.
Suppliers report that the increased frequency of flooding and high temperatures due to climate change negatively affect their ability to meet labor and environmental standards.
Increased compliance with social and environmental standards raises supplier costs, negatively impacting their cost competitiveness. Many stakeholders note that while brands and consumers demand greater responsibility, this often does not come with a “price premium” for suppliers, who ultimately absorb these increased costs.
Note: The USITC report also evaluated the export competitiveness of each apparel-exporting country it examined, including their respective competitive advantages and issues to address.
PVH Corporation (PVH), which owns well-known brands including Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, Arrow, and Izod, is one of the largest US fashion companies with nearly $9.2 billion in sales revenues in 2022.
By leveraging PVH’s publically released factory lists, this article analyzes the company’s detailed sourcing strategies and changes from 2021 to 2022. Key findings:
Trend 1: PVH adopts a diverse apparel sourcing base and continues to work with more vendors. Specifically, in 2022, PVH sourced apparel from as many as 37 countries in Asia, Europe, America, the Middle East, and Africa, the same as in 2021. Despite not expanding the number of countries it sources from, PVH increased its total number of vendors from 503 in 2021 to 553 in 2022, highlighting the company’s ongoing commitment to diversifying its sourcing base.
Trend 2: Asia is PVH’s dominant sourcing base for finished garments and textile raw materials.
Specifically, about 56.2% of PVH’s apparel suppliers were Asia-based in 2022, followed by the EU (20.3%). Compared with a year ago, PVH even added twenty new Asia-based factories to its supplier list in 2022, suggesting no intention of reducing sourcing from the region. Moreover, From 2021 to 2022, as many as 83% of PVH’s raw material suppliers were Asia-based, far exceeding any other regions.
Trend 3: PVH’s China sourcing strategies are evolving and more complicated than simply “reducing China exposure.”
First, PVH continued to work with MORE Chinese factories. Specifically, between 2021 and 2022, PVH added 17 Chinese factories to its apparel supplier list, more than other countries. However, the expansion could be because of PVH’s growing sales in China.
Second, PVH’s garment factories in China are smaller than their peers in other Asian countries. For example, in 2022, most PVH’s contracted garment factories in top Asian supplying countries, such as Bangladesh (87.5%), Vietnam (63.3%), and Sri Lanka (65.3%), had more than 1,000 workers. In comparison, only 11.3% of PVH’s Chinese vendors had 1,000 workers, and more than 62.5% had fewer than 500 workers. The result suggests that PVH treats China as an apparel sourcing base for flexibility and agility, particularly those orders that may include a greater variety of products in relatively smaller quantities.
Further, PVH often priced apparel “Made in China” higher than those sourced from the rest of Asia.
Trend 4: PVH actively used “emerging” sourcing destinations outside Asia. Other than those top Asian suppliers, PVH’s apparel sourcing base includes several countries in America, the EU, and Africa that deserve more attention, including Portugal, Brazil, Tunisia, and Turkey. Overall, PVH sourced from these countries for various reasons, from serving local consumers, seeking sourcing flexibility, accessing raw materials, and lowering sourcing costs.
Part I: Watch the following two videos on tariffs—one from an economic perspective and the other from a political perspective.
Part II: Check the respective tariff rate for the following products by copying and pasting the HS code into the search box
Product 1 (men’s and boys’ overcoat, cotton): HS code 6101.20.00
Product 2 (cotton): HS code 5201.00.05
Product 3 (smartphone): HS code 8517.13.00
Discussion question: Based on the videos and your findings, how would you explain the differences in tariff rates for these products? Do you think tariffs are still necessary in the 21st century?
Note: The revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index measures a country’s relative export performance of a particular product compared to the world average. It helps identify sectors in which a country holds a competitive edge in international trade. RCA =(Country’s exports of product X/Country’s total exports)/(World exports of product X/World total exports).
RCA > 1: A value greater than 1 indicates that the country has a revealed comparative advantage in the product, meaning the product has a higher export share in the country’s portfolio compared to the global average. This suggests the country is more competitive in exporting that product relative to the rest of the world.
RCA < 1: A value less than 1 means the country has a revealed comparative disadvantage in that product. It indicates that the country is less competitive in exporting that product compared to the global average.
Observe the sectors in which the U.S. enjoyed a revealed comparative advantage (i.e., RCA > 1) in 2023. How does this compare with Bangladesh? What is your explanation for the observed differences?
Firstly, while China remained the world’s largest clothing exporter in 2023, rising geopolitical tensions and Western fashion companies’ ongoing de-risking efforts pose increasing challenges to its export outlook.
To some extent, 2023 wasn’t too bad for clothing “Made in China.” In value, China’s clothing exports totaled $164 billion, accounting for 31.6% of the world—unchanged from 2022. While China’s clothing exports decreased by 9.7 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year due to weaker market demand, this performance was better than most other top ten suppliers, including Bangladesh (down 16 percent), Vietnam (down 12 percent), India (down 13 percent), and Indonesia (down 17 percent).
However, China’s clothing exporters face significant challenges ahead. Despite maintaining its overall market share, China is losing momentum in nearly all key Western clothing markets, including the United States, the European Union, the UK, and Canada. This trend is primarily driven by perceived heightened sourcing risks associated with China, ranging from concerns over forced labor in the Xinjiang region to escalating geopolitical tensions involving the country.
For example, according to the 2024 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) in July, a record 43 percent of surveyed leading US fashion companies reported sourcing less than 10 percent of their apparel products from China in 2024, compared to only 18 percent in 2018. Likewise, nearly 60 percent of respondents no longer use China as their top apparel supplier in 2024, much higher than the 25-30 percent range before the pandemic. Additionally, nearly 80 percent of respondents plan to further reduce their apparel sourcing from China over the next two years through 2026, citing perceived high sourcing risks as the primary concern.
Secondly, China has been diversifying its clothing exports beyond traditional Western markets in response to the “de-risking” movement. For example, the US, EU, UK, and Canada combined accounted for 43-45 percent of China’s clothing exports in 2023, lower than over 50 percent in the past. In comparison, these four Western markets typically accounted for 70 to 90 percent of an Asian country’s clothing exports. Meanwhile, since 2021, Asian economies, especially members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Africa, have become more important export markets for China. Nevertheless, since RCEP members and those in Africa primarily consist of developing economies with ambitions to expand their own clothing production and exports, the long-term growth prospects for their demand for “Made in China” clothing remain uncertain.
Thirdly, China’s weakened economy could lead to an increased supply of low-cost Chinese clothing in the global market.
Despite being known as the world’s largest clothing exporter, between 2013 and 2022 (the latest available data), over 70%–80% of clothing produced in China was consumed domestically,with only about 20%–30% being exported. However, as China’s economic growth has slowed and consumer spending on clothing has stalled, more clothing made in China could enter the international market and intensify the price competition. Notably, between June 2023 and June 2024, the average unit price of US apparel imports from China decreased unusually by 7.6 percent, signaling that an increased supply of Chinese clothing began to suppress market prices. Likewise, it doesn’t seem reasonable that the unit price of U.S. apparel imports from China was 40% lower than that of imports from Bangladesh in the first half of 2024. Thus, the growing influx of cheap Chinese products raises the risk of market disruptions, potentially leading to additional trade tensions and restrictive measures against Chinese products.
Fourthly, there is an early sign that Asian countries have become more cautious about using Chinese yarns and fabrics. China remained a key supplier of textile raw materials to leading apparel-exporting countries in Asia. However, Asian countries appeared to be sourcing fewer yarns and fabrics from China in 2023, possibly due to the enforcement of anti-forced labor laws, such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and the perceived risks associated with sourcing Chinese cotton. Instead, more Asian countries’ yarns and fabrics now came from regional suppliers other than China.
Speaker: Dr. Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director of the Asian Trade Centre and the President of the Asia Business Trade Association. The clip was part of the webinar “Asia’s Noodle Bowl Of Trade” (March 2023).
Background
The Asia-Pacific region includes several mega free trade agreements:
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is a regional intergovernmental organization comprising ten countries in Southeast Asia (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam). In 2022, ASEAN members have a combined nominal GDP of $3.6 trillion and a population of 671.6 million.
CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile. The CPTPP covers a market of 495 million people with a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion in 2021. The United States was originally a participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, but in January 2017, former US President Trump withdrew the US from the agreement. The Biden administration has indicated no interest in rejoining CPTPP. Additionally, China is actively seeking to join CPTPP (as of March 2024).
RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. In 2021, RCEP members collectively represented a market of 2.3 billion people with a combined GDP of $26.3 trillion. India was an RCEP member but withdrew from the agreement due to concerns about import competition with China.
IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity) is a US-led economic cooperation framework that aims to “link major economies and emerging ones to tackle 21st-century challenges and promote fair and resilient trade for years to come.” IPEF is NOT a traditional free trade agreement, and it does not address market access issues like tariff cuts. Instead, IPEF includes four pillars: trade, supply chains, clean economy, and fair economy. IPEF members in the Asia-Pacific region include the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Fiji, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IPEF is designed to be flexible, meaning that IPEF partners are not required to join all four pillars. For example, India chooses not to join the trade pillar of the framework. In 2021, IPEF countries collectively represented a market of 2.1 billion people with a combined GDP of $23.3 trillion. The potential economic impact of IPEF remains too early to tell.
Notably, ASEAN, CPTPP, RCEP, and IPEF members play significant roles in the world textile and apparel trade. Specifically:
ASEAN and RCEP members have established a highly integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain. For example, a substantial portion of ASEAN and RECP members’ textile imports came from within the region.
ASEAN and RCEP members’ supply chain connection with China has substantially strengthened over the past decade. In contrast, the US barely participated in Asia-based textile and apparel supply chains. For example, other than CPTPP, the US accounted for less than 2% of ASEAN, RCEP, and IPEF members’ textile imports in 2022.
ASEAN and RCEP members also hold significant market shares in the world textile and apparel exports (over 50%). Meanwhile, the US and EU are indispensable export markets for ASEAN and RCEP members.
Because of the inclusion of the United States, IPEF represented one of the world’s largest apparel import markets (i.e., 33.7% in 2021, measured in value). Similarly, in 2022, about 26% of US apparel imports came from current IPEF members. Should IPEF address market access issues, it could offer significant duty-saving opportunities for textile and apparel products.
Additionally, the UK’s membership in CPTPP may have a limited direct impact on the textile and apparel sector, at least in the short to medium terms. For example, current CPTPP members only accounted for about 6% of the UK’s apparel imports in 2022.
The prospect of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as an apparel-sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies has been a growing heated debate. On the one hand, U.S. fashion companies, driven by increasing geopolitical concerns and other market factors, were eager to diversify apparel sourcing away from Asia. The SSA region was often regarded as one of the most popular alternative sourcing destinations thanks to its large population, relatively low labor costs, and shorter shipping distance to U.S. ports compared to most Asian. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program enacted in 2000, in particular, allowed eligible apparel exports from SSA countries to enter the United States import duty-free, creating substantial financial incentives for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region.
However, empirical trade data shows that U.S. apparel imports from SSA members have stagnated over the past decades without evident growth. Notably, with little change from 2010, SSA countries collectively accounted for only 1.8% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, with no single SSA member achieving a market share of more than 1%. In contrast, over the same period, despite China’s declining market shares, the following five largest Asian suppliers—Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia—jointly accounted for 43.0% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, a notable increase from 27.4% in 2010.
This study aims to evaluate SSA countries’ capacity to serve as an alternative apparel sourcing destination to Asian suppliers for US fashion companies. Specifically, the study examined the detailed product information of a total of 10,000 stock keeping units (SKUs) of clothing items sold in the U.S. retail market from January 2021 to December 2023. Half of these items were sourced from the six largest apparel-exporting countries in SSA: Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Tanzania. Together, these countries accounted for over 96% of the value of U.S. apparel imports from the SSA region between 2021 and 2023. The remaining half came from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Indonesia, the six largest Asian apparel exporters, which stably accounted for approximately 90% of U.S. apparel imports from Asia over the past decade.
Key findings:
First, the results revealed that U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategies for SSA countries appeared more subtle and complicated than simply treating the region as another low-cost sourcing destination, as suggested by previous studies. Instead, according to the results, U.S. fashion companies seemed to leverage SSA countries as suppliers of “niche products,” such as those relatively simple and basic apparel categories containing African cultural elements and targeting the luxury and premium market segment. Meanwhile, the demand for such products could be much smaller than regular apparel items sold in the value and mass market. This allows SSA countries to fulfill these smaller orders despite their limited production capacity, often family-owned or involving handmade processes.
Second, the study’s findings identified significant challenges for SSA countries serving as immediate alternatives to sourcing from Asia for U.S. fashion companies. While SSA countries could offer relatively low sourcing costs, the range of apparel products available for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region remained significantly more limited than those from Asia. For example, results show that U.S. fashion companies preferred sourcing relatively basic and technologically simple categories like knitwear, T-shirts, and bottoms from SSA countries. However, imports from SSA countries offered more limited sizing and color choices and were less likely to include womenswear and relatively more sophisticated or specialized product categories such as outerwear and swimwear. As another example, U.S. apparel imports from SSA countries were primarily made of cotton and polyester, with less use of other fiber types, including nylon, rayon, viscose, wool, and those made from recycled textile materials (see table below).
Third, building on the previous point, the results call for new thinking on strengthening SSA countries’ genuine competitiveness as an apparel-sourcing destination. Over the past decades, trade preference programs such as AGOA have mainly focused on improving the price competitivenessof SSA countries’ apparel exports. However, as this study’s findings illustrate, AGOA and other trade preference programs seemed inadequate in assisting SSA countries in developing capacity beyond basic apparel categories and securing a sufficient variety of textile materials. As U.S. fashion companies have placed greater emphasis on factors beyond price in their sourcing decisions, such as flexibility, agility, sustainability, and vendors’ capability to make a wide variety of products, this could put SSA countries at even more significant disadvantages down the road to being considered alternatives to Asia for apparel sourcing.
The results also reminded us that AGOA’s liberal rules of origin, which allowed least-developed SSA countries to use textile materials from anywhere worldwide, cannot replace the crucial need to develop the local textile manufacturing capacity within the SSA region. Without a robust local textile manufacturing sector, SSA countries would encounter significant challenges in diversifying their product offerings to include more complex and versatile clothing categories, such as outerwear and women’s dresses. These categories typically require a wide variety of raw textile materials and accessories, making it highly impractical and inefficient to rely solely on imports for their supply.
On the other hand, the findings reveal the necessity of creating a stable and foreseeable business environment, such as the long-term renewal of AGOA, to attract more long-term investments in SSA. For example, investing in and strengthening SSA countries’ local supply of sustainable textile materials, such as recycled or organic fibers, could strategically enhance SSA countries’ competitiveness in meeting the increasing demand from U.S. fashion companies for sustainable apparel products.
The full article is available HERE and below is the summary:
With consumers’ growing demand for sustainable apparel products, fashion companies increasingly carry clothing made from recycled textile materials and seek additional supply bases. Recycled cotton has great potential for use in garments because of the wide availability of cotton-made secondhand clothing and the perceived positive environmental impacts of effectively recycling post-consumption cotton waste.
This study explores Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia’s potential as sourcing bases for clothing made from recycled cotton. North African countries, including Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia, have a long history of making and exporting cotton and cotton-made finished garments. The “developing country” status and membership in trade agreements or trade preference programs, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the EU-Mediterranean Association Agreement, allow apparel products from these three countries to enjoy preferential duty benefits in the world’s top import markets. Therefore, there is great potential to capitalize on recycled cotton apparel and “green exports” to further promote economic development in the region.
About 13,000 Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) of clothing items made by these three countries newly launched to the world retail market between January 2022 and April 2024 were randomly captured from fashion brands and retailers’ websites. About half of the items were made of regular cotton, and the other half explicitly mentioned using “recycled cotton” in the product label or description. The results show that:
#1: Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia have gradually expanded their clothing exports made from recycled cotton since 2022. For example, as estimated, about 1,300 SKUs of clothing using recycled cotton from these three countries were newly launched to the US and EU retail markets in 2023, a substantial increase from only 150 SKUs back in 2022 (or a sevenfold increase). Similarly, in the first four months of 2024, clothing using recycled cotton accounted for 10.2% of total cotton apparel from the three countries in the US and EU markets, a substantial increase from only 1.1% in 2022.
#2: Of the collected samples, apparel using recycled cotton from Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia was destined for as many as 49 countries, reflecting the global demandfor such products. However, possibly restrained by the limited supply, the export market for clothing using recycled cotton remained less diverse than that for clothing made of regular cotton, which spanned 72 countries.
#3: Geographically, the European Union (EU) was the top clothing export market for Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia, accounting for over 75% of these countries’ export value in 2022, according to UN trade statistics (UNComtrade). This was also the case for recycled cotton products. Specifically, the EU accounted for 65% of these three countries’ total recycled cotton clothing exports measured in SKUs in the collected samples, higher than 59.4% of regular cotton clothing products.
#4: Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia focused on different product categories for clothing using recycled cotton than those made from regular cotton. Specifically, of the sampled items, clothing using recycled cotton had a notable concentration on bottoms (52.9%), followed by tops other than T-shirts (23.8%). Recycled cotton clothing also was more commonly used for outerwear (7.5%) than those using regular cotton (3.8%). In comparison, only about 7.9% of clothing using recycled cotton were T-shirts, much fewer than nearly 30% of those using regular cotton. Similarly, specific product categories, such as underwear and hosiery, rarely use recycled cotton. Likely, the concerns for quality and durability and the difficulty of absorbing higher production costs make using recycled cotton for these relatively simple categories more challenging.
#5: Even though cotton apparel made in Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisiaalready commonly mentioned their sustainability attributes (86%), phrases such as “sustainability” and “sustainable” appeared even more frequently in clothing using recycled cotton (94.6%). For example, some producers highlighted that they “worked with suppliers, workers, unions and international organizations” to ensure their recycled cotton clothing contributed to “the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” Likewise, some labels intentionally remind consumers about the positive environmental impact of using recycled cotton, “The use of recycled cotton helps to limit the consumption of raw materials.” Another added, “The production of recycled cotton recovered cotton, mainly from the production of other garments, thus reducing the production of virgin spring and water consumption, energy and natural resources.”
Meanwhile, compared to clothing using regular cotton, those made with recycled cotton in Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia reported much higher participation incertification programs, such as the Recycled Claim Standard (RCS), which verifies the recycled content and tracks it from source to final product.
#6: Reflecting the technical limitations of the fiber property, it remains rare to have clothing that is 100% made from recycled cotton. According to industry experts, longer cotton fibers generally indicate higher quality. Since the recycling process shortens cotton fibers, regular virgin cotton or other fibers like polyester are typically used alongside recycled cotton to make fabrics smoother, stronger, and more durable. For example, common labels include descriptions such as “80% virgin cotton, 20% RCS certified recycled cotton” and “55% RCS certified recycled polyester, 45% RCS certified recycled cotton.”
#7: Except for T-shirts, in most cases, clothing made from recycled cotton in Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia was priced lower than their equivalent using virgin fiber in the market. This is particularly the case for the premium and luxury market segments, where clothing using recycled fiber typically was 20-30% lower priced than regular clothing. The results echo the findings of numerous studies indicating that consumers are generally unwilling to pay higher prices for recycled fiber clothing as they perceive such products as lower quality and less “valuable.” Also, more needs to be done to create more financial incentives for producers in Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia to expand the production scale and increase the use of recycled cotton in their products.
The new punitive tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum: The overcapacity problem in the steel industry globally could raise national security concerns. While the Biden Administration is more focused on outreach to allies and partners to address the issue collectively, the Trump Administration took a different approach with the Section 232 tariffs specifically targeting China. However, the impact of China-targeted measures could be muted due to the limited amount of US steel imported from China today. The next administration is expected to face the challenge of addressing global overcapacity in various industries. Like it or not, tariffs seem to be one of the few tools available to the US government to tackle these issues directly.
Currency debate: “Currency manipulation” refers to the deliberate actions taken by a country’s government or central bank to artificially influence the value of its currency in the foreign exchange market. When a foreign government deliberately lowers the value of its currency, it could result in more US imports from that country and hurt the price competitiveness of US exports. While currency manipulation has not been a significant concern in recent years, the recent strength of the US dollar against other currencies, such as the Japanese yen, Chinese yuan, and Vietnamese dong, may reignite debate over the issue. The Biden Administration struggles to fight high inflation using high-interest rates, making it extremely challenging to “devalue the US dollar” in a macro sense. In comparison, the second Trump administration could designate countries of concern as currency manipulators, followed by new retaliatory measures, including tariffs or other trade barriers.
Industrial policy and subsidy: The Biden administration has packaged industrial policy as a core pillar of “Bidenomics,” which has pledged more than $805 billion in new subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing and research, climate and energy investments, and infrastructure spending. In comparison, the Republicans would be more inclined to let market forces determine the outcome of these policies rather than funding them through the government. It is also likely that the second Trump administration will tighten certain rules related to foreign entities taking advantage of US tax credits. However, there could be coordinated investments and supply chain resilience efforts in Biden and Trump’s second term, such as tactical coordination to prevent global subsidy races and disruptions in supply chains.
Trade policy as a tool for other issues: Reviving the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or similar mid-2010s era trade agreements was slim during the Biden administration. Instead, the Biden administration prioritizes a climate and trade agenda, as evidenced by the launch of a new White House Climate and Trade Task Force. Biden administration will continue to prioritize investments in domestic production capacity while looking outward to use trade to support other non-trade objectives.
In comparison, the Trump administration was more aggressive in pushing back against protectionist trade measures against US products but also less optimistic about the willingness of other countries to engage in good-faith negotiations with the US. Further, Trump 2.0 will likely return to trade policies similar to his first term, including potential tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese imports and an across-the-board tariff of 10% on all imports. Further, there is bipartisan support for increasing tariffs on Chinese goods, considering the deteriorating bilateral relationship. However, a 10% global tariff on imports from countries like Switzerland and Ireland could be more controversial due to potential consumer price impacts and damage to US alliances.
Discussion questions:
Any of the aforementioned issues could potentially impact fashion apparel companies? Why?
In your view, is it preferable for the textile and apparel industry not to be a focus of US trade policy? Why?
What are your top 1-2 takeaways from the panel discussion?
The latest US apparel import data raises several puzzles that deserve to be investigated further.
Question 1: Why did imports suddenly surge, and is this surge sustainable?
Unexpectedly, US apparel imports experienced a significant surge in February 2024. This surge was marked by a 12.9% increase in quantity and a 2.9% increase in value compared to the previous year. Seasonally adjusted US apparel imports in February 2024 were also nearly 10% higher than in January 2024. The import surge was particularly surprising given that the value of US clothing sales in February 2024 was only 1.3% higher than a year ago and even 0.5% lower than in January 2024 (seasonally adjusted).
Therefore, it will be important to watch whether the US apparel trade has indeed reached a turning point and will continue growing in the coming months and throughout the year.
Question 2: Could the volume of US apparel imports in 2023 have been underreported?
With over 98% of clothing sold in the US retail market being imported today, there exists a strong correlation between US apparel retail sales (NAICS code 4481) and the volume of apparel imports. Between 2015 and 2022, the US clothing sales to clothing import ratio remained consistently around 3.0-3.2 (seasonally adjusted). In other words, the value of retail sales was approximately three times the value of apparel imports. However, in 2023, this ratio increased to 4.0-4.5.
One suspicion is that as more apparel imports came into the US through the de minimis, the official US apparel import data in 2023 was somewhat underreported. Notably, according to Euromonitor, about 40% of US apparel retail sales were achieved through e-commerce in 2023, a substantial increase from 9.4% in 2010. Likewise, with US customs tightening controls on “small package shipments” and enhancing UFLPA enforcement, more imports likely began entering through the standard procedure in recent months, which explains why the US apparel sales to import rato fell back to 3.8 in February 2024.
On the other hand, some say the lowered US apparel import volume in 2023 was due to retailers’ efforts to control inventory levels. Data shows that US clothing stores’ stock-to-sales ratio in the last quarter of 2023 averaged 2.34, slightly lower than 2.43 from 2015 to 2019, but was higher than 2.19 back in 2021. In other words, while there was some effort by retailers to control inventory (as seen by the ratio being lower than pre-pandemic levels), it wasn’t a significant enough change to have a large impact on import demand. Also, considering that apparel is a seasonal product, it doesn’t seem too likely that retailers would risk losing sales opportunities during the most critical selling season of the year (i.e., 4th quarter) by promoting outdated items instead of stocking new ones on the shelf.
Question 3: Why did Asian countries export more apparel to Mexico?
As a developing country, Mexico is not traditionally a leading apparel import market due to consumers’ limited purchasing power and the sufficient local apparel supply. Take China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia, the four top Asian apparel exporting countries (Asia4), for instance. Between 2018 and 2020, Mexico typically accounted for 0.4%-0.7% of Asia4’s total apparel exports. However, since 2022, Asia4 has almost doubled its apparel exports to Mexico (i.e., increased to 1.5%-2.0%). Moreover, during the same period, the percentage of Asia4’s apparel exports to the United States declined from 27% to below 20%, especially in the last quarter of 2023.
What’s behind the increase in Asian countries’ apparel exports to Mexico needs to be investigated further. As noted earlier, Mexico itself is a leading apparel-producing country. Also, according to Euromonitor, the clothing market in Mexico stayed relatively stable at around 7.6%-7.9% of the size of the US from 2017 to 2023 (in quantity). In other words, Mexico’s increased import demand for Asian clothing doesn’t make much sense.
Others suspect some Asian apparel exports to Mexico eventually entered the US market either by taking advantage of the de minimis rule or the US-Mexico-Canda (USMCA) trade agreement. However, the exact size of this particular trade flow calls for further investigation.
#1: On April 5, 2024, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its new enhanced strategy to combat illicit trade and level the playing field for the American textile industry and the estimated over 500,000 US textile jobs*. *note: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2023, the US textile and apparel manufacturing sector employed about 272,400 workers (seasonally adjusted), including 89.3K in NACIS313 textile mills, 95.6K in NAICS314 textile product mills and 87.5K in NAICS315 apparel manufacturing. As of December 2023, NAICS 4482 apparel retail stores employed about 850,000 workers (seasonally adjusted).
According to DHS, the new enforcement plan will focus on the following areas:
Cracking down on small package shipments to prohibit illicit goods from U.S. markets by improving screening of packages claiming the Section 321 de minimis exemption for textile, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and other violations, including expanded targeting, laboratory and isotopic testing, and focused enforcement operations.
Conducting joint Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-Homeland Security Investigation (HIS)HSI trade special operations to ensure cargo compliance. This includes physical inspections; country-of-origin, isotopic, and composition testing; and in-depth reviews of documentation. CBP will issue civil penalties for violations of U.S. laws and coordinate with HSI to develop and conduct criminal investigations when warranted.
Better assessing risk by expanding customs audits and increasing foreign verifications. DHS personnel will conduct comprehensive audits and textile production verification team visits to high-risk foreign facilities to ensure that textiles qualify under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) or the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). (note: As CBP noted, most US free trade agreements and trade preference programs have complex textiles and apparel-specific rules of origin requirements. CBP is “responsible for ensuring that the trade community complies with all statutory, regulatory, policy, and procedural requirements that pertain to importations under free trade agreements and other trade preference programs.”)
Building stakeholder awareness by engaging in an education campaign to ensure that importers and suppliers in the CAFTA-DR and USMCA region understand compliance requirements and are aware of CBP’s enforcement efforts.
Leveraging U.S. and Central American industry partnerships to improve facilitation for legitimate trade. (note: The Biden Administration aims to leverage textile and apparel trade as part of the solution to address “root causes of migration in Central America. According to the White House Fact Sheet released in March 2024, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Central American Trade Agencies and textiles and apparel industry stakeholders will work together to build a directory with detailed profiles of manufacturing and sourcing companies in the region, including information on business practices and production capabilities, to facilitate transparent sourcing, and bolster the region’s supply chain.)
Expanding the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List to identify malign suppliers for the trade community through review of additional entities in the high-priority textile sector for inclusion in the UFLPA Entity List. (note: Once an entity is on this list, in general, it is prohibited from exporting its goods to the United States. Importers are required to ensure the supply chains of their imported products are free from entities on the Entity List).
#2: Several US textile and apparel industry stakeholders have publicly responded to DHS’s new strategy.:
“We strongly commend DHS for the release of a robust textile and apparel enforcement plan today. We also greatly appreciate Secretary Mayorkas’ personal engagement in this urgent effort and believe it’s a strong step forward to addressing pervasive customs fraud that is harming the U.S. textile industry.”
“The essential and vital domestic textile supply chain has lost 14 plants in recent months. The industry is facing severe economic harm due to a combination of factors, exacerbated by customs fraud and predatory trade practices by China and other countries, which has resulted in these devastating layoffs and plant closures. DHS immediately understood the economic harms facing the industry and deployed the development of a critical action plan.”
“The industry requests include
Ramped up textile and apparel enforcement with regard to Western Hemisphere trade partner countries, including onsite visits and other targeted verification measures to enforce rules of origin as well as to address any backdoor Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) violations.
Increased UFLPA enforcement to prevent textile and apparel goods made with forced labor from entering our market, including in the de minimis environment.
Immediate expansion of the UFLPA Entity List, isotopic testing, and other targeting tools. Intensified scrutiny of Section 321 de minimis imports and a review of all existing Executive Branch authorities under current law to institute basic reforms to this outdated tariff waiver mechanism. “
“We appreciate the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s announcement today outlining enhanced enforcement activities to prevent illicit trade in textiles. Our members support 55 million (more than one in four) American jobs and invest considerable time and resources in their customs compliance programs. Many of our members are Tier 3 participants in Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). They are trusted traders and meet the high standards required to receive that designation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and DHS. Our members are on the front lines for ensuring that they have safe and secure supply chains.
“While DHS launches this enforcement plan, we urge it to partner with our associations and our associations’ members. A successful enforcement plan must include input from all stakeholders, clear communication with the trade, and coordinated activities with importers, especially if DHS finds illicit activity happening in the supply chain. The results of any illicit activities must be shared so that our members and other importers can act quickly to address the issue. As our members look to diversify their supply chains, especially back to the Western Hemisphere, we must make sure efforts are included to incentivize and not deter new investments.”
#3 Comments: Overall, the new DHS textile enforcement plan suggests several key US textile and apparel trade policy directions: 1) revisit the current de minimis rules that are used by many e-commerce businesses; 2) further strengthen the UFLPA and forced labor enforcement; 3) expand the Western hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain and encourage more US apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members; 4) scrutinize US apparel imports from China and imports from other Asian countries that heavily use textile raw material from China.
Discussion questions for FASH455 (please answer them all):
How do the perspectives of the US textile industry and US fashion brands and retailers diverge concerning CBP’s new strategy? What are the areas in which they share common ground?
Building on the previous question, how can the difference between the US textile industry and US fashion brands and retailers be explained regarding their response to DHS’s new enforcement strategy?
As a sourcing manager for a major US apparel brand with global operations, how do you plan to adjust your company’s sourcing practices in light of DHS’s new strategy? You can list 1-2 detailed action plans and provide your analysis.
Background
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), responsible for “regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, enforcing U.S. trade laws, and protecting the nation’s borders.”
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) is also a division within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), responsible for “investigating transnational crime and threats, specifically those criminal organizations that exploit the global infrastructure through which international trade, travel and finance move.”
Cecilia Malmström, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Eva Maydell, Member, European Parliament; Rapporteur for the European Union’s AI Act
Joshua P. Meltzer, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development Program, Brookings Institution
Key points
AI has the potential to optimize supply chains, analyze shipping routes, forecast demand, and enhance risk assessment and fraud detection.
AI could potentially offer better market intelligence to help businesses make better-informed decisions and improve forecasting accuracy.
AI could reduce barriers to trade in services and technical barriers of trade (TBT) and empower small and medium-sized enterprises (e.g., translation services)
While trade in goods has peaked, services trade continues to grow substantially, even during COVID-19, with digital services and professional services being the main drivers. AI could further facilitate the expansion of service trade.
AI is already affecting the nature of jobs and the services trade.
Policymakers need to focus on creating an environment that supports the development and deployment of AI, particularly by balancing the need to provide regulatory guardrails and the need to encourage business innovation.
AI regulation is currently fragmented worldwide. However, there is significant potential for establishing international standards and regulatory coherence, offering a common approach to regulating AI.
Building more societal trust among the business community, policymakers, and civil society is necessary to address concerns about AI and related challenges.
Students in FASH455 have proposed the following discussion questions based on the readings about the US textile and apparel industry and fashion companies’ sourcing strategies. Everyone is welcome to join the online discussion. For FASH455 students, please address at least two questions and mention the question number (#) in your reply.
#1 As a developed country, should the US prioritize further strengthening highly capital-intensive yarn manufacturing, or should we rebuild a vertically integrated textiles and apparel supply chain (e.g., yarns, fabrics, and garments) at home? What is your recommendation, and why?
#2 In FASH455, we discussed how the US textile industry has experienced a decline in employment despite increasing production volumes, largely due to advancements in technology. However, why is import competition often cited in the media as the single largest threat to the US textile industry?
#3 While studies show that US fashion companies are reducing “China exposure,” measured in quantity, China still accounted for 36.1% of US apparel imports in 2023, even higher than 34.7% in 2022. How can we explain this phenomenon? What factors have made US fashion companies hesitant to move away from China?
#4 How will US fashion companies’ growing interest in carrying more sustainable textiles and apparel affect their sourcing destinations and supply chains? Will developing countries with cheap labor and/or developed countries with the right capital and technology be the winners in the sustainability movement? Please provide your thoughts.
#5 Will the growing demand for supply chain transparency and traceability reduce the incentives or add additional burdens for fashion companies to diversify their supply chain further? What are the benefits of pursuing sourcing diversification other than mitigating the potential sourcing risks?
#6 What is your vision for the use of AI in apparel sourcing? What key sourcing and supply chain problems facing fashion brands and retailers can AI potentially solve?
Speaker: Katherine Tai (U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative)
Presider: Michael Froman (President, Council on Foreign Relations; Former U.S. Trade Representative, 2013-17)
Excerpt from the conversation
Worker-Centric US trade policy
Question from FROMAN: “Back in the old days, there was a notion that since the U.S. market is relatively open—we don’t have that much protection here, the average applied tariff is about 3 ½ percent—that if we were able to reduce barriers to other countries disproportionately we could export more made by U.S. workers, and that export-related jobs paid more than non-export related jobs, and that we could use access to our market as a way of getting other countries to reform their labor practices and raise their standards, which would create a more level playing field. That theory is sort of out of vogue at the moment. But, tell me, can you envisage what an agreement that is worker-centric looks like that reduces barriers or increases trade?”
Response from TAI: “The percentage of (U.S.) exports to GDP is around 10 percent—maybe 11 or 12 percent. So it’s not very high. Some of our—some of our trading partners have very, very high exports as a proportion of GDP (e.g., 25 percent)…So you just have to put that (trade liberalization) into context. I think you also have to think about the fact of the balance of exports and imports…”
“We’re trying to create and maintain jobs, and good jobs, at home… so then the question becomes not what do I have to pay you to do X, Y, or Z, but how can we put the forces of our cooperation together? What does the deal look like where we are building our middle classes together? And I think that the worker pieces then come in, along with the environment pieces, as something that I shouldn’t have to pay you to do, but as something that you should want to do…”
“Traditionally we’ve kept our scorecard by, you know, how many trade agreements you finished and how many you’ve gotten across the finish line… Our progress lies very much in how the conversation has fundamentally shifted. That the conversation now is very much focused on supply chain resilience, on equity, and how not to leave those within our economies behind further, how not to leave those developing countries behind further.”
Digital trade
Question from FROMAN: “For a long time, the U.S. had a position around the free flow of data across borders, not taxing digital products across borders… given the fact that the U.S. economy is probably—certainly the leader in all things digital, what does it mean for us to move away from defending these principles that have been so core to what we’ve tried to do before?”
Response from TAI: “So in early 2000s that we’re negotiating (digital trade)… It’s called the e-commerce chapter. And it’s the e-commerce chapter in several iterations of FTAs (free trade agreements)…And I think that that makes sense if you think about what the digital economy looked like in the early 2000s. It really was about e-commerce…At the time—thought about e-commerce digital trade provisions as largely facilitative provisions. The flow of data was there, and we wanted to safeguard the flow of data to facilitate traditional trade transactions, the movement of goods across borders, the analogy to services we used also in digital.”
“In 2024, one of the things that you realize is that the flow of data, the decisions around where data needs to be stored, how it needs to be handled, has—on much, much different dimensions because over this period of time, in fact, in the digital economy the data is no longer just about facilitating traditional types of transactions. The data has become the commodity in and of itself. The data is now what has value. The ability to accumulate that data and for vast amounts of data then to be combined with computing power to create things like generative AI and large language models, it starts to give you a sense, just as a normal trade negotiator, that there are much, much bigger equities at stake in what we might be doing in our trade negotiations…It’s not just about facilitating trade, but around how we regulate data and how we regulate the companies that accumulate, harvest, and trade in this data is something that we need to resolve and advance before we can thoughtfully and responsibly engage in trade negotiations to figure out what the limits are in terms of what we should be doing, and what the goals are for what we should be doing with our trading partners… what underlies the digital economy and our digital existences, and just thinking about what the rules should be for how that data is handled, who has rights to that data, and then the international components around trade and prosperity but also trade and national security.”
Tradeoffs in trade policy
Question from FROMAN: “Trade is a great area to talk about tradeoffs. We hate being overly dependent on China for basic goods. We also hate inflation and higher cost of living. The actions taken to deal with the first one will likely exacerbate the second one… How do you talk about that tradeoff with communities around the country? And do you make explicit that, yes, you’re going to pay more at Walmart for this for that, but we’re going to become less dependent on China as a result?”
Response from TAI: “That today, we know that we have critical dependencies and vulnerabilities that are actually bad from a national security and just a geopolitical standpoint. For every sector where we feel that we are critically vulnerable to another country and, say, China in particular, I think that it creates a sense of angst and insecurity that is destabilizing for the world economy and, frankly, for the world… if you look at it from a more holistic, medium-term perspective, supply chain diversity and supply chain resilience is actually a management tool for inflation… “
“For as long as there are concentrated pockets for production and supply—and this is internationally, but this is also the logic behind taking on dominant players in our economy—for as long as you have that kind of dominance, you’re going to have in the hands of certain players the ability to distort the market and to take advantage of that dominance by jacking up prices, whether it’s shrinkflation, or greedflation, or in the international context economic coercion… if you think about the tradeoff as between today and tomorrow, it’s not zero-sum at all. And in fact, these changes are ones that we need to be able to manage, not being faced with the same risks over and over and over again.”
US trading partners
Comment from TAI: “when you talk about some evolution in our (trade policy) approach, I just want to be clear, the evolution in our approach is about what should be in those things, what should be in those agreements, what should be in the exercises and the cooperation that we undertake with our partners. This is not a walking away from those partners, at all…You’ll see how much time I spend in Brussels, how much time I’ve spent in Asia, and the Indo-Pacific over the course of the last three years. And you’ll see that the prioritization of our like-minded partners, our traditional partners if you will, is still very much there.”
Tariffs
Comment from TAI: “What is really important to appreciate about tariffs is that they’re a tool. They’re a tool that can be used in constructive ways… They’re a tool, at least for us, in trade remedies… They are a tool for remedying unfair trade. I actually kind of like the way the Europeans describe these types of tools—dumping, countervail. They call them trade defense instruments.”
“What I also want to reflect is that trade policy and economic policy isn’t just tariffs… we have kept a lot of the tariffs, because we see strategic value in those tariffs in this exercise of building up the middle class and reinvigorating American manufacturing and the American economy… it needs to take the tariffs as a tool, the investments as another tool to help reinforce, policies that support and empower all workers, and to encourage our partners to be supporting and empowering their workers, and then also promoting economic vitality, opportunity through the enforcement of our competition laws…”
Textile industry strategic or not?
Comment from TAI: “You know, there are things that are more strategic, things that maybe we feel like are less strategic or not strategic. But, you know, I think that is actually a really, really important question. And it’s a hard one—what’s strategic and what isn’t? We clearly did not think that surgical masks—surgical, you know, medical-grade gloves and ventilators were that strategic. And so we let that go wherever it was going to go. And in the early days of the pandemic, boy, did that hurt us a lot. So, you know, one of the—one of the stories that came out of the pandemic was all of our—all of our textile manufacturers, you know, were told your industry is not that strategic. They’d been told it for a long time. And yet, we know that it is important. It’s politically important. And USTR has for a very long time had a textiles office and textiles negotiator…it was that textiles industry, what we still have, that was able to repurpose their capabilities and to step up, and to actually start producing some of these things that we were really deficient in during the pandemic, and to save us. So I think that where you draw the lines on strategic and nonstrategic… It’s not necessarily obvious.”
Video discussion questions [For students in FASH455, please address at least two of the following questions in your response]
#1: Tai emphasizes the importance of creating and maintaining good jobs at home and building middle classes together with trading partners. How can the textile and apparel trade contribute to the goal?
#2: Reflecting on the textile industry’s response during the pandemic, Tai raises questions about what industries are considered strategic and the implications of such categorizations. How should policymakers determine which industries are strategic, and what criteria should be used in making these decisions?
#3: How has the role of data evolved in trade discussions, and what are the potential challenges in regulating data in international trade agreements? What are the implications of digital trade governance on today’s fashion business?
#4: Tai discusses the strategic importance of supply chain diversity and resilience. How might diversifying supply chains contribute to national security and economic stability, and what are the challenges in achieving this diversification? Please use the textile and apparel sector as an example.
#5: Any other reflections, thoughts, or feedback on the conversation?
First, affected by the macro economy, US apparel import volume in 2023 suffered the most significant decline since the pandemic. Specifically, US apparel imports decreased by 22% in quantity and value in 2023 compared to 2022, with none of the top ten suppliers experiencing positive growth.
Nevertheless, after several months of straight decline, US apparel imports finally bounced back in December 2023. Thanks to the holiday season and a gradual improvement of the US economy, seasonally adjusted US apparel imports in December 2023 were about 4.5% higher in quantity and 4.2% higher in value than the previous month. Highly consistent with trends, the US Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) increased from 67.2 in November to 76.4 in December (January 2019=100), suggesting US households turned more confident about their financial outlook and willing to spend. That being said, the latest January 2024 International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts still predicted the US GDP growth would slow down from 2.5% in 2023 to 2.1% in 2024. Thus, whether the US apparel import volume could continue to maintain growth after the holiday season remains a big question mark.
Second, while the pace of sourcing cost increases has slowed, the costs and financial pressure facing US fashion companies are far from over. Specifically, as of December 2023, the price index of US apparel imports stood at 106 (January 2019=100), almost no change from January 2023. However, two emerging trends are worth watching. One is the declining US apparel retail price index since August 2023, which means US fashion companies may have to sacrifice their profits to attract consumers to the store. The second trend is the surging shipping costs as a result of the recent Red Sea shipping crisis, which were not reflected in the December price data. According to J.P. Morgan, during the week of January 25, 2024, the container shipping rates from China to the US West Coast and East Coast saw a significant spike of around 140% and 120% from November 2023, respectively. Even worse, there is no sign that the Red Sea crisis will soon be solved. Therefore, 2024 could pose another year of financial challenges for many US fashion companies.
Third, diversification remained a pivotal trend in US fashion companies’ sourcing strategy in 2023. For example, the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), a commonly used measurement of market concentration, went down from 0.105 in 2022 to 0.101 in 2022, suggesting that US apparel imports came from even more diverse sources.
Notably, measured in value, only 71.6% of US apparel imports came from Asia in 2023, the lowest in five years. Highly consistent with the US Fashion Industry Association’s Benchmarking Survey results, OTEXA’s data reflected companies’ intention to diversify their sourcing away from Asia due to increasing geopolitical concerns, particularly the rising US-China strategic competition.
However, it should be noted that Asia’s reduced market share did not benefit “near-shoring” from the Western hemisphere much. For example, in 2023, approximately 14.6% of US apparel imports originated from USMCA and CAFTA-DR members, nearly the same as the 14.3% recorded in 2022. Instead, US apparel imports outside Asia and the Western Hemisphere jumped to 11.4% in 2023 from 9.8% a year ago. Some emerging EU and African suppliers, such as Turkey, Romania, Morocco, and Tunisia, performed relatively well in the US market in 2023, although their market shares remained small. We could highly expect the sourcing diversification strategy to continue in 2024 as many companies regard the strategy as the most effective to mitigate various market uncertainties and sourcing risks.
Fourth, US fashion companies continued reducing their China exposure as much as possible, but China will remain a key player in the game. On the one hand, about 20.0% of US apparel imports in value and 25.9% in quantity came from China in 2023, both hit a new low in the past decade. Recent studies also show that it became increasingly common for China to no longer be the largest source of apparel imports for many US fashion companies.
However, China remains highly competitive in terms of the variety of products it offers. For example, the export product diversification index, calculated based on trade data at the 6-digit HTS code level (Chapters 61 and 62), shows that few other countries can match China’s product variety. Likewise, product level data collected from industry sources indicates that China offered far more clothing styles (measured in Stock Keeping Units, SKUs) than its competitors in 2023. According to the results, rather than identifying 1-2 specific “next China,” US fashion companies appeared to leverage “category killers”—for example, utilizing Vietnam as a sourcing base for outerwear, underwear, and swimwear; India for dresses, and Bangladesh for large-volume basic knitwear items.
Related to this, another recent study found that the top five largest Asian suppliers next to China, including Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, and Cambodia, collectively can offer diverse product categories almost comparable to those from China in the US market.
Fifth, trade data reveals early signs that US fashion companies are gradually reducing sourcing cotton apparel products from Asia because of the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). Notably, when concerns about cotton made by Xinjiang forced labor initially emerged in 2018, US fashion companies quickly shifted sourcing orders for cotton apparel (OTEXA code 31) from China to other Asian countries. However, UFLPA’s enforcement increasingly targets imports from Asian countries other than China due to the highly integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain and Asian countries’ heavy reliance on textile inputs from China. Consequently, Asia (excluding China) accounted for a declining share in the total imports of US cotton apparel in 2023.
Meanwhile, affected by UFLPA’s enforcement, only 11.8% of US cotton apparel imports came from China in 2023, marking a further decline from 13% in 2022 and reaching a new low for the past decade. China also deliberately decreased the percentage of cotton apparel in its total apparel exports to the US market, dropping from nearly 40% in 2017 to only 25% in 2023. In comparison, cotton apparel consistently represented about 45% of total US apparel imports during the same period.
Additionally, while there was no substantial increase in the volume of US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members, as a silver lining, the utilization of the trade agreement improved. In 2023, about 19.2% of US apparel imports claimed duty-free benefits under US free trade agreements and trade preference programs, a notable increase from 17.7% in 2022. Most such imports came under CAFTA-DR (45.4%) and USMCA (19.7%).
Meanwhile, in the first 12 months of 2023 (latest OTEXA data), about 70.2% of US apparel imports came from CAFTA-DR members claimed the duty-free benefit, up from 66.6% the same period a year ago. Particularly, 65.4% of US apparel imports under CAFTA-DR complied with the yarn-forward rules of origin in 2023, a notable increase from 61.3% in 2022. Another 2.6% of imports utilized the agreement’s short supply mechanism, which also went up from 2.3% in 2022. The results could reflect an ever more integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain among CAFTA-DR members due to increasing investments made in the region in recent years. However, there is still much that needs to be done to effectively increase the volume of US apparel imports from the region.
The study is available HERE (published by the Government of the Netherlands). Key findings:
Size of used textiles trade:
In 2022, the Netherlands exported 248,000 tons of used textiles (or over €193 million), the highest in the past five years. This trend aligned with the EU’s broader used clothing exports, which reached 1.7 million tons in 2019. The average European price for used textiles was around €0.76 per kg in 2019.
In 2018, 84% of used textiles collected in the Netherlands were exported, with 53% being suitable for re-wearing, 33% recycled, and 14% being nonrecyclable and non-renewable.
Destinations of the used textile exports
Trade data analysis (HS6309 and HS6310 from 2017 to 2022) and interviews revealed several key export destinations for used clothing exports from the Netherlands:
Poland and Pakistanas Import-export hubs. The high volumes of HS 6309 (used textiles) exports from the Netherlands to Poland likely reflect the lower labor costs for labor-intensive manual sorting in Poland. For the last five years, Pakistan has also been a top-five destination for Dutch used textile exports (under HS6309). Four of the six Dutch collector-sorters interviewed confirmed that Pakistan is a primary export destination, noting that the lowest quality textiles were usually sent there. However, Pakistan is also the world’s sixth largest used clothing exporter, suggesting Pakistan is unlikely to be the final destination for the Dutch used textile exports but an import-export hub.
India is positioned as a significant recycling hub, particularly for HS 6310 (sorted and unsorted used rags and textile scraps) imported from the Netherlands. India also receives a substantial volume of HS 6310 textiles originating from the Netherlands via France. Notably, India enforces trade restrictions requiring textiles under HS 6309 (used textiles) to be imported only through the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ), with a mandate for at least 50% to be re-exported. Panipat in India is home to numerous spinning companies, ranging from large to small. These companies specialize in cleaning and sorting textile waste to produce recycled yarn, which is then supplied to weaving and manufacturing units in Panipat and beyond. Most of India’s used textiles re-exports went to African countries.
Ghana and Kenya were significant recipients of used textiles from the Netherlands, yet their export volumes for HS6309 (used textiles) and HS 6310 (sorted and unsorted used rags and textile scraps) were comparatively low. The high import-to-export ratios underscore these two countries’ role as the reuse and disposal destinations of used textiles from the Netherlands.
Characteristics of the used textile exports
The report highlights divergent perspectives on the quality and rewearability of textile exports to African countries. Dutch collectors and sorters assert that all exports from the Netherlands to Africa consist of good-quality rewearables. They distance themselves from the problem of textile waste exported to Africa, attributing it to the unregulated practices of certain parts of the used textiles trade that involve illegal contractors and exports.
According to the study, textiles deemed suitable for currently viable closed-loop recycling technologies include those made of pure cotton, pure wool, pure acrylic, and cotton-rich and wool-rich blends exceeding 80%. However, the study noted a concerning decline in the proportion of collected textiles suitable for rewear, coupled with a rise in textiles containing synthetic fibers. Most interviewees explicitly attribute the degradation in the quality of used textiles over time to the influence of “ultra-fast fashion.”
Environmental and social impacts of used textile exports
Interviews revealed a significant variation in the perceived environmental impacts of the used clothing trade. For example, participants from import-export hubs like Pakistan and recycling hubs like India emphasized minimal environmental harm, focusing on the positive contributions of used textile imports. In contrast, interviewees from reuse and disposal countries, such as Kenya and Ghana, discussed environmental harms and their localized impacts. Interviewees also expressed concerns that “certain sustainability solutions may be developed in such a way that generates additional problems further away” and benefit actors in Europe and the West only.
The study also found that 99% of fashion brands “do not disclose a commitment to ultimately reduce the number of new items they produce,” and only 12% of fashion companies have even disclosed the quantity of products produced annually in 2023, down from 15% in 2022.
The involved parties acknowledge the considerable difficulty in completely disassociating any participant in the reverse supply chain from the adverse impacts of textile exports. Despite efforts, achieving complete transparency beyond EU borders is deemed nearly impossible, as highlighted by one used textiles collector.
Job creation
The used textiles value chain unambiguously generates a huge amount of employment, particularly for women, in the sorting, recycling, selling, cleaning, repairing, re-styling, and distributing processes.
A 2023 International Labour Organization (ILO) study showed that new recycling and reprocessing activities could create over 10 million jobs in Latin America and the Caribbean and around 0.5 million jobs in Europe.
However, concerns related to job quality and social risks were also raised in interviews, particularly concerning reuse and disposal countries. Even where waste management systems for used textiles are formalized and managed, they often rely on the “labors of informal actors” for various functions such as distribution, resale, and disposal processes. Gender-based disadvantage may also be a concern. For example, the study found that whereas recycling and sorting enterprises are overwhelmingly owned and operated by men, women perform the majority of lower-wage, non-technical, and manual labor-intensive tasks.
Regulations
The Dutch government’s Circular Textiles Policy Programme for 2020–2025outlines a commitment to enhance the proportion of recycled materials in textiles and apparel products available in the Dutch market, including achieving a 10% reuse and 30% recycling rate of sold textiles and apparel by 2025.
The DutchExtended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for textileswas officially implemented on July 1, 2023. Onwards, producers are responsible for “recycling and reusing of textiles…including an appropriate collection system, recycling and reusing of clothing and household textiles and financing this entire system.”
The policy landscape for managing and exporting used textiles in Europe has evolved to align with environmental goals, with key milestones such as the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles in March 2022. While this strategy aims to create a greener and more resilient textiles sector, the report suggests a need for a bolder vision and more international orientation, emphasizing responsibility for socioenvironmental impacts beyond Europe.
The EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) is another crucial instrument to tackle the environmental challenges of high textile consumption. The WFD regulates all aspects of textile waste management, including the specific obligations to ensure separate collection, treatment, and reporting requirements. The directive calls for all EU Member States to establish separate collection systems for used textiles by the beginning of 2025.
Supplementary video: Used clothing from Europe: Trash or treasure for Africa?
Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” have gained growing attention in recent years amid the increasing supply chain disruptions during the pandemic, the rising geopolitical tensions worldwide, and consumers’ increasing interest in sustainable apparel and faster speed to market. Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that U.S. textile and apparel production totaled nearly $28 billion in 2022, a record high in the most recent five years. Meanwhile, unlike in the old days, a growing proportion of textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are sold overseas today. For example, according to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. textiles and apparel exports exceeded $24.8 billion in 2022, up nearly 12% from ten years ago.
By leveraging U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA)’s “Made in U.S.A. Sourcing & Products Directory,” this study explored U.S. textiles and apparel manufacturers’ detailed production and export practices. Altogether, 432 manufacturers included in the directory as of October 1, 2023, were analyzed. These manufacturers explicitly mentioned making one of the following products: fiber, yarn, fabric, garment, home textiles, and technical textiles.
Key findings:
First, U.S. textile manufacturers exhibit a notable geographic concentration, whereas apparel manufacturers are dispersed throughout the country. Meanwhile, by the number of textile and apparel manufacturers, California and North Carolina are the only two states that rank in the top five across all product categories, showcasing the most comprehensive textile and apparel supply chain there.
Second, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers have a high concentration of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Highly consistent with the macro statistics, few textile and apparel manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported having more than 500 employees. Particularly, over 74% of apparel and nearly 60% of home textile manufacturers are “micro-factories” with less than 50 employees.
Third, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers have limited vertical manufacturing capability. A vertically integrated manufacturer generally makes products covering various production stages, from raw materials to finished products. Results show that only one-third of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in OTEXA’s database reported making more than one product type (e.g., yarn or fabric). Meanwhile, specific types of vertically integrated production models are relatively popular among U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers, such as:
Apparel + home textiles (5.8%)
Fabric + technical textiles (5.1%)
Yarn + fabric (3.9%)
However, the lack of fabric mills (N=38 out of 432) appears to be a critical bottleneck preventing the building of a more vertically integrated U.S. textile and apparel supply chain.
Fourth, it is not uncommon for U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers to use imported components. Specifically, among the manufacturers in the OTEXA database, nearly 20% of apparel and fabric mills explicitly say they utilized imported components. In comparison, given the product nature, fiber and yarn manufacturers had a lower percentage using imported components (11%). Furthermore, smaller U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers appear to be more likely to use imported components. For example, 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 SME U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers to access textile input through mechanisms such as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB).
Fifth, many US textile and apparel manufacturers have already explored overseas markets. Specifically, factories making textile products reported a higher percentage of engagement in exports, including fiber and yarn manufacturers (68.4%), fabric mills (78.9%), and technical textiles producers (69.1%). In comparison, relatively fewer U.S. apparel and home textile producers reported selling overseas.
Sixth, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers’ export markets are relatively concentrated. Specifically, as many as 72% of apparel mills and 57% of home textiles manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported selling their products in less than two markets. These manufacturers also have a high percentage of selling to the U.S. domestic market. Likewise, because of the reliance on the Western Hemisphere supply chain, more than half of U.S. fiber and yarn manufacturers reported only selling in two markets or less. In comparison, reflecting the global demand for their products, U.S. technical textile manufacturers had the most diverse markets, with nearly 40% exporting to more than ten countries.
Seventh, while the Western Hemisphere remains the top export market, many U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers also export to Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world. For example, nearly half of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in OTEXA’s database reported exporting to Asia, and over 60% of U.S. technical textile manufacturers sold their products to European customers.
Additionally, over half of U.S. textile and apparel mills engaged in exports leveraged U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). U.S. textile mills, on average, reported a higher percentage of using FTAs than apparel and home textile manufacturers. As most U.S.-led FTAs adopt the yarn-forward rules of origin, the results suggest that while such a rule may favor the export of U.S. textile products, its effectiveness and relevance in supporting U.S. apparel exports could be revisited.
Moreover, in line with the macro trade statistics, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers in the OTEXA database reported a relatively high usage of USMCA, given Mexico and Canada being the two most important export markets. In comparison, U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers’ use of CAFTA-DR was notably lower, even for fiber and yarn manufacturers (37%) and fabric mills (33.3%).
by Kendall Ludwig, Miranda Rack and Sheng Lu
Picture above: On December 13, 2023, Kendall Ludwig and Miranda Rack, FASH 4+1 graduate students and Dr. Sheng Lu, had the unique opportunity to present the study’s findings to senior U.S. trade officials from OTEXA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in Washington DC, including Jennifer Knight (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles, Consumer Goods and Materials), Laurie-Ann Agama (Acting Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles), Maria D’Andrea-Yothers (Director of OTEXA), Natalie Hanson (Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles) and Richard Stetson (Deputy Director of OTEXA).
Check the Udaily article that features the research project and the presentation (February 2024).
#1 What makes China a controversial apparel-sourcing destination with heated debate? What are the benefits of sourcing from China, and what are the concerns?
#2 As noted in the background reading, China accounted for about 21% of US apparel imports 2023, which marked a new record low in the past decade. What are the key drivers behind this shift, and do you anticipate this trend to continue in the next 3-5 years? Why or why not?
#3 Should US fashion companies decouple or derisk with China and to what extent? Please provide reasoning for your recommendation.
#4 Why do you think the US textile industry cares about apparel imports from China? What factual data/statistics supports or challenges the comments in the second video?
#5 Feel free to share any other reflections on the two videos (e.g., anything you find interesting, surprising or thought-provoking).
Impacts of the Red Sea Attacks on the Supply Chain
Impacts of the Red Sea attacks on the global textile and apparel trade: A summary from the media
US retailers/importers:1) “40 percent of shipments from Asia go to the U.S. through the Panama Canal” and “with access to the Suez Canal also now limited, vessels carrying goods to the East Coast of America will now take longer to deliver their shipments.” 2) “Companies that depend on inventory supplies from Asia will be impacted…These include things like sneakers, apparel and consumer electronics from countries such as China. Companies may be forced to pay more to get their inventory delivered, the costs of which could be passed on to consumers pushing up prices.”
EU retailers/importers: 1) “the rates for shipping goods from Asia to northern Europe have “more than doubled” since the start of December 2023.” 2) some EU fashion companies say “the crisis has delayed stock deliveries “by three to four weeks” and increased delivery costs by 20%” 3) some fashion retailers are “keen to avoid flying stock from Asia to Europe due to the significant amounts of carbon emissions caused by air freight.” 4) many EU fashion brands and manufacturers “expressed concern that they will have to shoulder the financial burden of the delays.”
China producers/exporters: 1) “Customers involved in China-European trade now face additional costs and a delay of seven to 10 days in such cases” 2) “Some Chinese exporters are shifting to China-Europe Railway Express services to ensure timely delivery of their goods and avoid staggering operational costs if they navigate around the Cape of Good Hope. However, “Some rail freight platform companies have proposed price increases for their railway services to Europe.”
India producers/exporters: 1) “Exports to the US west coast are intact, shipments to Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East have been affected. India exports goods worth $110 billion to the three regions.” 2) “The cost of freight and insurance has risen due to ships being compelled to avoid the region and take a longer route around the Cape of Good Hope. 3) Shipments are being held back by exporters, because they are feeling a pinch of additional freight cost. “Containers could face delays of 12-14 days in their turnaround time, although there is no shortage of containers.”
Bangladesh producers/exporters: 1) “over 70 percent of Bangladesh’s export-laden containers, which are destined for the EU, US East Coast and Canada, cross the Red Sea.” “Meanwhile, “8 to 10 percent of the country’s imports come through the route.” 2)Bangladeshi exporters and importers are having to pay higher freight charges to the US and Europe.” According to the Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA), the freight charge has already increased by $700 to $800 per container in case of import-laden vessels. The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) expects Bangladesh’s domestic garment suppliers “will have to ultimately bear the freight cost.”
Pakistan producers and exporters: Textile and apparel shipments are facing stress. On the one hand, Pakistani textile and apparel producers are “highly reliant on timely raw materials and machinery imports. Any disturbances in shipping schedules could lead to production slowdowns and increased costs for manufacturers.” Meanwhile, “There have been “delays in fulfilling orders due to higher lead times and freight charges.” “Exporters have been incurring losses as they were honoring orders when they had assumed freight charges of $750.” However, as of mid-January, “shipping companies have jacked up freight charges to around $1,800, a massive 140% hike.”
(Note: This blog post will be updated as new information becomes available. Industry professionals are welcome to leave comments and share insights.)
In December 2023, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry experts and scholars in its Outlook 2024–what’s next for apparel sourcing briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. Welcome any comments and suggestions!
What’s next for apparel sourcing?
Apparel sourcing is never about abrupt changes. However, fashion companies’ sourcing practices, from their crucial sourcing factors and sourcing destinations to operational priorities, will gradually shift in 2024 in response to the evolving business environment.
First, besides conventional sourcing factors like costs, speed to market, and compliance, fashion companies will increasingly emphasize flexibility and agility in vendor selection. One driving factor is economic uncertainty. For example, according to leading international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the world economy will likely grow relatively slowly at around 2.6%-3% in 2024. However, it is not uncommon that the economy and consumers’ demand for clothing could perform much better than expected. This means companies need to be ready for all occasions. Likewise, geopolitical tensions, from the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China decoupling to the military conflict in the Middle East, could cause severe supply chain disruptions anytime and anywhere. Thus, fashion companies need to rely on a more flexible and agile supply chain to address market uncertainties and mitigate unpredictable sourcing risks.
Secondly, it will be interesting to watch in 2024 to what extent fashion companies will further reduce their exposure to China. On the one hand, it is no surprise that fashion companies are reducing finished garments sourcing from China as much as possible. However, fashion brands and retailers also admit that it is difficult to find practical alternatives to China in the short to medium terms regarding raw textile materials and orders that require small runs and great variety. Meanwhile, investments from China are flowing into regions considered alternative sourcing destinations, such as the rest of Asia and Central America. These new investments could complicate the efforts to limit exposure to China and potentially strengthen, not weaken, China’s position in the apparel supply chains. And stakeholders’ viewpoints on “investments from China” appear even more subtle and complicated.
Third, regulations “behind the borders” could more significantly affect fashion companies’ sourcing practices in 2024, particularly in sustainability-related areas. While sustainability is already a buzzword, fashion companies must deal with increasingly complex legal requirements to achieve sustainability. Take textile recycling, for example. The enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) on recycled cotton, the US Federal Trade Commission’s expanded Green Guides, the EU’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program and its strategy for sustainable textiles, and many state-level legislations on textile waste (e.g., California Textile Recycling Legislation) may all affect companies’ production and sourcing practices for such products. Fashion companies’ sourcing, legal, and sustainability teams will need to work ever more closely to ensure “sustainable apparel” can be available to customers.
Apparel industry challenges and opportunities
In 2024, a slow-growing or stagnant world economy will persist as a significant challenge for fashion companies. Without sourcing orders from fashion brands and retailers, many small and medium-sized manufacturers in the developing world may struggle to survive, leaving garment workers in a precarious financial situation. China’s economic slowdown could worsen the situation as many developing countries increasingly treat China as an emerging export market. With shrinking domestic demand, more “Made in China” apparel could enter the international market and intensify the price competition.
Another challenge is the rising geopolitical tensions and political instability in major apparel-producing countries. For example, while a broad base supports the early renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which will expire in 2025, the reported human rights violations in some essential apparel exporting countries in the region could complicate the renewal process in US Congress. Likewise, even though the Biden administration is keen to encourage fashion companies to expand sourcing from Central America, political instability there, from Nicaragua to Haiti, makes fashion companies hesitant to make long-term sourcing commitments and investments. Furthermore, 2024 is the election year for many countries, from the US to Taiwan. We cannot rule out the possibility that unexpected incidents could trigger additional instability or even new conflict.
On the positive side, it is encouraging to see fashion companies continue to invest in new technologies to improve their operational efficiency in apparel sourcing. Digital product passports, 3D product design, PLM, blockchain, Generative AI, and various supply chain traceability tools are among the many technologies fashion companies actively explore. Fashion companies hope to leverage these tools to improve their supply chain transparency, strengthen relationships with key vendors, reduce textile waste, accelerate product development, and achieve financial returns.
It is also a critical time to rethink and reform fashion education. In addition to traditional curricula like apparel design and merchandising, we need more partnerships between the apparel industry and educational institutions to expose students to the real world. More direct engagement with Gen Z will also benefit fashion companies tremendously, allowing them to understand their future core customers and prepare qualified next-generation talents.
The full article is here(Just-Style access required). Below are the key findings:
Based on a content analysis of the annual reports of about 30 largest US fashion brands and retailers from 2018 to 2023, this study aims to identify these companies’ most critical evolving sourcing practices, including their sourcing destination adjustment, primary sourcing factors, and emerging sourcing-related “hot topics.” The findings provide critical market intelligence, informing US fashion companies about their peers’ emerging sourcing trends and popular practices. The results show that:
First, maintaining a relatively diverse sourcing base remains common among US fashion companies. Results show that large-size companies today typically source from more than 20 countries. One critical factor behind fashion companies’ sourcing diversification strategies is that no single supplying country is “perfect,” given the increasingly complex sourcing factors. Sourcing diversification allows fashion companies to balance various sourcing factors. For example, according to company #19, “the (sourcing diversification) approach provides us with the greatest flexibility in identifying the appropriate manufacturers while considering quality, cost, timing of product delivery and other criteria.” On the other hand, sourcing diversification enables companies to adapt quickly to market uncertainties and enjoy supply chain flexibility and resilience.
Second, while US fashion companies are not necessarily leaving any particular countries they source from, many have substantially reduced the number of vendors they work with over the past few years. Specifically, out of the 30 fashion companies the study examined, over 60% explicitly mentioned they consolidated their sourcing base at the vendor level from 2017/2018 to 2022/2023, although the degree varied. For example:
Company #4, a leading sportswear brand, cut its contracted factories from 363 to 291 (or down 19.8%)
Company #6, which owns several jeans and sportswear brands, reduced its contracted factories from 1,000 to around 340 (or down 66%)
Company #9, a well-known specialty clothing store, cut its vendors from 800 to 250 (or down 68.8%)
Company #26, a specialty clothing store targeting the youth, cut its vendors from 150 to around 119 (or down 20.7%)
Company #28, a discount department store, cut its vendors from 3,100 to around 2,800 (or down 9.7%)
Associated with the trend of “country diversification and vendor consolidation,” US fashion companies are increasingly interested in working with “super vendors,” e.g., those with multiple country presence or vertical manufacturing capability. The use of “super vendor” can also be observed in fashion companies’ willingness to give more sourcing orders to their top suppliers. For example, Company #18, a casual and outdoor wear retailer, reduced its vendors from 200 in 2017/2018 to 110 in 2022/2023, but increased the cap of sourcing orders for its top 10 vendors from 40% to 47% over the same period.
Third, regarding the sourcing base, many US fashion companies have intentionally reduced their apparel sourcing from China, given the US-China tariff war, deteriorating bilateral relations, and the forced labor concerns with China’s Xinjiang region (XUAR). Specifically, more than one-third of the examined companies explicitly mentioned their strategy to reduce finished garments sourcing from China. Furthermore, several US fashion companies indicated their “reducing China exposure” strategy would continue, implying China’s market share in the US apparel import market could decrease further.
Nevertheless, even though fewer finished garments are coming from China, US fashion companies admit that China will continue to play a critical role as a textile raw material supplier as no immediate practical alternative is available. For example, Company #20, a specialty clothing chain focusing on trendy and fashionable items, says, “During fiscal 2022, we sourced most of our finished products with partners and suppliers outside the US and we continued to design and purchase fabrics globally, with most coming from China.”
Fourth, in line with trade statistics, US fashion companies consider other Asian suppliers, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Indonesia, as their top choices as China’s alternatives.In comparison, few fashion companies explicitly mentioned moving their sourcing orders from China to Western Hemisphere countries or other regions.
Additionally, regarding emerging “hot topics” related to sourcing:
Geopolitics: the deteriorating US-China relations, escalated trade tensions expanded from tariffs to forced labor, and the potential trade disruptions have concerned US fashion companies significantly. Notably, US fashion companies regard sourcing from China as increasingly risky, with the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in June 2022. For example, according to Company 2, “The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and other similar legislation may lead to greater supply chain compliance costs and delays to us and to our vendors.”
Near-shoring: due to the decoupling and de-risking from the China movement, US fashion companies have begun actively exploring near-shoring sourcing opportunities in the Western Hemisphere, particularly from members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). For example, Company #1, the North American manufacturer, disclosed that “(our) Company relies on a number of preferential trade programs (…) including the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR (…) Collectively, these agreements strengthen US economic relations and expand trade with Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti.”
Sustainability and social responsibility: It is noteworthy that aside from climate change and forced labor, which are typically addressed as risk factors, US fashion companies generally hold an optimistic and forward-looking perspective for sustainability, such as new technologies and endeavors toward more sustainable production and sourcing. Terms such as using preferred or recycled materials, supply chain transparency and traceability, and emerging sustainability technologies have been more frequently mentioned in companies’ annual or ESG reports. For example, Company #17 says, “Increase the usage of environmentally preferred materials to comprise 32.6% of the brand’s global materials footprint.”Company #2 adds, “Our goal is to use preferred materials in 100 percent of our products by 2030.” Company #9 states, “We collaborate with suppliers to increase the supply of preferred raw materials.”
Supply chain transparency: US fashion companies attach great importance to improving supply chain transparency and traceability. Compared to the past, fashion companies are more willing to invest in new technologies and digital tools, allowing them to map supply chains and achieve sustainability goals more effectively. Related to this, US fashion companies have actively engaged with industry associations and other industry communities outside the company to stay informed about sustainability trends and learn best practices.
Students in FASH455 have proposed the following discussion questions based on the videos about the state of textile and apparel in Asia. Everyone is welcome to join the online discussion. For FASH455 students, please address at least two questions and mention the question number (#) in your reply.
#1 We have seen all the improvements and “upgrading” Vietnam has made toward the fashion industry. What can the garment industry in other countries take away from Vietnam’s experiences?
#2 Is Asia’s highly integrated apparel supply chain unique to the region? Can the Western Hemisphere “copy” Asia’s model?
#3 How can Asia’s textile and apparel industry balance the growing demand for sustainability and the need to remain cost-competitive? What innovative strategies can be adopted to achieve this balance?
#4 As Asian textiles and apparel factories continue to improve their efficiency and expand product offers, will it be beneficial for the US to reach a trade agreement with Asian countries? Or do you believe such an agreement might contradict the goals we try to achieve from CAFTA-DR?
#5 Will Vietnam eventually become the next China, or could its labor shortages be a significant barrier preventing its textile and apparel industry from advancing to the next level?
#6 Should textile and garment factories in Asia make more efforts to appeal to the younger generation (e.g., Gen Z)? Or is automation the solution?
#7 To what extent do you think Asian apparel exporting countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia) will reduce their dependence on textile raw materials supply from China due to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)? Or, instead, do you think Asian apparel-exporting countries other than China benefit from UFLPA?
#8 The video shows that Asian countries have begun to invest heavily in new production capacities for textile recycling. Do you believe the region will continue to dominate textile and apparel production in the era of fashion circularity? Or will the emergence of textile recycling shift the world textile and apparel trade patterns in the long run?
Beth Hughes serves as the Vice President of the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), responsible for supporting the association’s efforts on international trade and customs issues. Beth oversees AAFA’s Trade Policy Committee, as well as AAFA’s Customs Group. Beth is also the spokesperson of the Coalition for Economic Partnership in the Americas (CEPA), a group of prominent American companies, and manufacturers committed to advancing regional trade and employment opportunities in the Western Hemisphere.
Before joining AAFA, Beth served for six years as senior director of international affairs at the International Dairy Foods Association. Beth earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science at George Washington University and received a Master of Arts in international affairs from Florida State University.
The interview was conducted by Leah Marsh, a graduate student in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware. Leah’s research focused on exploring EU retailers’ sourcing strategies for clothing made from recycled textile materials and fashion companies’ supply chain and sourcing strategies.
Julia K. Hughes is President of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), which represents brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers based in the United States and doing business globally. She represents the industry in front of the U.S. government as well as international governments and stakeholders, explaining how fashion companies create high quality jobs in the United States and economic opportunities around the world.
An expert on textile and apparel trade issues, Julie has testified before Congress and the Executive Branch. She frequently speaks at international conferences including the China & Asia Textile Forum, Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), Harvard University’s Bangladesh Development Conference, MAGIC, Prime Source Forum, Vietnam Textile Summit, and others.
Julie served as the first President and is one of the founders of the Washington Chapter of Women in International Trade (WIIT) and is one of the founders of the WIIT Charitable Trust. She also was the first President of the Organization of Women in International Trade (OWIT). In 1992, she received the Outstanding Woman in International Trade award and in 2008, the WIIT Lifetime Achievement Award. She also is a member of the International Women’s Forum.
Julia has an M.A. in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.
The interview was conducted by Leah Marsh, a graduate student in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies at the University of Delaware. Leah’s research focused on exploring EU retailers’ sourcing strategies for clothing made from recycled textile materials and fashion companies’ supply chain and sourcing strategies.
Instructions: In the next few weeks of FASH455, we will learn about many technical aspects of free trade agreements related to apparel sourcing and trade, such as the preferential tariff rates, apparel-specific rules of origin, and trade agreement utilization. However, this presentation takes a different perspective on trade deals– why they are NOT solely about job creation, why trade agreements increasingly focus on “measures behind borders,” and why international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) were established.
Feel free to share your thoughts on the video. You may focus on 1-2 specific points that you find interesting, intriguing, controversial, or debatable and then explain your arguments. You could also propose additional discussion questions for your classmates.
Terminologies mentioned in the video and background notes:
Quota: A quantity restriction on imports. Before 2005, the global textile and apparel trade was subject to 30 years+ quota restrictions. See here for the background information.
Tariff: A tax levied on imports only. Deemed as “import-sensitive,” US still imposes a much higher tariff rate for textile (8.0%) and apparel products (11.6%) than other manufactured goods (2.2%) on average in 2023. See the World Tariff Profile 2023.
Non-tariff barriers (NTB): refers to trade barriers other than tariffs, such as technical barriers of trade (TBT), Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, customs procedures, import licensing, and many others. See more examples here.
GATT and WTO: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a temporary international treaty signed in 1947 by 23 countries (including the United States). GATT aimed to boost trade-led economic recovery after World War II. Since then, GATT members conducted nine major rounds of negotiations to gradually reduce trade barriers, ultimately establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 as the permanent body governing world trade.
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): A trade agreement reached by eleven countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) and the United States in 2016. However, the Trump Administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from TPP in January 2017. Afterward, without the US, the other 11 TPP members reached the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which officially entered into force in December 2018.
Below are selected comments by US Trade Representative Katharine Tai (Tai) and WTO (World Trade Organization) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (Ngozi).
What kind of global trade do we want today?
“For decades, the United States has been proud to champion the international rules-based order and the multilateral trading system…But the functioning and fairness of this order are now in question and that is why all of us need to adapt to a more challenging era marked by rapid technological change, increasing extreme climate events, vulnerable supply chains, intensifying geopolitical friction, widening inequality” (Tai)
“The United States is writing a new story on trade. We are pursuing fair competition, addressing the climate crisis, promoting our national security, and ensuring the rules-based system helps all economies, not just the biggest ones.” (Tai)
“how can we harness the effectiveness of our trade tools to be promoting not just efficiency and liberalization, but using those tools to promote what we consider certainly today to be higher goals. And those goals are resilience for our economy and the word economy, sustainability, again, for our economy in the world economy, and inclusivity… we started to see where the concentrations in supply and production started to impact this and spike this economic insecurity on a macro level and also for individuals” (Tai)
Trade and climate change
“trade is necessary to disseminate green technologies and through competition and scale efficiencies to drive down the cost of decarbonization. Another reason is that trade amplifies the impact of environmental policy action. Recent research at the WTO demonstrate that just as countries can reap economic gains by focusing on what they are relatively good at, the world can reap environmental gainsif countries focus on what they are relatively green at” (Ngozi)
Is trade diversification the future?
“A fragmented world economy would not just be bad for already-squeezed household budgets. Without trade, it would become harder, even impossible, to meet the big challenges of our time – resilience, socioeconomic inclusion, and climate change… The problems we encountered in the trading system were less about trade per se and more about excessive concentration for some products and supply relationships. The smart response is to deepen, diverse, and deconcentrate production so there are fewer potential bottlenecks” (Ngozi)
“we believe we can solve the problem by diversifying the supply chains not just to ourselves or to friends but to all over the world where the opportunity exists. Business should look at the possibility of not just doing China+1. It means China plus Vietnam or Indonesia. But they can do Bangladesh. They can do Laos. They can do Rwanda. They can do Senegal. They can do Nigeria. I’m just – Morocco” (Ngozi)
Debate the impact of trade
“Technology was generally a big culprit in job losses…U.S. manufacturing output, the volume of products produced here, is about as high as it has ever been. But the sector employs more machines and fewer people than it used to. Nevertheless, import competition was a significant factor and an easier focus, I think, for political anger.” (Ngozi)
“…between 1995 and 2011, while increased goods import from China did eliminate 2 million jobs in the United States, increased exports to China and elsewhere added 6.6 million jobs to the U.S. economy, 4 million of them from higher-services exports…These numbers illustrate the power of trade for job creation. But as we know, those new jobs were not created in the same places. Neither did they go to the same people. That a backlash would result from those left out was perhaps predictable, but it was not inevitable. There are countries that use domestic-policy levers to translate gains from trade into broadly shared growth by providing people security against income loss and support to seize new opportunities.” (Ngozi)
Renew or update the African Growth and Opportunity Act?
“The world is really different from when AGOA was first created…So I think copy-paste is to really lose an important opportunity…we should be practical. Also, we’re on a timeline…The AfCFTA, the African Continental Free Trade Area, that has been concluded, that has that has been brought into being by the countries on the continent. And those continental integration aspirations should absolutely be reflected in our offer to Africa, and something we should try to figure out how to incorporate” (Tai)
“African countries appreciate AGOA. They would like to see an agreement that is, you know, at least a decade out so that they have some predictability. What they’re hearing from investors is that with this up in the air, they can’t make up their minds whether to invest or not because they don’t know what will happen. So I think if we can reform and get it done, and people can have a predictable time horizon for AGOA, it would really help” (Ngozi)
How to reform the World Trade Organization?
“The United States wants a WTO where dispute settlement is fair and effective, and supports a healthy balance of sovereignty, democracy, and economic integration where all members embrace transparency, where we have better rules and tools to tackle non-market policies and practices, and to confront the climate crisis and other pressing issues.” (Tai)
“We must recognize the diversity of developing members. We should have flexibilities in the rules that reflect actual needs. But we cannot have economic and manufacturing powerhouses gaming the system by claiming the same development status and flexibilities intended for less-advantaged members.” (Tai)
“people ask me all the time, oh, are you worried because there are so many [Free trade agreement, FTA]? I’m not. Like I said, 75 percent of trade still goes on WTO terms [MFN tariff rates]. And we can learn from them.” (Ngozi)
“I don’t have enough time and money to waste resources in Geneva on a process that we don’t actually believe in…When President Biden talks about it from the floor of the United Nations General Assembly, if we still have trading partners who want to question our seriousness, then I think the problem is those partners and it’s not us” (Tai) [note: this comment was mentioned by Politico]
Argument: The U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a winner of globalization
Comment #1: While it is true that many Americans lost their jobs due to the increase in trade, there are more benefits to both importing and exporting rather than the mercantilist view of trade. Increasing trade and globalization, especially during the Clinton administration, was an opportunity to develop strong relationships with other nations. The value of U.S. textile exports since 2000 has risen by 30% for yarn and 15% for fabric, after the establishment of agreements such as NAFTA. Additionally, one of the U.S. apparel manufacturers in the video used machinery for their production from Sweden. Without globalization and trade, they would not be able to use this high-tech equipment. All in all, U.S. textile manufacturing sector benefits from both importing and exporting goods.
Comment #2: Deeper down, the US textile sector seems to be winning in the long run. The squeeze that globalization has placed on them has allowed for innovation within the industry as they fight to stay relevant and compete with overseas goods. Operational slack such as high turnover jobs have been eliminated with automation, and US manufacturers gained a new branding niche that overseas companies do not: a US “personal touch.” Consumers may now be more willing to pay more for a garment just because it says it is made in the USA. USA-made clothing may now be perceived as higher quality and more scarce. The sentiment towards US-made goods and their quality could enact change to reduce overseas reliance, which is a win for US manufacturing in the long run. Additionally, globalization expands the export market for the US textile manufacturing sector.
Comment #3: As discussed in the video, there is a growing trend of reshoring and regionalization in some manufacturing sectors, including textiles. Some U.S. textile manufacturers have seized this opportunity to bring production back to the United States, capitalizing on the advantages of local supply chains, quality control, and speed to market. The video also shows how technology and automation can help streamline production processes and make manufacturing more competitive, even in higher-cost regions like the United States. US textile manufacturers have invested in innovation and automation, making them competitive in producing textiles with advanced features and properties in today’s global economy. It is globalization that is pushing the US textile industry to adopt these new technologies and continue improving its international competitiveness.”
Argument: the U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a loser of globalization
Comment #4: One of the biggest arguments for globalization is the lower prices & affordability for the consumer. From this perspective, it seemed that the United States was a winner of globalization as a whole. However, when beginning to look at the consequences of moving production overseas, we not only see the textile manufacturing sector being affected, but we also see this impact disperse to the communities in America as well. When brands offshore and outsource production overseas for lower prices & labor, our very own US textile manufacturing industry is losing out on this business. It also forces this industry into a highly competitive environment that does not have equal “playing fields” and does not have insurance/protection in case environmental factors ruin crops. The US has clear labor laws and human rights policies (as well as increasing environmental policies), whereas their cotton-growing competitors, for instance, do not have to follow the same rules. This allows labor exploitation to decrease costs and makes US companies seem unappealing or less competitive.
Comment #5: Over the past few decades, the number of manufacturing jobs in the US textile industry has plummeted after companies began moving production overseas, specifically to countries like China, which have preferential treatment. These foreign facilities can produce things much faster and cheaper because the standards and regulations are completely different than those of the United States. Free trade does not consider these differences in labor and environmental laws, making it much less “free” than it claims. As countries overseas– specifically China and regions like Xinjiang– continue to not play by the rules, the US is forced to keep up by implementing things like the Toyota System…Americans want to be the best in manufacturing and globalization often gets in the way of this. With near-shoring, the US can reclaim high-quality, American-made garments while helping with job security and sustainability.
Comment #6: Overall, I believe that the U.S. textile manufacturing industry is a loser of globalization and international trade, mostly due to the competition from overseas. This competition includes more manufacturers from other countries, but also the competition of pricing since other oversea manufacturers are able to sell their cotton/textile materials at a lower price. Since the U.S. struggles to compete with these lower prices, they are forced to look for another way to have a competitive advantage in the textile manufacturing sector, such as lean manufacturing and technology improvements. At Carolina Cotton Works, Bryan Ashby shares how they have increased efficiency and use high-quality machines (note: imported) for their products. Although this sounds great, this also means that there are fewer workers.
Comment #7: Globalization creates a trade dependence on imports. It’s important we don’t depend on things for when things happen that we can’t predict like the pandemic where we can’t import anymore. Since there was a lack of local textile manufacturing and sourcing in the United States compared to what was being imported, there was less of a chance for technological advances and improvement in the United States textile manufacturing sector. Post Globalization, however, may be the chance for the United States to bring back the textile manufacturing sector momentum. I think this because the United States has seen the result of heavily relying on other countries for their cheap labor/sources, and this could add extra motivation for companies to want to figure out better alternatives in manufacturing in their own country.
Comment #8: I think currently the US is a loser to globalization only because brands want to get the product for cheap. I think brands think that would create more profit that way. However, I do believe we could get to a future where more things would be created in the US and wouldn’t have to pay that much in tariffs and other external prices. I think it would help boost people to work more. I think people are worried about making things in our country because of the relations we have with other countries.
Discussion questions:
Do you agree or disagree with any particular argument above? Any follow-up comments on the impact of globalization on the US textile manufacturing sector? What should government do with trade given the debates? Please feel free to share any additional thoughts.
For FASH455 students: Please share your reflections on the video. For example, how does the video illustrate the global nature of the textile and apparel industry today? How can we understand the impact of globalization on the many stakeholders involved in the textile and apparel supply chains? Do the textile and apparel trade patterns described in the video support or challenge the trade theories we discussed in class? According to the video, what are the debates and controversies related to apparel sourcing and trade? What is your view and proposed solutions?
First, while US apparel imports gradually recovered, the import demand remained weak overall. For example, US apparel imports in July 2023 increased by 0.9% in value and 2% in quantity from June (seasonally adjusted). However, the trade volume still experienced a decrease of approximately 17-18% compared to the previous year. Meanwhile, the US consumer confidence index fell again in August 2023, suggesting the economic uncertainties are far from over. Notably, so far in 2023 (January to July), US apparel imports decreased by 22.3% in value and 28% in quantity from the previous year, the worst performance since the pandemic.
As a silver lining, the price of US apparel imports has stabilized, although inflation remains an issue for the US economy.
Secondly, because of the seasonal pattern, Asian countries were able to capture relatively higher market shares since June. For example, measured in value, China, ASEAN, and Bangladesh accounted for over 64% of total US apparel imports in July 2023, a notable increase from 61% in June and 58% in May 2023.
Nevertheless, US fashion companies continue diversifying their sourcing base to mitigate various supply chain risks and rising geopolitical tensions. For example, the HHI Index for US apparel imports dropped to 0.097 in the first seven months of 2023, which is lower than the 0.106 recorded in the same period the previous year (January to July 2022), indicating a greater diversity in the sources of imports.
Third, despite an apparent rebound in exports to the US, China continued to experience a further decline in its market share. For instance, in July 2023, China’s market share was more than 3 percentage points lower in value (27.2% in July 2022 vs. 24.1% in July 2023) and 2.5 percentage points lower in quantity (43.1% in July 2022 vs. 40.6% in July 2023). This marked the worst performance since April 2023. In other words, consistent with recent industry surveys, US fashion companies continue to reduce their China exposure given the adverse business environment.
Fourth, the latest data suggests that US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members remain stagnant, and some critical problems, such as the underutilization of the agreement, even worsened. For example, about 9.5% of US apparel imports in value and 8.5% in quantity came from CAFTA-DR members in July 2023, lower than 10.2% and 9.0% in the previous year (i.e., July 2022). In absolute terms, US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR in 2023 were about 20% lower than in 2022.
Additionally, CAFTA-DR’s utilization rate (i.e., the value of imports claiming the duty-free benefits under CAFTA-DR divided by the total value of imports from CAFTA-DR) fell from 70.2% in 2022 (Jan to July) to a new low of 69.2% in 2023 (Jan to July). Likewise, the value of imports utilizing CAFTA-DR’s short supply decreased by more than 20%. Thus, how to leverage CAFTA-DR to meaningfully encourage more US apparel imports from the region, particularly in light of US fashion companies’ eagerness to reduce their exposure to China, calls for sustained efforts and probably new strategies.
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 