15% and 25% Section 301 Punitive Tariffs on Apparel Imports from China: Retail Price Impact Assessment

1

2.jpg

3.jpg

The Trump administration has imposed 15% Section 301 punitive tariffs on $300 billion Chinese products (tranche 4) effective September 1, 2019, which includes almost 80% of U.S. apparel imports from China. As illustrated above, 15% punitive tariffs mean:

  • If the retailer keeps the retail price unchanged, its gross margin% could drop around 2.9-3 percentage points.
  • If the retailer tries to maintain a gross margin% of 40%, it may have to increase the retail price by around 11.5-12%.

3.jpg

4.jpg

Likewise, should the punitive tariffs reach 25%, it means:

  • If the retailer keeps the retail price unchanged, its gross margin% could drop around 4.9-5.0 percentage points.
  • If the retailer tries to maintain a gross margin% of 40%, it may have to increase the retail price by around 19.4-20%.

(Welcome for any comments and suggestions)

by Sheng Lu

Demystify the “Made in the USA” Apparel Sourcing Strategy

While the majority of apparel consumed in the United States come from overseas, “Made in the USA” is growing in popularity. According to the 2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) in July 2018, around 46 percent of surveyed U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers report currently sourcing “Made in the USA” products, even though local sourcing typically only account for less than 10 percent of these companies’ total sourcing value or volume.  Likewise, the State of Fashion 2019 report published by Business of Fashion (BOF) and McKinsey & Company in November also forecasts that over 20 percent of U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing volume could be from nearshore by 2025, thanks to automation technology and consumers’ increasing demand for speed to market.

However, the detailed practice of the “Made in the USA” apparel sourcing strategy–including who is sourcing, what products are sourced, and what the typical price range of these products remain largely unknown.

To answer these questions, we recently analyzed the pricing, product assortment and inventory information of over 90,000 fashion retailers and 300,000,000 fashion apparel products at the Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU) level based on EDITED, a big data and business analytics tool developed for the fashion industry. For the research purpose, we selected apparel products newly launched to the U.S. market in the past twelve months (i.e., between 1 December 2017 and 30 November 2018) with “Made in the USA” explicitly mentioned in the product description. Below are the key findings:

First, “Made in the USA” apparel overall are treated as a niche product in U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ sourcing portfolio.

During the 12 months we examined (1 December 2017-30 November 2018), 94 out of the total 348 retailers (or 27 percent) sold “Made in the USA” apparel in the U.S. market. The top 10 sellers list includes BOTH retailers that focus on the value market such as Walmart and relatively high-end department stores such as Bloomingdale and Saks Fifth Avenue. However, even for these top sellers, “Made in the USA” apparel accounted for less than 8 percent of their total product offers on average.

Second, U.S. fashion brands and retailers are most likely to source“Made in the USA” apparel for relatively fashion-oriented items, particularly bottoms (such as skirts, jeans, and trousers), dresses, all-in-ones (such as playsuits and dungarees), swimwear and suits-sets.

The competitive edge for these product categories in the retail market, in general, increasingly depends on unique designs, high product quality, and speed to market, which makes sourcing from the United States commercially beneficial. In comparison, imported products are more concentrated on basic fashion items often competing on price in the U.S. retail market, including tops (such as T-shirt and polo shirt), underwear, and nightwear.

It is also interesting to note that “Made in the USA” apparel were predominately women’s wear (92 percent), whereas imported clothing adopted a more balanced gender combination (63 percent women’s wear and 37 percent men’s wear). Because the fashion trends for women’s wear usually are shorter-lived and harder to predict, this result once again indicates that seeking quick response and shorter lead time for stylish and trendy items could be an important incentive for local sourcing by U.S. fashion brands and retailers.

Third, consistent with the common perception, “Made in the USA” apparel overall are pricier than imported ones in the U.S. retail market.

Taking the U.S. apparel retail market as a whole, close to 40 percent of “Made in the USA” offering in the past 12 months targeted the premium or luxury market, compared with only 20 percent of imported products.  In contrast, as few as 18 percent of “Made in the USA” offering were in the value market, which, however, accounted for approximately 60 percent of all imported apparel sold in the U.S. market. In totality, it seems U.S. fashion brands and retailers are purposefully targeting “Made in the USA” apparel for less price-sensitive segments of the market to balance the high domestic production cost.

On the other hand, when examining U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ pricing strategy at the product level, “Made in the USA” clothing was still priced much higher than imported ones for almost all major apparel categories, except hosiery. Notably, in the past 12 months, the average unit retail price of “Made in the USA” clothing was 99.2 percent higher than imported ones in the value and mass market and 36.0 percent higher in the premium and luxury market. This interesting phenomenon supports the arguments that U.S. consumers somehow are willing to pay a premium price for products with the “Made in the USA” label.  

Additionally, during the past 12 months, around 46.3 percent of “Made in the USA” apparel were sold at a discount compared with more than 54.6 percent of imported ones. The advantage of proximity to the market, which makes speedy replenishment for in-season items possible, is an important factor behind the more successful control of markdowns for “Made in the USA” products. For example, data shows that U.S. fashion brands and retailers replenished approximately 12.7 percent of their “Made in the USA” offering in the past 12 months but only 2.8 percent of imported clothing.

In conclusion, the findings of this study concur with the view that “Made in the USA” apparel are still relevant today. Meanwhile, it does not seem to be the case that “Made in the USA” apparel and imported ones are necessarily competing with each other in the U.S. retail market. With apparel sourcing increasingly requiring striking a balance among various factors ranging from cost, flexibility, compliance to speed to market, it is hopeful that “Made in the USA” apparel will continue to have its unique role to play in U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ merchandising and sourcing strategies.

By Sheng Lu

Outlook 2019: Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead

In January 2019, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry leaders and scholars in its Outlook 2019–Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead management briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. Any comments and suggestions are more than welcome!

1: What do you see as the biggest challenges – and opportunities – facing the apparel industry in 2019, and why?

In my view, uncertainty will remain the single biggest challenge facing the apparel industry in 2019, ranging from a more volatile global economy, the unpredictable outlook of the U.S.-China trade talks to the various possible scenarios of Brexit. While uncertainty creates exciting new research opportunities for scholars like me, it could be a big headache for companies seeking a foreseeable market environment to guide their future business plan and investments. 

Meanwhile, the increasing digitalization of the apparel supply chain based on big-data tools and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies means a huge opportunity for fashion companies. Indeed, the apparel industry is quickly changing in nature—becoming ever more globalized, supply-chain based, technology-intensive and data-driven. Take talent recruitment as an example. In the 2018 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which I conducted in collaboration with the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), as much as 68 percent of surveyed leading U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers say they plan to increase hiring of data scientists in the next five years. Googling “apparel industry” together with terms such as “big data” and “data science” also returns much more results than in the past. It is hopeful that the advancement of digital technologies and the smarter use of data will enable apparel companies to overcome market uncertainties better and improve many aspects of their businesses such as speed to market, operational efficiency and even sustainability.

2: What’s happening with sourcing? How is the sourcing landscape likely to shift in 2019, and what can apparel firms and their suppliers do to stay ahead?

Based on my research, I have three observations regarding apparel companies’ sourcing trends and the overall sourcing landscape in 2019:

First, apparel companies overall will continue to maintain a diverse sourcing base. For example, in a recent study, we examined the detailed sourcing portfolios of the 50 largest U.S.-based apparel companies ranked by the Apparel Magazine. Notably, on average these companies sourced from over 20 different countries or regions using more than 200 vendors in 2017. Similarly, in the 2018 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which I conducted in collaboration with the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), we also found companies with more than 1,000 employees typically source from more than ten different countries and regions. Since no sourcing destination is perfect, maintaining a relatively diverse sourcing base allows apparel companies to strike a balance among various sourcing factors ranging from cost, speed, flexibility, to risk management.

Second, while apparel companies are actively seeking new sourcing bases, many of them are reducing either the number of countries they source from or the number of vendors they work with. According to our study, some apparel companies have been strategically reducing the number of sourcing facilities with the purpose of ensuring closer collaborations with their suppliers on social and environmental compliance issues. Some other companies are consolidating their sourcing base within certain regions to improve efficiency and maximize productivity in the supply chain. Related to this trend, it is interesting to note that approximately half of the 50 largest U.S. apparel companies report allocating more sourcing orders to their largest vendor in 2017 than three years ago.

Third, nearshoring or onshoring will become more visible. Take “Made in the USA” apparel for example. According to the 2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, around 46 percent of surveyed U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers report currently sourcing “Made in the USA” products, even though local sourcing typically only account for less than 10 percent of these companies’ total sourcing value or volume. In a recent study, we find that 94 out of the total 348 retailers (or 27 percent) sold “Made in the USA” apparel in the U.S. market between December 2017 and November 2018. These “Made in the USA” apparel items, in general, focus on fashion-oriented women’s wear, particularly in the categories of bottoms (such as skirts, jeans, and trousers), dresses, all-in-ones (such as playsuits and dungarees), swimwear and suits-sets. The advantage of proximity to the market, which makes speedy replenishment for in-season items possible, also allows retailers to price “Made in the USA” apparel substantially higher than imported ones and avoid offering deep discounts. Looking ahead, thanks to automation technology and consumers’ increasing demand for speed to market, I think nearshoring or onshoring, including ”Made in the USA” apparel, will continue to have its unique role to play in fashion brands and retailers’ merchandising and sourcing strategies.

3: What should apparel firms and their suppliers be doing now if they want to remain competitive further into the future? What will separate the winners from the losers?

2019 will be a year to test apparel companies’ resources, particularly in the sourcing area. For example, winners will be those companies that have built a sophisticated but nimble global sourcing network that can handle market uncertainties effectively. Likewise, companies that understand and leverage the evolving “rules of the game”, such as the apparel-specific rules of origin and tariff phase-out schedules of existing or newly-reached free trade agreements, will be able to control sourcing cost better and achieve higher profit margins. Given the heavy involvement of trade policy in apparel sourcing this year, companies with solid government relations should also enjoy unique competitive advantages. 

On the other hand, as apparel business is changing in nature, to stay competitive, apparel companies need to start investing the future. This includes but not limited to exploring new sourcing destinations, studying the changing consumer demographics, recruiting new talents with expertise in emerging areas, and adopting new technologies fitting for the digital age. 

4: What keeps you awake at night? Is there anything else you think the apparel industry should be keeping a close eye on in the year ahead? Do you expect 2019 to be better than 2018, and why?

Two things are at the top of my watchlist:

First, what is the future of China as an apparel sourcing base? While external factors such as the U.S.-China tariff war have attracted most of the public attention, the genuine evolution of China’s textile and apparel industry is something even more critical to watch in the long run. From my observation, China is playing an increasingly important role as a textile supplier for apparel-exporting countries in Asia. For example, measured by value, 47 percent of Bangladesh’s textile imports came from China in 2017, up from 39 percent in 2005. Similar trends are seen in Cambodia (up from 30 percent to 65 percent), Vietnam (up from 23 percent to 50 percent), Pakistan (up from 32 percent to 71 percent), Malaysia (up from 25 percent to 54 percent), Indonesia (up from 28 percent to 46 percent), Philippines (up from 19 percent to 41 percent) and Sri Lanka (up from 15 percent to 39 percent) over the same time frame. A key question in my mind is how quickly China’s textile and apparel industry will continue to evolve and upgrade by following the paths of most other advanced economies in history.

Second, how will the implementation of several newly-reached free trade agreements (FTAs) affect the big landscape of apparel sourcing and the existing regional apparel supply chains? For example:

  • The newly-reached U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA or commonly called NAFTA2.0) includes several interesting changes to the textile and apparel specific rules of origin provisions, such as the adjustment of the tariff-preference level (TPL) mechanism. Whether these changes will boost textile and apparel production in the Western-Hemisphere and attract more sourcing from the region will be something interesting to watch.
  • The implementation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) will allow Vietnam to get access to nearly 40% of the world apparel import market (i.e., EU + Japan) duty-free. However, restrained by the country’s relatively small population, the apparel industry is increasingly facing the challenge of competing for labor with other export-oriented sectors in Vietnam. Realistically, what is the growth potential of apparel “Made in Vietnam” after the implementation of CPTPP and EVFTA?
  • In 2017, close to 80% of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries, up from around 70% in the 2000s. Similarly, in 2017, 85.6% of Asian countries’ apparel imports also came from within the region. The negotiation of the Regional Comprehensive and Economic Partnership (RCEP) is likely to conclude in 2019, whose membership includes member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other six economies in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). Will RCEP result in an ever more integrated Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain and make the Asia region even more competitive as an apparel sourcing destination?  

(comment for this post is closed)

Market Size of the Global Textile and Apparel Industry: 2016 to 2021/2022

Textile Mills

The textile mills market primarily includes yarns and fabrics. The market size is estimated based on the value of domestic production plus imports minus exports, all valued at manufacturer prices.

The value of the global textile mills market totaled $748.1 billion in 2016 (around 83.7% were fabrics and 16.3% were yarns), up 3.5% from a year earlier. The compound annual growth rate of the market was 2.7% between 2012 and 2015. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 59.6% of the global textile mills market value in 2016 (up from 54.6% in 2015), Europe and the United States accounted for a further 19.1% and 10.8 of the market respectively.

The global textile mills market is forecast to reach $961.0 billion in value in 2021, an increase of 28.5% since 2016. The compound annual growth rate of the market between 2016 and 2021 is forecast to be 5.1%.

Apparel manufacturing market

The apparel manufacturing market covers all clothing except leather, footwear and knitted items as well as other technical, household, and made-up products. The market size is estimated based on the value of domestic production plus imports minus exports, all valued at manufacturer prices.

The value of the global apparel manufacturing market totaled $785.9 billion in 2016, up 3.3% from a year earlier. The compound annual growth rate of the market was 4.4% between 2012 and 2016. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 61% of the market value in 2016 and Europe accounted for a further 15.2% of the market.

The global apparel manufacturing market is forecast to reach $992 billion in value in 2021, an increase of 26.2% since 2016. The compound annual growth rate of the market during the period of 2016 and 2021 is forecast to be 4.8%.

Apparel retail market

The apparel retail industry consists of the sale of all menswear, womenswear and childrenswear. The market value is calculated at retail selling price (RSP), and includes all taxes and duties.

The value of the global apparel retail market totaled $1,414.1 billion in 2017 (52.6% womenswear, 31.3% menswear and 16.1% childrenswear), up 4.9% from a year earlier. The compound annual growth rate of the market was 4.4% between 2013 and 2017. The Asia-Pacific region accounted for 37.1% of the global apparel retail market in 2017 (up from 36.8% in 2015), followed by followed by Europe (28.5%) and the United States (23.6%).

The global apparel retail market is forecast to reach $1,834 billion in value in 2022, an increase of 29.7% since 2017. The compound annual growth rate of the market between 2017 and 2022 is forecast to be 5.3%.

Data source: MarketLine (2018)

The Section 301 Investigation against China Divides the U.S. Textile Industry and U.S. Fashion Brands and Retailers

FOREIGN201708211603000328832175771

On April 3, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative Office (USTR) released the proposed list of Chinese products to be subject to the retaliatory tariff under the Section 301 action. The proposed list covers approximately 1,300 separate tariff lines, including textile machinery. However, textile and apparel (HS chapters 50 to 63) were not on the list.

USTR says it will make a final decision on whether to implement the proposed tariff action after a public hearing process scheduled at around May 15, 2018. Most U.S.-based textile and apparel industry associated have submitted their public comments regarding the section 301 investigation. Because of their respective commercial interests, not surprisingly, the U.S. textile industry favors the retaliatory tariffs on imports from China whereas U.S. fashion brands and retailers oppose the action strongly. Specifically:

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)

  • NCTO applauds the Trump Administration’s formal initiation of a Section 301 case designed to address China’s persistent and highly damaging actions in the area of intellectual property theft. NCTO argues that illegal activity on the part of the government of China has gone on for far too long, at the direct expense of U.S. manufacturers and the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
  • The U.S. textile industry is severely disappointed that the retaliation list published by USTR on April 3 does not contain a single textile or apparel product.
  • NCTO argues that China’s illegal IPR activities have damaged the U.S. textile industry and recommend that textile and apparel products be added to the retaliation list.

The United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)

  • USFIA opposes adding apparel (items classifiable under chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS) and other fashion products (such as footwear, handbags, and luggage) to the retaliation list against China.
  • USFIA argues that tariffs are NOT the appropriate mechanism to redress the activities outlined in USTR’s report to the White House. Imposing tariffs on imports of fashion products would do nothing to solve the concerns about China’s IP policies and practices outlined in USTR’s Section 301 report.
  • USFIA believes that the best way to address concerns about China’s IPR practices is action at the multilateral level that includes other US trading partners.

American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA)

  • AAFA strongly opposes the proposed imposition of tariffs on textile, apparel, and footwear equipment and machinery as this will result in increased costs for AAFA members who are making yarns, fabrics, clothes, and shoes in the United States.
  • AAFA believes that a tariff on textile and apparel products would be a hidden tax on U.S. consumers, particularly since China represents such a large source of U.S. imports of these products.
  • AAFA strongly supports the Trump Administration’s efforts to improve the protection of intellectual property rights in China.

Global Value Chain for Apparel Sold at Target

target cover

description

step 1

step 2

step 3

step 4

021313_moongate_assoc_global_value_chain_report1

A global view in mind means more career opportunities: except material production and cut and sew, other well-paid jobs in the apparel value chain stay in the United States.

Source: Moongate Association (2017). Analyzing the Value Chain for Apparel Designed in the United States and Manufactured Overseas

Trade Issues Facing the U.S. Apparel and Retail Industry

Panel:

  • Steve Lamar, Executive VP at the American and Apparel Footwear Association (AAFA)
  • Jon Gold, VP of Supply Chain and Customs Policy at the National Retail Federation (NRF)
  • Robert Antoshak (Host), Managing Director at Olah Inc.

Topic discussed

  • Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
  • Trump’s trade policy agenda
  • What’s going on in the retail market?
  • Technology and the future of apparel supply chain
  • US labeling requirements and a return of Made-in-USA

Brexit and the U.S. Fashion Industry

Fetaured-Brexit-Image.png

sales

Based on the readings and our class discussions, please feel free to share your views on the following questions:

  • Is “Brexit” a big deal for U.S. fashion companies? Why or why not?
  • Does “Brexit” create any particular winners or losers? If so, who are they?
  • Any observed impact of “Brexit”?

Global Apparel and Footwear Industry (Updated in June 2016)

1

2

The global apparel and footwear industry enjoys a 5 percent value growth in 2015. Asia Pacific remains the world’s largest apparel and footwear market, with market value increased by $30 billion USD in 2015.  In particular, the United States, China and India contributed more than half the absolute increased value.

Market growth in Western Europe remains stagnant in 2015. However, some countries performed better than others. For example, apparel and footwear sales continued to experience significant losses in Greece and Italy with 7 percent and 2 percent declines in 2015, respectively. France didn’t do very well either and size of the French market is expected to contract by $1.5 billion USD by 2020. In comparison, UK, Western Europe’s largest market, posted modest 1 percent growth in 2015. Performance in Germany remained overall stable.

US

The US market continues to perform well with healthy value growth of 4 percent in 2015. However, the performance of key players such as J Crew and Gap, both of which plan to close a significant number of physical stores and lay off employees, highlight the increasingly competitive trading environment. US consumers overall remain cautious and adopt a value- driven approach to buying clothes resulting in a continuous discounting cycle, negatively impacting profit margins and slowing growth for the industry as a whole. From 2013 to 2014, volume growth of apparel sales in the United States exceeded value, primarily due to discounting, the proliferation of fast fashion brands and greater availability of low prices online. However, value growth returned to a more robust position in 2015, as a strengthening economy, improvements in the labor market and rising wages support future growth.

3

Sportswear is maintaining its momentum, increased by 8 percent in market value from 2014 to 2015, faster than any other apparel product categories. Consumers no longer consider sport a task that needs to be checked off on a day-to-day basis but instead it has become a lifestyle. Athleisure remains a heavily prominent trend as more consumers adopt an active and healthy lifestyle, increasing the demand for athletic products that are technically advanced and fashionable. In response to the evolving athleisure trend, major sportswear brands have turned their attention to women’s sports apparel and footwear. With Skechers, Lululemon, Under Armour and Nike reporting growth of 33 percent, 20 percent, 19 percent and 12 percent, respectively, in 2015.

4

Currency weakness, political unrest and tough economic environments continue to result in slowing growth among the emerging markets. However, internet retailing & e-commerce is a spotlight. Apparel and footwear sales through internet retailing grew by 23 percent in 2015 globally and are expected to continue providing impressive growth for apparel brands to 2020. Global mobile internet retailing has grown at a rapid of 92 percent over 2011-2015, highlighting the increasingly vital role mobile is playing within the buying process. Notably, emerging markets are accounting for a significant proportion of growth and are expected to boast a higher market size than developed markets by 2018.

Data source: Euromonitor Passport

The Global Journey of a Marks and Spencer Wool Suit

english suit

global travel

An interesting BBC article describes the global journey of a Marks and Spencer (M&S) wool suit:

  1. The suit was designed by M&S in-house team in UK
  2. Wool that makes up the suit came from Australia
  3. Raw wool was shipped from Australia to China for topping.
  4. Wool top was shipped from China to Italy for dying
  5. Dyed wool was shipped from Italy to Romania to be spun into yarn
  6. Yarn was shipped to Yorkshire, UK to be woven into cloth
  7. Cloth was shipped from Yorkshire, UK to Cambodia to be made into finished suit
  8. Finished suit was shipped back to UK to be sold at M&S retail stores

As noted by the article, such a global-based production model for M&S’s suit is increasingly typical in UK. What makes the issue controversial, however is that, the suit is labeled as “100% British cloth”. As “defined” by M&S, “British cloth means it is woven, dyed and finished in the UK”.

Similar debates also exist in the United States. In the past, even if a garment was cut and sewn in California but made of imported items, the tag still had to say, “Made in USA of imported fabric, zippers, buttons and thread.” But a new law which takes into effect on January 1, 2016 allows California manufacturers to attach the “Made in USA” label as long as no more than 5 percent of the wholesale value of the garment is made of imported materials.

Discussion questions:

  1. What are the driving forces behind apparel companies’ global-based production model?
  2. Is the clothing label “Made in ___” outdated in the 21st century?
  3. Do you support the new law which allows apparel labeled “Made in USA” to contain certain value of imported material? Why? Do we need such a regulation at all? Why or why not?

Is Wal-Mart’s $250 billion “Made in the USA” Program Another “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? (II)

walmart-is-committed-to-american-renewal-infographic-s-manufacting-infographic-400pxwide-01

In early 2014, Wal-Mart Store Inc. announced its commitment to buy $250 billion “Made in the USA” products (including textiles and apparel) over the next 10 years ($50 billion annually) with the hope to “help spark a revitalization of U.S.-based manufacturing” and “create jobs in America”.

So how is the program going so far, especially in the textile and apparel (T&A) area?

made-in-usa

21

From exploring the company’s website, it is interesting to find that around 30 kinds of “Made in USA” T&A currently are being sold at Wal-Mart. However, majority of these T&A products are basic socks priced less than $10/unit. Wal-Mart also sells two types of men’s jeans, priced at $24/pair and $22/pair respectively. Although such a price level is higher than most jeans sold at Wal-Mart (which range from $8 to $20 per unit on average), it is still at the low-end of the market (see the chart below adopted from a Just Style report on the global jeans market).

41

On the other hand, as part of the “Made in USA” program, Wal-Mart sponsors a U.S. Manufacturing Innovation Fund with the purpose of “making it both easier and more competitive to make household goods in the U.S.”. T&A is one area this fund is willing to support as long as the research projects could “reduce the cost of producing textiles and apparel in the U.S., including weaving, fabric dyeing, cut & sew.

So what’s your view on Wal-Mart’s “Made in USA” initiative in the 21st century? How is it different from the “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? Will it bring back manufacturing jobs in the US as its objective stated? Will Wal-Mart repeat its record in history again? Please feel free to share your view.

[Please do not leave comment until after our case study 4]

Additional reading: Is Wal-Mart’s $250 billion “Made in the USA” Program Another “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? (I)

 

Market Size of the Global Textile and Apparel Industry: 2014 to 2018

For updated data, please check: Market Size of the Global Textile and Apparel Industry: 2016 to 2021/2022

textile

apparel manufacturing

global apparel retail

Note:

Textile mills market includes yarns and fabrics. The value includes domestic production plus imports minus exports, all valued at manufacturer prices.

Apparel covers all clothing except leather, footwear and knitted items. Non-apparel products include technical, household, and other made-up non-clothing products. The value includes domestic production plus imports minus exports, all valued at manufacturer prices.

Apparel retail industry consists of the sale of all menswear, womenswear and childrenswear. The industry value is calculated at retail selling price (RSP), and includes all taxes and levies.

Data source: MarketLine (2015)

Latest Trends in the US Apparel Industry (update: January 2015)

Latest statistics released by the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) indicate several trends in the U.S. apparel industry:

  • First, the retail market is gradually recovering. According to AAFA, on average, every American spent $907 on clothing (or purchased 64 garments) in 2013. Although this figure is still less than the one before the 2008 financial crisis, it is the highest level since 2012.
  • Second, “Made in USA” is growing but US consumers still rely on imports. Data from AAFA shows that US apparel production increased 6.2 percent from 2012 to 2013, accounting for 2.55% share of U.S. apparel market. However, nearly 98% of apparel consumed in the US were still imports in 2013.
  • Third, China remains the top apparel supplier to the United States. Despite the concerns about the rising production cost in China, latest data from OTEXA shows that, in 2014 (January to November) China still accounted for 42.5% of US apparel imports in terms of quantity and 39.1% in terms of value–almost the highest level in history. These two numbers were 41.7% and 39.9% a year earlier. On the other hand, Vietnam’s market share has reached 9.3% (by value) and 10.7% (by quantity) in 2014 (January to November), about ¼ of China’s exports to the United States.
  • Fourth, job market reflects continuous shift of the apparel industry. According to AAFA, among the total 2.8 million workers directly employed by the US apparel industry in 2013, only 5% were in the manufacturing sector, 5% were in the wholesaling sector and as many as 90% were working for retailers. However, within the apparel retail sector, total employment by the department stores is quickly shrinking—dropped 7.6 percent from 2012 to 2013 and cumulatively 21.3 percent from 1998 to 2013. At the same time, specialty clothing stores and sporting goods stores are hiring more people: 13.8% and 64.5% increase of employment from 1998 to 2013 respectively. The contrasting employment trend reflects the changing nature of the U.S. apparel retail market and the channels through which U.S. consumers purchase clothing.
  • Fifth, US consumers are paying higher taxes on imported clothing. Calculated by AAFA, while the overall U.S. imports were only charged by a 1.4% tariff rate, the effective duty rate on all apparel imports rose to 13.6% in 2013. The higher effective duty rate may be caused by the fact that less apparel were imported utilizing free trade agreement or trade preference programs.

Appendix: Facts on the US Apparel Market in 2012

Slide1 Slide2

Data Source: http://www.statista.com/

OECD Service Trade Restrictiveness Index Shows Trade Obstacles in Emerging Economies Remain High

Untitled

According to the latest Service trade Restrictiveness Index (STRIs) released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), service trade barriers in many emerging economies remain much higher than their developed trading partners.

Specifically for the distribution service sector, which covers general wholesale and retail sales of consumer goods, the STRIs suggests the highest trade barriers are in place in Indonesia, China and India whereas Spain, Germany and Czech Republic are among the most open to foreign companies (see the figure above).  Because trade in distribution services has mainly taken place through commercial presence, and the STRI results highlight the importance of impediments on foreign ownership.

The STRIs indices take the value from 0 to 1, where 0 is completely open and 1 is completely closed. The indices are calculated based on the following five factors:

  • Restrictions on foreign ownership and other market entry conditions (30%)
  • Restrictions on the movement of people (10%)
  • Other discriminatory measures and international standards (17%)
  • Barriers to competition and public ownership (22%)
  • Regulatory transparency and administrative requirements (21%) 

Currently, the STRIs include 40 countries (34 OECD members as well as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa) across 18 service sectors.

 

Behind the Scenes of Fast Fashion

fast fashion - 2

Dr. Christina Moon, Assistant Professor in the School of Art and Design History and Theory at Parsons New School for Design, has recently published an article in the Pacific Standard about the world behind fast fashion. The article can be found here: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/secret-world-slow-road-korea-los-angeles-behind-fast-fashion-73956/

Dr. Moon highlights points about the fast fashion industry and how it all began which will surely surprise any TMD/TM major. With that said, I highly recommend this article to all students in our field of study. It was surprising to discover that the fast fashion business was created by the Korean immigrants of Los Angeles, and progressed thanks to the help of their children who brought “Americanized cultural identities” to the table. As Dr. Moon points out, second generation Korean students became the driving force behind US fast fashion. A business coordinating all parts of the apparel manufacturing process such as design, production, logistics, wholesaling, and marketing is bound to be a recipe for success; however, I don’t know if I go as far to claim this business model “sparked an explosion of creativity.” With a two week production cycle as compared to a traditional three month production cycle, I don’t see too much room for innovation. Although, with our fast paced lifestyle and our becoming accustomed to easily attainable, inexpensive, and stylish clothing, innovation and creativity are most likely not at the top of a consumers list when shopping for a new outfit. As a TMD/TM student, what’s your take on fast fashion?

Any and all thoughts are more than welcome!

By MacKenzie Cahoone

[Comment for the post is closed]

3D Printing and the Future of the Fashion Industry

How do you think 3D printing might shape the future landscape of the fashion industry (eg: impact on consumers’ shopping behavior, structure of the supply chain, demand for talents and fashion companies’ business models?)

[Comment for this post is closed]

Study Compares Shopping Habits of Luxury Consumers in New York and Shanghai

An interesting study was recently conducted by ContactLab, a UK based consulting agency, which compared shopping habits of luxury consumers (clothing, shoes and fashion accessories) in New York and Shanghai, the fashion hub of the United States and China respectively.

The study was conducted based on a survey of 922 respondents in New York and 975 respondents in Shanghai aged between 25 and 54 years old. According to the study:

  • the Chinese market, seen from Shanghai, confirms its standing as a market offering enormous opportunities to companies that produce high-end products
  • in the last 12 months four out of five individuals in Shanghai have bought at least one luxury item, spending on average around $1,000 (in New York around $500) on their last purchase
  • one out of three users in New York (35%) as well as in Shanghai (31%) chooses to be kept informed through email communications sent by brands
  • two different consumption profiles emerge: fashion buying in China is closely linked to the display of one’s own spending capacity, while the New York consumers show greater affection for brand

1

2

3

A separate study released by the Fung Group in late 2013 suggests that foreign players largely dominate China’s luxury apparel market.

9

Apparel Issues to Watch in 2014

SFD_1

In the year ahead, the following issues are suggested to watch for the apparel industry according to the latest just style management briefing:

Responsible sourcing: a variety of different themes inclusive of sustainability, compliance, chemical safety and product safety. In the past, the apparel industry has been very reactive in these areas, and efforts have accelerated to move to a more proactive model in 2014.

Demand for greater supply chain visibility: a higher level focus and a lot more time will be required to look at the supply chains from end to end, especially for tier 2 and 3 component suppliers. Apparel industry needs to be focused on preparing to be more transparent on what goes into making its products and the carbon and water footprint it leaves behind. There will also be a stronger emphasis on quality, and more intelligence and agility in the supply chain, including how to achieve global flexibility in supply to maximize advantages and benefits offered by different regions.

Adjust to the industry “new normal”: speed, efficiency and cost management. ‘Quick response’ or ‘fast fashion’ is no longer a catch phrase, it’s a business reality. Speed is king. Retailers have learned to manage with smaller inventories and to quickly react to consumer needs. Additionally, there are no more low cost countries (with capability and capacity) to tap into, which requires more efficient cost control through supply chain design and management.

Internet and omni-channel retailing. The internet continues to upend the apparel industry. Brick and mortar companies are still struggling to figure out how to harness the power of the internet – and struggling to figure out how big of a threat pure-play internet companies are. Meanwhile, the proliferation of internet-only companies continues, increasing the competitive pressure on everyone (including the older internet-only companies!). All of this will end up resulting in a much stronger industry overall – but in the meantime there will be a lot of hand-wringing and heartache.

Economic outlook. Overall, 2014 will be a year better off than 2013. The US economy continues to improve, the Eurozone recession has stabilised and there is the huge opportunity Asia offers.

Country risk. Whatever happens in the real economy, political tensions throughout developing countries (except possibly China and Vietnam) are growing. They are about more than working conditions in garment factories – and we cannot expect the garment industry to remain immune from them.

International market expansion. Global vertical retailers and brands need to balance the efficiency of global assortments with being able to cater to a broad range of consumer purchasing preferences across cultural groups. Winners manage to preserve their brand identity while offering attractive choices to this diverse customer group.

Trade policy and trade politics. 2014 is an election year for US Congress. It will only be tougher to find bipartisan consensus. Things to watch include whether the Obama Administration is going to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during 2014, whether the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) can get passed as well as the renewal of the Generalized system of Preferences (GSP) and African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

China’s role in the global apparel supply chain. China’s productivity miracle has been the single major influence on global sourcing over the past five years. While this cannot go on forever it is hard to see a significant change in its share in 2014. China’s dominance of upstream textile production (spinning, weaving and knitting) is under greater threat. Its main operators are making substantial overseas investment, and while the timing of major upstream projects means this will have little impact on fabric and yarn manufacture in 2014, the subject will preoccupy observers. Onshore garment development in Japan, Germany, the UK and US will continue to create much publicity, but limited amounts of garments. Nearshoring continued to lose market share in the EU and US during 2013, though many buyers express growing interest, and there are signs of growth in some categories. It will be surprising if it shows any significant increase in 2014.

The Global Apparel Retail Market: An Update

[Note: Updated data from 2014 to 2018 is now available, please click HERE

According to a consulting report released by the Marketline, with the gradual recovery of the world economy, the global apparel retail industry generated a total $1,249.3 billion revenue in 2012, up 3.1% from 2011 and representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.8% between 2008 and 2012.

Womenswear remained the industry’s most lucrative segment in 2012, contributing $429.7 billion revenue (or 50.7% of the industry’s total value). Menswear achieved $403.6 billion revenue (or 32.3% of the industry’s total value).  

In terms of the regions, America (including North and South America) accounted for 35.3% of the global apparel retail revenue in 2012, followed by Europe (34.4%) and the Asia-Pacific region (27.1%). However, Asia-Pacific (3.9%) outpaced America (3.5%) and Europe (2.1%) in terms of growth rate, reflecting a shift in global apparel retail market after the 2008 financial crisis.

According to the MarketLine, the global apparel retail industry is forecast to have a value of $1,562.6 billion in 2017, an increase of 25.1% since 2012.The compound annual growth rate of the industry in the period 2012–17 is predicted to be 4.6%.

12 3

China as an Apparel Importer: A Big Picture View

China is well-known as the single largest apparel exporter in the world. However, with the critical changes of the world economy as well as the evolution of the global textile & apparel sector over the past decade, it is the time to seriously study China as a fast-growing apparel import market.

First and foremost, it is a wrong perception that Chinese consumers only consume clothing “made in China”.  On the contrary, as put it by a 2011 ITC consulting report on the Chinese market for Clothing:  “in Zara’s stores in Shanghai, over 90% of stock-keeping units (SKUs) are imported, with Bangladesh, Egypt, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and Viet Nam and being the main import sources. Bangladesh, Cambodia, India and Indonesia are also important procurement target countries. Shoes made in Viet Nam and Spain account for a high proportion in Zara. New H&M stores in Shanghai attracted thousands of consumers when they opened in April 2007 Of H&M’s SKUs, 75% are imported, with Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and Turkey being the main source countries.”

However, like any other countries in the world, the apparel import market in China also has its unique features & patterns. For example, woven men’s wear accounted for almost 1/3 of China’s total apparel imports. Actually, the aggregate import demand for men’s wear was 17%-20% larger than the import demand for women’s wear in China from 2008 to 2012. As another important feature: in 2012, 83% and 13% of China’s apparel imports came from Asia and Europe respectively, leaving only 4% market share for the rest of the world. This pattern implies that China’s apparel import demand could be rather polarized: either extremely price competitive products (even cheaper than “made in China”) or very high-end luxury goods (such as those made in Germany, Italy, UK and France).

Additionally, it should be highly noted that  “China is not a single unified market but a collection of local markets, each with different market demands, consumer behaviors, competition levels, and market access conditions.” (More reading: Understand China’s retail market)  This feature is particularly important for those Western-based apparel retailers interested in entering China’s retail market. In general, Eastern coastline cities are the wealthiest part of China, where a high concentration of apparel stores can be found. Many famous international brands set up mainly in first-tier cities and then establish their presence in affluent second-tier cities. Currently, the tendency is for famous brands to penetrate into more second-tier cities. Among the first-tier cities, Shanghai plays a significant role in setting fashion trends on the mainland. Therefore, many foreign and domestic apparel suppliers choose to first establish a foothold in Shanghai before seeking further expansion.

1 2

When Apparel “Made in China” Become More Expensive, Will U.S. Consumers Have to Pay More?

(This study was presented at the 2013 International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference)

By

Sheng Lu (University of Rhode Island) and Jessica Ridgeway (University of Missouri)

China’s soaring labor cost in recent years has triggered heated discussions on the future of “made in China” and its implication for U.S. consumers who rely heavily on “made in China” products (Rein, 2012). This is particularly the case in the U.S. apparel retail market, where over 98% of consumptions are supplied by imports and nearly 40% of them come from China in value (AAFA, 2012). Although numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the relationship between imports and the U.S. domestic apparel production or employment (Martin, 2007), the direct linkage between the price of imports and the U.S. apparel retail price has seldom been explored. Because such a price linkage is the key to understand the implication of a more expensive “Made in China” for U.S. consumers, this study tries to fulfill the research gap and specifically investigate to which extent the U.S. apparel retail price is influenced by the price of U.S. apparel imports from China.

Through investigating the impact of the average unit price of U.S. apparel imports from China, the average unit price of U.S. apparel imports from sources other than China and the annual U.S. apparel retail sales on the annual U.S. consumer price index from 2001 to 2011 based on a revised Armington model, this study finds that:

First, for menswear, more expensive “made in China” will result in a higher retail price in the U.S. market. Specifically, the U.S. retail price is suggested to change by 0.137% in the same direction given a 1% change of the price of U.S. imports from China. Second, for womenswear, there is no evidence showing that the price of U.S. imports from China has statistically significant impact on the U.S. retail price Third, the U.S. apparel imports from China and from rest of the world are suggested to constitute higher degree of price elasticity of substitution for womenswear than for menswear.

Findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the direct price linkage between the U.S. apparel import market and the U.S. apparel retail market and have several important implications:

First, the results imply that when “made in China” becomes more expensive, U.S. consumers may not have to pay more, largely because of increased substitution supply from other apparel exporters. Second, the results suggest that the U.S. apparel market is highly competitive and suppliers may not own much market power in price determination despite their large market shares.Third, the results imply that although “made in China” may lose market share in the U.S. market when it becomes more expensive, the magnitude could vary by product categories.

References:

  1. American Apparel and Footwear Association, AAFA (2012).Apparelstats 2012. Retrieved from https://www.wewear.org/industry-resources/publications-and-statistics/
  2. Armington, P.S. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers,16(1), 159-178.
  3. Martin, M. (2007). U.S. clothing and textile trade with China and the world: Trends since the end of quotas. Congressional Research Services, RL 34106, Washington, D.C..
  4. Office of Textiles and Apparel, OTEXA (2013). U.S. imports and exports of textiles and apparel. Retrieved from http://www.otexa.ita.doc.gov/msrpoint.htm
  5. Rodrigo, P. (2012). Re-shoring US apparel making tough but not impossible. Just Style. Retrieve from http://www.just-style.com/analysis/re-shoring-us-apparel-making-tough-but-not-impossible_id115455.aspx
  6. Rein, S. (2012). The end of cheap China: Economic and cultural trends that will disrupt the world: Wiley.
  7. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS. (2013). Consumer Price Index.  Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
  8. U.S. Census Bureau, Census. (2013). Monthly and annual retail trade. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/retail/

Top Foreign Brands Fail Quality Tests in China

quality

From China.org.cn “Shanghai’s market watchdog announced Monday that some batches of products produced by leading foreign fashion brands, including H&M, FOREVER 21, American Apparel, Diesel and Lacoste, failed in the city’s latest quality tests.

According to the Shanghai Industrial and Commercial Administrative Bureau, quality problems ranged from poor color fastness and fiber content to a high pH index and slippage.

Other top brands – Moussy, Trussardi, Tommy Hilfiger, Desigual, Marc by Marc Jacobs, Teenie Weenie, Jack & Jones and Lanvin – were found to be substandard apparel.

A batch of long skirts of American Apparel failed tests for poor wet rubbing color fastness, a high pH index and slippage, while another two batches of its trousers were found short in fiber content.

Dye in clothing with poor color fastness bleeds onto skin, which can be harmful, while a high pH indexh can cause skin allergies and make people vulnerable to bacteria.

A batch of Diesel male shirts had poor color fastness to light, while a batch of Lacoste female skirts were found to have poor color fastness to wet rubbing and sweat stains.

Lacoste passed tests in reexamination for the skirts.

Five batches of Forever 21’s skirts and trousers failed for poor color fastness to wet rubbing and slippage. After rectifying, it passed the new tests.

H&M had one batch of blouses failing in slippage and one batch of jeans in fiber content. Moussy failed in one batch of overall for a high pH index, while a batch of T-shirts of Jack & Jones had poor color fastness to wet rubbing, sweat stains and light.

Are you surprised? How to explain the above phenomenon? What would normally happen to these apparel companies if their products failed the quality test in the home markets (such as the United States)? If you are the owner of these companies mentioned in the article, how would you respond?

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Manufacturing-related Fashion Jobs Continue to Drop in the U.S.

A recent study released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that manufacturing-related fashion jobs in the United States will continue to drop through 2020. Although the occupation of sewing machine operator is projected to face the most significant shrinkage in employment, the job decline is suggested to be an industry-wide phenomenon. According to the BLS, from 2003 to 2012, the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry (NAICS 315) had lost 57.7% of its jobs.

The question open for discussion, yet critical for textile& apparel major college graduates, is that how might the decline in manufacturing affect the destiny of other aspects of the U.S. fashion industry in the long run, such as the design and product development functions. No industry sector can survive as an island. As argued by the world’s leading scholar on the subject Michael Porter in his numerous studies addressing the industry competitiveness, the availability and strength of the local supporting industries have a key role to play in shaping the competitiveness of an industry in a nation. For example, the reason why the United States remains the world leading man-made fiber producer today is largely because the U.S. chemistry industry is able to provide needed inputs (such as raw material, technology and knowhow). By the same token, if fabrics are no longer locally made, compared with their overseas competitors such as Italy and China, the U.S. fashion designers might also be put at a big disadvantage in sourcing the needed material and developing the sample products in a timely manner, with flexible choices and at a reasonable cost.

Technology is another critical  factor contributing to job decline in the U.S. fashion industry. As the 2008 study Forecasting the US fashion industry with industry professionals—Part I material and design concluded that “design and production processes would rely heavily on computer and digital technology…the apparel package in the U.S., including creative design, will possibly migrate offshore with the exceptions of heavily technology-involved design and product development tasks.”   

In the meanwhile, the retail sector remains a robust job creator for textile & apparel major college graduates. From 2003 to 2012, total employment in the U.S. apparel retail industry (NAICS 4482) increased 5.7%. By 2012, almost 80% of the occupations in the U.S. textile and apparel industry were offered by retailers. 

by Sheng Lu

fashion_12_lrg

2

1