Textile industry – Page 3 – FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing

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)

How Has the Apparel Trade Flow Reacted to the Section 301 Tariff Action against China? (updated November 2018)

While apparel products are not subject to the Section 301 tariff yet, the trade action nevertheless has created huge market uncertainties for U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers. Here is how the monthly trade flow of U.S. apparel imports has reflected the impacts of the U.S.-China tariff war:

First, U.S. companies did NOT stop importing from China. Seasonally adjusted data shows that between January and September 2018, the value of U.S. apparel imports from China decreased by 0.6 percent in volume and 0.05 percent in value year on year. Despite the decline, China remained the No.1 apparel supplier for the U.S. market in the first nine months of 2018, accounting for 32.3 percent market share in value and 41.3 percent shares in quantity, only marginally dropped by 1 and 0.7 percentage points from a year earlier respectively .

Second, apparel “Made in China” are becoming even cheaper. Notably, the average unit price of U.S. apparel imports from China dropped from $2.5/SME in 2016,$2.38/SME in 2017 to $2.36/SME in the first nine months of 2018. On the one hand, this result suggests that cost concern is not the most influential factor that drives U.S. companies to source less from China. However, it is also likely that Chinese exporters are intentionally reducing their price to keep their orders and overcome the challenges caused by the Section 301.

Third, there is no perfect replacement for “Made in China”. In response to the market uncertainty created by the Section 301 trade action, U.S. apparel importers are diversifying their sourcing base. That being said, it is difficult to identify a single largest beneficiary–notably, the market shares of apparel exports from Vietnam, Bangladesh, NAFTA, and CAFTA regions only marginally increased in the first nine months of 2018 compared with a year ago.

Additionally, it remains unclear whether the section 301 trade action has benefited U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing. Data shows that in the first ten months of 2018, the production index (2012=100) of textile manufacturing in the United States slightly increased from 92.8 in 2017to 94.3. However, over the same period, the index of apparel manufacturing decreased from 73.6 to 72.4.

Looking ahead, the volume of US textile and apparel imports from China is likely to increase in the short run since U.S. importers are eager to complete their sourcing orders before the new tariff hit. Usually, companies place sourcing orders several months ahead of the selling season. However, it will be interesting to see if the trade data in the first half of 2019 will reveal the negative impact of the Section 301 action on China’s apparel exports to the U.S. market.

Data source: Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), US Department of Commerce

by Sheng Lu

USITC Releases New Study on the State of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Sector

A recent study released by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a comprehensive review and valuable insights into the state of textile and apparel manufacturing in the United States. According to the study:

First, data suggests a mixed picture of the recovery of textile manufacturing in the U.S.

Total capital expenditures in plants and equipment for the textile sector increased by 36 percent in the 2013–16 period. Interesting enough, much of the new investment is by foreign firms, including new investments by Chinese and Indian firms, as well as by firms from Mexico, Canada, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
U.S. textile shipments increased in 2017 to $39.6 billion, but remained 3 percent below the 2013 level. The result suggests that rather than simply increasing capacity, some of the new investment is likely replacing existing equipment, as firms upgrade and modernize their manufacturing processes and/or focus their operations on different products. [Note: shipments measure the dollar value of products sold by manufacturing establishments and are based on net selling values, f.o.b. (free on board) plant, after discounts and allowances are excluded]
At $10.6 billion, U.S. textile exports in 2017 were also below the five-year high of $12.1 billion in 2014.
Employment in the textiles sector declined by 4 percent from 131,000 in 2013 to an estimated 126,000 in 2017. Meanwhile, official data on labor productivity index for yarns and fabrics show steady declines during 2013–16.

Second, some evidence suggests that reshoring has taken place in recent years in the apparel sector, although on a modest scale.

For the 2013–16 period, capital expenditures were up 5 percent to $301 million, suggesting capital investment in the apparel sector may be increasing, as the industry begins to adopt more labor-saving technologies.
Domestic shipments of apparel showed modest increases in the past two years, reaching $12.0 billion in 2016 and $12.5 billion in 2017, after a record low of $11.5 billion in 2014 and 2015.
Employment in the apparel sector steadily declined during 2013–17, down 21 percent from 145,000 workers in 2013 to 120,000 workers in 2017. Official data on labor productivity also showed steady declines during 2013–16.
U.S. fashion companies continue to source apparel from the United States, although in a relatively small amount.

Third, the advantages of making textiles and apparel in the United States include:

Advantages of producing textiles in the United States include local and state incentives for investment, and the benefits afforded by free trade agreement (FTA) preferences (i.e., the “yarn-forward” rules of origin) that encourage the use of U.S.-produced inputs in downstream production in FTA partner countries, energy cost and the availability and reliability of high-quality cotton. Meanwhile, product innovation and automation are important aspects of the U.S. textile sector’s competitiveness strategy.
Advantages of producing apparel in the United States include improved lead times, better quality control, and more flexible production. Many domestically made products also use “Made in USA” branding to capitalize on the buy-American trend and the appeal of “Made in USA.” The adoption of various automation and digital technologies to accelerate the process of product development, improve the fit of the final product and reduce the needs for skilled sewing operators may also help improve the competitiveness.

Trade War Looms over New York Fashion Week

Discussion questions:

Why does the U.S. textile industry call for additional tariffs on textile and apparel imports from China whereas U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers oppose the tariffs?
Based on the trade theories we have learned so far, why or why not would you recommend President Trump to impose 25% punitive tariffs on imports from China?

Appendix: Comments on the Proposed Section 301 Tariffs on Imports from China (August 2018)

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)—Representing U.S. textile industry
U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)—Representing U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers
American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA)—Representing U.S. apparel companies

For the complete timeline of the U.S. Section 301 tariff action against China, please click HERE

Textile and Apparel “Made in the World”

While shopping in SoHo (NYC), Nicole Farese, a student from FASH455, found the label of a Splendid sweater reads “Made of Italian Yarn” and “Made in China”. Splendid is a casual wear store which is known for their high-quality clothing sold at a premium price.

Exercise: Check your wardrobe and can you find any clothing that is also made through a “global supply chain?” Please feel free to submit your picture with a brief description of your item to shenglu@udel.edu.

BIS Released Assessment Report of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Sector

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) under the U.S. Department of Commerce recently released its assessment report of the U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturing sector. The report was based on a survey of 571 U.S. T&A manufacturers in summer 2017. These respondents include 230 textile mills (NAICS 313), 128 textile product mills (NAICS 314), and 213 apparel manufacturers (NAICS 315).

Below are the key findings of the study:

The state of the U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) manufacturing sector

U.S. T&A manufacturing has shrunk significantly: the value of T&A shipments (seasonally adjusted) in 2016 ($68 billion) was almost 56% decrease in real terms since 1995 ($153 billion).
U.S. T&A manufacturing has undergone substantial structural change: textiles and textile products accounted for 82% of the total shipments of the U.S. T&A industry as of 2016, compared to 57% in 1995. Notably, only 18% of shipments came from apparel manufacturing in 2016, compared to 43% in 1995.
U.S. T&A manufacturing sector is hiring less: Between 1990 and 2016, total employment decreased by 79%, from 1.7 million to 352,000 workers; over the same period, over 86% of apparel manufacturing jobs disappeared.
U.S. T&A manufacturers are making more capital investments: The overall total Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) of the 571 respondents increased 90 percent from 2012 to 2016 (from $1.6 billion to $3.1 billion). Particularly, the CAPEX of textile mills grew by 80 percent over that period—mostly on “Machinery, Equipment, and Vehicles.”
North Carolina hosted the largest number of U.S. T&A facilities (22 percent of the respondents), followed by Georgia (10 percent), and South Carolina (9 percent).
China, Mexico, and Canada are the most popular destinations for foreign investments by U.S. T&A manufacturers.

Competition landscape and factors

Respondents listed a total of 1,309 U.S. competitors and 552 non-U.S. competitors. Chinese companies were cited as the number one source of foreign competition.
“Quality,” “Lead Time,” and “Innovation” were the top three competitive advantages of U.S. T&A manufacturers as they related to foreign competition. “Labor Costs” was regarded as the top disadvantage of U.S. T&A manufacturing.
43 percent of respondents believed that reshoring was occurring in U.S. T&A manufacturing. Almost all of these respondents believed that “Shorter Lead Times” and the “Marketability of the ‘Made in USA’ Label” were the factors driving the trend.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), Minimum Wage regulations (Federal, State, and Local), and U.S. Trade Policy were the top governmental regulations and provisions cited as negatively impacting the competitiveness of U.S. T&A manufacturers.
61 percent of respondents reported that they had difficulties hiring and/or retaining employees for their T&A operations, specifically production line workers such as operators and machine technicians. The skill gaps in the labor market for those positions were by far the biggest ones identified for the industry.
43 percent of respondents believed that reshoring was occurring in T&A manufacturing (i.e., the practice of transferring a business operation that was moved to a non-U.S. location back to the United States.) Textile manufacturers were more likely to be aware of reshoring.

Trade and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

On average, respondents say 48 percent of their textile and textile products are “100 percent made in the U.S.”, while for apparel it was around 54 percent.
U.S. T&A exports dropped 10 percent between 2012 and 2016, from $2.2 billion to $1.98 billion. On average, exports accounted for only 12 percent of respondents’ total sales.
33 percent of respondents considered themselves to be dependent on foreign sources for supplies, which was highest among textile mills.
37 percent of respondents reported that they considered themselves to be dependent on non-U.S. sourcing for their machinery or equipment.

Berry Amendment and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

For textile mills, an average of 12 percent of U.S. output was Berry Amendment-related; for textile product mills the average was 21 percent, and for apparel production, it averaged 26 percent. 67 percent of respondents believed that the Berry Amendment had a positive impact on their organization’s business.

U.S. and Mexico Reached a Deal to Replace NAFTA

us-mexico-trade-agreement

The Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that the United States and Mexico have “reached a preliminary agreement in principle” to update the 24-year old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to USTR, compared with the existing NAFTA, the new deal will

strengthen the labor and environmental protection provisions
provide stronger and more effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property right protection
reduce various non-tariff barriers facing U.S. agriculture exports
include new rules of origin and origin procedures for autos (including requiring 75 percent of auto content be made in the United States and Mexico AND 40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.)
include new chapters dealing with digital trade and textiles
include a 16-year “sunset period” with a review every six years, at which time the parties can renew the deal for another 16 years.

Specifically for the textile and apparel sector, USTR said that “The new provisions on textiles incentivize greater United States and Mexican production in textiles and apparel trade, strengthen customs enforcement, and facilitate broader consultation and cooperation among the Parties on issues related to textiles and apparel trade.” More specifically, the new textile chapter in renegotiated NAFTA will:

1) Promote greater use of Made-in-the-USA fibers, yarns, and fabrics by limiting rules that allow for some use of non-NAFTA inputs in textile and apparel trade; and requiring that sewing thread, pocketing fabric, narrow elastic bands, and coated fabric, when incorporated in apparel and other finished products, be made in the region for those finished products to qualify for trade benefits. “

2) Include textile-specific verification and customs cooperation provisions that provide new tools for strengthening customs enforcement and preventing fraud and circumvention.

Based on USTR’s statement, it is likely, although not confirmed, that the US-Mexico deal will allow more limited tariff preference level (TPL) than the existing NAFTA.

USTR’s statement also said that the new deal would be subject to “finalization and implementation,” and its relationship with NAFTA remain unclear. The statement did not mention anything about Canada, another NAFTA member, either. Interesting enough, when announcing the US-Mexico deal in front of the press, President Trump said “I will terminate the existing deal (NAFTA). When that happens, I can’t quite tell you; it depends on what the timetable is with Congress. But I’ll be terminating the existing deal and going into this deal. We’ll start negotiating with Canada relatively soon.”

In a statement released on the same day, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) said it welcomed the conclusion of bilateral talks with Mexico on NAFTA and emphasized the need for Canada to be a part of any final agreement: “The conclusion of talks between the U.S. and Mexico is a positive step in the NAFTA negotiations, however, it is essential that the updated agreement remain trilateral. At the same time, we encourage the administration to share the details of the agreement so the business community can inspect the impact on North American supply chains and share feedback with the administration and Congress…Any update to the agreement must continue to support these American jobs, promote trade linkages, and be seamlessly implemented to be considered a success. It is with this in mind that we are deeply concerned to hear any mention of withdrawal or termination of the existing agreement at this late stage.”

According to Inside U.S. Trade, the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) which represents the U.S. textile industry says it is “encouraged by the information released by USTR with respect to strengthening the rules of origin for textiles and apparel in the announced agreement with Mexico. U.S. talks with Canada are still ongoing, however, and NCTO will wait to review the text of any final agreement before issuing a more detailed statement on the negotiation outcome.”

WTO Reports World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2017

Statistical review of world textile and apparel trade in 2018 is now available

According to the newly released World Trade Statistical Review 2018 by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current dollar value of world textiles (SITC 65) and apparel (SITC 84) exports totaled $296.1bn and $454.5bn respectively in 2017, increased by 4.2% and 2.8% from a year earlier. This is the first time since 2015 that the value of world textile and apparel exports enjoyed a growth.

Textiles and apparel are not alone. Driven by rising demand for imports globally, the current dollar value of world merchandise exports also grew by 4.7% in 2017–its most robust growth in six years, to reach $17.43 trillion. Particularly, the ratio of trade growth to GDP growth finally returned to its historic average of 1.5, compared to the much lower 1.0 ratio recorded in the years following the 2008 financial crisis.

China, European Union (EU28), and India remained the world’s top three exporters of textiles in 2017. Altogether, these top three accounted for 66.3% of world textile exports in 2017, up from 65.9% in 2016. All the top three also enjoyed a faster-than-average export growth in 2017, including 5.0% of China, 5.8% of EU(28) and 5.9% of India. The United States remained the world’s fourth top textile exporter in 2017, accounting for 4.6 percent of the shares, the same as a year earlier.

Regarding apparel, China, the European Union (EU28), Bangladesh and Vietnam unshakably remained the world’s top four largest exporters in 2017. Altogether, these top four accounted for as much as 75.8% of world market shares in 2017, which was higher than 74.3% a year earlier and a substantial increase from 68.3% back in 2007.

Continuing with the emerging trend in recent years, China is exporting less apparel and more textiles to the world. Notably, China’s market shares in world apparel exports fell from its peak—38.8% in 2014 to a record low of 34.9% in 2017. Meanwhile, China accounted for 37.1% of world textile exports in 2017, which was a new record high. It is important to recognize that China is playing an increasingly critical role as a textile supplier for many apparel-exporting countries in Asia. Measured by value, 47% of Bangladesh’s textile imports came from China in 2017, up from 39% in 2005. We observe similar trends in Cambodia (up from 30% to 65 %), Vietnam (up from 23 % to 50 %), Pakistan (up from 32 % to 71 %), Malaysia (up from 25 % to 54 %), Indonesia (up from 28 % to 46 %), Philippines (up from 19 % to 41 %) and Sri Lanka (up from 15 % to 39 %) over the same period.

Additional readings:
Lu, S. (2018). Changing trends in world textile and apparel trade. Just-Style.
Lu, S. (2018). How regional supply chains are shaping world textile and apparel trade. Just-Style.

U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry Responds to Trump’s Tariff Announcement against China

FOREIGN201708211521000183597989940

On June 15, 2018, the Trump Administration announced to impose a 25% punitive tariff on a list of Chinese goods based on the results of its Section 301 investigation, which targeted against China’s unfair trade practices related to the forced transfer of American technology and intellectual property. The additional duty will first apply to 818 lines of products on July 6, 2018, which cover approximately $34 billion worth of imports from China. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said it would issue a final determination on the second set of 284 proposed tariff lines, which cover approximately $16 billion worth of imports from China shortly. The total 1,102 tariff lines targeted by USTR generally focuses on products from industrial sectors that contribute to or benefit from the “Made in China 2025” industrial policy, which include industries such as aerospace, information and communications technology, robotics, industrial machinery, new materials, and automobiles.

In response to the U.S. action, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) quickly announced its proposed countermeasures, including a 25% punitive tariff on approximately $34 billion worth of U.S. soybean, autos, and fruits effective July 6, 2018. China is also ready to impose the punitive tariff on another list of products, which cover approximately $16 billion worth of medical device, chemicals and energy imports from the United States.

The U.S. textile and apparel industry keeps a close watch on the U.S.-China trade dispute since as much as 36% of U.S. textile and apparel imports come from China. In an announcement released on June 16, 2018, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) called a victory that no textile and apparel products are subject to the punitive tariff proposed by USTR. The June 15 USTR list also removes the majority of the textile machinery initially on the retaliation product list back in April 2018. However, U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers remain deeply concerned about Trump’s tariff action and its potential negative economic impacts on the apparel sector.

In contrast, the U.S. textile industry, represented by the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) praised the Trump administration’s tariff announcement. NCTO also called on the Trump administration to include finished textile and apparel products on any future lists of imports from China to be made subject to Section 301 tariffs. Not surprisingly, NCTO’s proposal is opposed strongly by AAFA and the U.S. Fashion Industry Association, representing U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers. As argued by USFIA, the U.S. tariff rates on apparel and fashion products are already the highest among manufactured goods, reaching 32 percent for man-made fiber apparel and 67 percent for footwear. Any additional tariff would constitute a huge, regressive tax increase and have a negative impact on the American jobs.

Appendix: Timeline of U.S. Section 301 Investigation against China

June 15, 2018: The Trump Administration announced to impose a 25% punitive tariff on a list of Chinese goods based on the results of its section 301 investigation

June 4, 2018: Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross concluded his two-day trade negotiation with China in Beijing. A White House statement said “the meetings focused on reducing the United States’ trade deficit by facilitating the supply of agricultural and energy products to meet China’s growing consumption needs, which will help support growth and employment in the United States. The United States officials conveyed President Donald J. Trump’s clear goal for achieving a fair trading relationship with China.” While the announcement didn’t mention the next round, it says that the delegation will “receive guidance on the path forward.”

May 29, 2018: President Trump suddenly announced that the United States will impose a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods imported from China containing industrially significant technology, including those related to the “Made in China 2025” program. The final list of covered imports will be announced by June 15, 2018. The announcement also said that the U.S. Trade Representative Office (USTR) will continue WTO dispute settlement against China originally initiated in March to address China’s discriminatory technology licensing requirements. Additionally, the United States will implement specific investment restrictions and enhanced export controls for Chinese persons and entities related to the acquisition of industrially significant technology. The list of restrictions and controls will be announced by June 30, 2018.

May 19, 2018: A joint statement released by the White House said that the United States and China had led to an agreement for China to buy more goods and services, including “meaningful increases in U.S. agriculture and energy exports.” The statement also said that both sides attach importance to intellectual property protections, agreed to encourage two-way investment and to strive to create a fair, level playing field for competition, and agreed to engage at high levels on trade and investment issues. Additionally, the statement said that the United States would send a team to China to work out the details of the agreement. However, the statement did not contain a specific target for reducing the $375 billion trade deficits.

April 5, 2018: President Trump announced that he has instructed the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider $100 billion additional retaliatory tariffs on China, in response to China’s own retaliation against the Section 301 tariffs announced in late March. In a statement released the next day, USTR confirms the proposed new measures. USTR also says that any additional tariffs proposed will be subject to a similar public comment process as the proposed tariffs announced on April 3, 2018. No tariffs will go into effect until the respective process is complete.

April 3, 2018: 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 and will undergo further review in a public notice and comment process, including a hearing (scheduled at around May 15, 2018). The USTR statement says it will make a final decision on whether to implement the proposed tariff action after the whole process.

March 26, 2018: USTR filed a WTO case against China’s discriminatory technology licensing requirements (DS542). The US claimed that China’s measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles 3, 28.1(a) and (b) and 28.2 of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS). As of April 8, 2018, the European Union, Japan, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia have requested to join the dispute as third parties. According to the WTO rule, China shall enter into consultation with the US no later than April 26, 2018. If the dispute is not resolved by May 25, 2018 (i.e., 60 days after the request for consultation), the United States may request a WTO panel. As of June 17, 2018, the case is still in consultations.

March 22, 2018: President Trump announced his decisions on the actions the Administration will take in response to China’s unfair trade practices covered in the USTR Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer initiated the investigation in August 2017 at the direction of President Trump. In the Memorandum he signed, President Trump directed the US Trade Representative to level tariffs on about $50 billion worth of Chinese imports.

January 2018: the U.S. Trade Representative Office submitted its annual report on China’s WTO Compliance to U.S. Congress. The report says that “It seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-orientated trade regime.”

August 14, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum directing the USTR to determine if China’s policies regarding IPR theft and forced technology requirements “may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development,” and thus warrant USTR action under Section 301of the 1974 Trade Act.

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.

Regional Textile and Apparel Supply Chains–Questions from FASH455

NAFTA and Textile and Apparel Rules of Origin

#1 How do rules of origin (RoO) and free trade agreement (FTA) regulations affect speed to market in apparel sourcing? Do countries who are part of an FTA find it to be easier to get to market in a shorter amount of time if they are working with other FTA members? Or could RoO slow down the production process because producers have to be more careful about compliance with the complicated RoO?

#2 Why or why not the “yarn forward” rules of origin remains an effective way to promote textile and apparel production in the Western-Hemisphere? What other options are available to improve the competitiveness of the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain?

#3 What would happen to the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain should NAFTA no longer exist?

#4 Should NAFTA be responsible for the loss of US apparel manufacturing jobs? Any hard evidence?

#5 If you were U.S. trade negotiators, what would you do with TPL in NAFTA given the competing views from the U.S. textile industry and U.S. fashion brands and retailers?

The Outlook of “Factory-Asia”

#6 From the perspective of the U.S. textile and apparel industry, is it a good idea for the United States to reach free trade agreement (FTA) with Asian countries? If so, what countries should be included in the new FTA? If not, why?

#7 How can U.S. companies get involved in the Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain?

#8 Why or why not is the “Flying geese model” unique to Asia? Can the model be replicated in America too?

(Welcome to join our online discussion. Please mention the question number in your reply)

Competition in the U.S. Apparel Import Market (Updated March 2018)

CPTPP Tariff Phaseout Schedule for Textiles and Apparel

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), signed on March 8, 2018, is a new free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Once the CPTPP enters into force, it will be one of the largest free trade agreements in the world and will provide enhanced market access to key Asian markets. Below is the detailed tariff phaseout schedule for textile and apparel products by CPTPP members:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

by Sheng Lu

US Continues to Lose Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Jobs in 2017

It may disappoint those who are hoping a return of textile and apparel manufacturing jobs in the United States. But according to latest statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313 and 314) and apparel industry (NAICS 315) respectively lost another 4,100 and 10,100 jobs in 2017. Between January 2005 and December 2017, 44.2% and 56.3% of jobs in the U.S. textile and apparel sectors were gone.

From the academic perspective, a sizable return of textile and apparel manufacturing job in the United States seems to be extremely unlikely given the nature of the U.S. and the global economy in the 21st century.

Notably, the rising import is found NOT a significant factor leading to the decline in employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313). As estimated by a US International Trade Commission study in 2016, imports were found only contributed 0.4 percent of the total 7.6 percent annual employment decline in the U.S. textile industry between 1998 and 2014. Instead, more job losses in the sector were caused by: 1) the improved productivity as a result of capitalization and automation (around 4.6 percent annually); and (2) the shrinkage of domestic demand for the U.S. made textiles (around 3.5 percent annually).

And consistent with the prediction of classic trade theories, as capital and technology abundant developed country, the United States, not surprisingly, continues to lose its comparative advantage in making labor-intensive apparel. Hypothetically, apparel “Made in the USA” may come back if apparel manufacturing can be substantially automated like textile manufacturing. However, net job creation in the sector as a result of automation is hard to tell. Additionally, most U.S. apparel companies heavily rely on global sourcing and non-manufacturing activities such as branding, marketing, and design today. Few companies still regard “manufacturing” a key competitive advantage or an area of strategic importance to invest in the future.

Outlook 2018: Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead

Outlook 2019: Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead is available

In January 2018, Just-Style consulted a panel of industry leaders and scholars in its Outlook 2018–Apparel Industry Issues in the Year Ahead management briefing. Below is my contribution to the report. All suggestions and comments are most welcome!

1. What do you see as the biggest challenges – and opportunities – facing the apparel industry in 2018, and why?

One of the biggest opportunities facing the apparel industry in 2018 could be the faster growth of the world economy. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the global growth forecast for 2018 is expected to reach 3.7 percent, about 0.1 percent points higher than 2017 and 0.6 percent points higher than 2016. Notably, the upward economic growth will be broad-based, including the United States, the Euro area, Japan, China, emerging Europe and Russia. Hopefully, the improved growth of the world economy will translate into increased consumer demand for clothing in 2018.

Nevertheless, from the macroeconomic perspective, oversupply will remain a significant challenge facing the apparel industry in 2018. Data from the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that, while the world population increased by 21.6 percent between 2000 and 2016, the value of clothing exports (inflation-adjusted) surged by 123.5 percent over the same period. Similarly, between 2000 and 2016, the total U.S. population increased by 14.5 percent and the GDP per capita increased by 22.2 percent, but the supply of apparel to the U.S. retail market surged by over 67.8 percent during the same time frame. The problem of oversupply is the root of many challenges faced by apparel companies today, from the intense market competition, pressure of controlling production and sourcing cost, struggling with excessive inventory and deep discounts to balancing sustainability and business growth.

2: What’s happening with sourcing? How is the sourcing landscape likely to shift in 2018, and what can apparel firms and their suppliers do to stay ahead?

The 2017 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which I conducted in collaboration with the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) earlier this year, provides some interesting insights into companies’ latest sourcing strategies and trends. Based on a survey of 34 executives at the leading U.S. fashion companies, we find that:

First, most surveyed companies continue to maintain a relatively diversified sourcing base, with 57.6 percent currently sourcing from 10+ different countries or regions, up from 51.8 percent last year. Larger companies, in general, continue to have a more diversified sourcing base than smaller companies. Further, around 54 percent of respondents expect their sourcing base will become more diversified in the next two years, up from 44 percent in 2016; over 60 percent of those expecting to diversify currently source from more than 10 different countries or regions already. Given the uncertainties in the market and the regulatory environment (such as the Trump Administration’s trade policy agenda), companies may use diversification to mitigate potential market risks and supply chain disruptions due to protectionism.

Second, although U.S. fashion companies continue to seek alternatives to “Made in China” actively, China’s position as top sourcing destination remains unshakable. Many respondents attribute China’s competitiveness to its enormous manufacturing capacity and overall supply chain efficiency. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the most common sourcing model is shifting from “China Plus Many” to “China Plus Vietnam Plus Many” (i.e. China typically accounts for 30-50 percent of total sourcing value or volume, 11-30 percent for Vietnam and less than 10 percent for other sourcing destinations). I think this sourcing model will likely to continue in 2018.

Third, social responsibility and sustainability continue to grow in importance in sourcing decisions. In the study, we find that nearly 90 percent of respondents give more weight to sustainability when choosing where to source now than in the past. Around 90 percent of respondents also say they map their supply chains, i.e., keeping records of name, location, and function of suppliers. Notably, more than half of respondents track not only Tier 1 suppliers, suppliers they contract with directly, but also Tier 2 suppliers, i.e., supplier’s suppliers. However, the result also suggests that a more diversified sourcing base makes it more difficult to monitor supply chains closely. Making the apparel supply chain more socially responsible, sustainable and transparent will continue to be a hot topic in 2018.

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?

I assume many experts will suggest what apparel firms should change to stay competitive into the future. However, the question in my mind is what should companies keep doing regardless of the external business environment? First, I think companies should always strive to understand and impress consumers and control their supply chains. Despite the growing popularity of e-commerce and the adoption of transformative new technologies, the fundamental nature of apparel as a buyer-driven business will remain the same. Second, companies should always leverage their resources and stay “unique,” no matter it means offering differentiated products or value-added services, maintaining exclusive distribution channels or keeping the leadership position in a particular niche market. Third, apparel firms should always follow the principle of “comparative advantage” and smartly define the scope of their core business functions instead of trying to do everything. Additionally, winners will always be those companies that can take advantage of the mega-development trends of the industry and be willing to make long-term and visionary investments, both physical and intangible (such as human talents).

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 2018 to be better than 2017, and why?

I think the apparel industry should keep a close eye on the following issues in 2018:

The destiny of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): The potential policy change to NAFTA means so much to the U.S. textile and apparel industry as well as suppliers in other parts of the world. Notably, through a regional textile and apparel supply chain facilitated by the agreement over the past 23 years, the NAFTA region has grown into the single largest export market for U.S. textile and apparel products as well as a major apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion brands and retailers. In 2016, as much as half of U.S. textile and apparel exports went to the NAFTA region, totaling US$11billion, and U.S. apparel imports from Mexico and Canada exceeded US$3.9billion. Understandably, if NAFTA no longer exists, sweeping changes in the trade rules, such as import duties, could significantly affect the sourcing and manufacturing behaviors of U.S. textile and apparel companies and consequentially alter the current textile and apparel trade patterns in the NAFTA region. For example, Mexico’s focus on basic apparel items suggests that U.S. importers could quickly source from elsewhere if duty savings under NAFTA are eliminated.
The possible reaching of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP): Even though RCEP is less well-known than the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we should not ignore the potential impact of the agreement on the future landscape of textile and apparel supply chain in the Asia-Pacific region. One recent study of mine shows that the RCEP will lead to a more integrated textile and apparel supply chain among its members but make it even harder for non-RCEP members to get involved in the regional T&A supply chain in the Asia-Pacific. This conclusion is backed by the latest data from the World Trade Organization (WTO): In 2016, around 91 percent of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries, up from 86 percent in 2006. The more efficient regional supply chain as a result of RCEP will further help improve the price competitiveness of apparel made by “factory Asia” in the world marketplace. Particularly in the past few years, textile and apparel exports from Asia have already posted substantial pressures on the operation of the textile and apparel regional supply chain in the Western Hemisphere.
Automation of apparel manufacturing and its impact on the job market: Recall my observations at the MAGIC this August, several vendors showcased their latest technologies which have the potential to automate the cut and sew process entirely or substantially reduce the labor inputs in garment making. The impact of automation on the future of jobs is not a new topic, but the apparel industry presents a unique situation. Globally, over 120 million people remain directly employed in the textile and apparel industries today, a good proportion of whom are females living in poor rural areas. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), for quite a few low-income and lower-middle income countries such as Bangladesh, Gambia, Pakistan, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, as much as over 70 percent of their total merchandise exports were textile and apparel products in 2016. Should these labor-intensive garment sewing jobs in the developing countries were replaced by machines, the social and economic impacts will be consequential. I think it is the time to start thinking about the possible scenarios and the appropriate policy responses.

Regional Supply Chain Remains an Important Feature of Global Textile and Apparel Trade (Updated: November 2017)

Regional supply chain (or production-trade network, RPTN) or refers to a vertical industry collaboration system between countries that are geographically close to each other. Within a regional supply chain, each country specialized in certain portions of production or value-added activities based on their respective comparative advantages to maximize the efficiency of the whole supply chain.

There are three primary textile and apparel (T&A) regional supply chains in the world today:

Asia: within this regional T&A supply chain, more economically advanced Asian countries (such as Japan, South Korea, and China) supply textile raw material to the less economically developed countries in the region (such as Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam). Based on relatively lower wages, the less developed countries typically undertake the most labor-intensive processes of apparel manufacturing and then export finished apparel to major consumption markets around the world.

Europe: within this regional T&A supply chain, developed countries in Southern and Western Europe such as Italy and Germany serve as the primary textile suppliers. Regarding apparel manufacturing in the European Union, products for the mass markets are typically produced by developing countries in Southern and Eastern Europe such as Poland and Romania, whereas high-end luxury products are mostly produced by Southern and Western European countries such as Italy and France. Furthermore, a high portion of finished apparel is shipped to developed EU members such as UK, Germany, France, and Italy for consumption.

America: within the region, the United States serves as the leading textile supplier, whereas developing countries in North, Central and South America (such as Mexico and countries in the Caribbean region) assemble imported textiles from the United States or elsewhere into apparel. The majority of clothing produced in the area is eventually exported to the United States for consumption.

Data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that regional supply chain remains an essential feature of today’s global textile and apparel trade. Notably, three trade flows are worth watching:

First, Asian countries are increasingly importing more textiles from within the region. In 2016, around 91.2% of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries, up from 86.8% in 2006. This change reflects the formation of a more integrated T&A supply-chain in Asia. The more efficient regional supply chain also helps improve the price competitiveness of apparel made by “factory Asia” in the world marketplace. Particularly in the past few years, T&A exports from Asia is posting substantial pressures on the operation of the T&A regional supply chains in the Western Hemisphere.

Second, the intra-region T&A trade in EU remains stable. In 2016, 64.1% of EU countries’ textile imports and 55.6% of EU countries’ apparel imports came from within the EU region. Over the same period, 73.3% of EU countries’ textile exports and 81.6 % of their apparel exports also went to other EU countries.

Third, the Western-Hemisphere T&A supply chain, which involves countries in North, South and Central America, is facing substantial challenges from the increasing competition from Asian T&A exporters. In 2016, only 29.0% of North, South and Central American countries’ textile imports and 18.6% of their apparel imports came from within the region, a record low in the past ten years. Meanwhile, in 2016 Asian countries supplied 60.1% of textiles and 73.7% of clothing imported by countries in the Western Hemisphere, a record high in history. Understandably, if regional free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, no longer exist, it would be even more difficult for the Western-Hemisphere T&A supply chain to survive. The potential losers of the collapse of the Western-Hemisphere T&A supply chain will include not only US textile exporters but also apparel exporters in North, South and Central America. Notably, in 2016, 89.3% of apparel exported by countries in the Western Hemisphere were destined for the region.

Data Source: World Trade Organization (2017)

by Sheng Lu

Apparel Sourcing in U.S. Trade Preference Program Countries

Speakers:

Tarek Kabil – Egyptian Ministry of Trade & Industry
Ashraf Rabiey – QIZ Minister of Egypt
Gabi Bar – QIZ Minister of Israel
Mark D’Sa – Special Project Director for Haiti
Moderator: Gail Strickler – former Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles

Discussion questions:

What are the financial incentives for US brands and retailers to source apparel in preference program countries? Why do U.S. apparel imports from members of AGOA, QIZs and HELP overall remain at a fairly low level despite the trade preference programs? How to improve the situation?
Overall, why or why not should the US keep the trade preference programs or any critical reforms are needed?
Any other interesting points you learned from the video or questions you may have?

NAFTA Members’ Applied MFN Tariff Rates for Textile and Apparel in 2017

If the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is terminated by President Trump, the immediate impact will be an increase in tariff rate for textile and apparel (T&A) products traded between the three NAFTA members from zero to the most-favored-nation (MFN) rates applied for regular trading partners. In 2017, the average applied MFN tariff rates for textile and apparel were 7.9% and 11.6% respectively in the United States, 2.3% and 16.5% in Canada and 9.8% and 21.2% in Mexico (WTO Tariff Profile, 2017).

Below is NAFTA members’ average applied MFN tariff rate in 2017 for chapters 50-63, which cover T&A products:

Data source: World Trade Organization (2017); US International Trade Commission (2017)

by Sheng Lu

WTO Reports World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2016

[The 2017 statistics are available, see WTO Reports World Textile and Apparel Trade in 2017]

According to the newly released World Trade Statistical Review 2017 by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current dollar value of world textiles (SITC 65) and apparel (SITC 84) exports totaled $284 billion and $443 billion respectively in 2016, marginally decreased by 2.3 percent and 0.4 percent respectively from a year earlier. This is the second year in a roll since 2015 that the value of world textiles and apparel exports grew negatively.

However, textiles and apparel are not alone. The current dollar value of world merchandise exports also declined by 3 percent in 2015, to $11.2 trillion, mostly caused by the strong decline in exports of fuels and mining products (-14 percent). On the other hand, as noted by the WTO, the steep drop in commodity prices recorded in 2015 mostly halted in 2016, except energy prices.

Textile and apparel exports

Measured in value, China, European Union, and India remained the top three exporters of textiles in 2016. Altogether, these top three accounted for 65.9 percent of world exports in 2016, slightly down from 66.5 percent in 2015, which is mostly due to India’s shrinking market shares.

The United States remained the fourth top textile exporter in 2016, accounting for 4.6 percent of the shares (down from 4.8 percent in 2015). Over half of the top ten exporters experienced a decline in the value of their exports in 2016, with the highest declines seen in Hong Kong (-13 percent), Taiwan (-8 percent), South Korea (-6 percent) and the United States (-6 percent). Notably, Vietnam entered the world’s top ten textile exporters for the first time (2 percent market shares, 9 percent growth rate from 2015).

Top three exporters of apparel include China, the European Union, and Bangladesh. Altogether, they accounted for 69.1 percent of world exports, close to 70.3 percent in 2015. Among the top ten exporters of apparel, increases in export values were recorded by Cambodia (+6 percent), Bangladesh (+6 percent), Vietnam (+5 percent), and European Union (+4 percent). Other leading exporters saw stagnation in their export values (such as Turkey) or recorded a decline (such as China, India, and Indonesia).

Could be negatively affected by the rising labor and production cost, China’s shares in the world textile exports dropped from 37.4 percent in 2015 to 37.2 percent in 2016, and the shares in the world apparel exports fell from 39.2 percent in 2015 to 36.4 percent in 2016—a record low since 2010.

Textile and apparel imports

Measured in value, the European Union, the United States, and China were the top three importers of textiles in 2016. These top three altogether accounted for 38 percent of world textile imports, slightly up from 37 percent in 2015, but remains much lower than over 53 percent back in 2000. Notably, over the past decade, apparel manufacturing continues to shift from developed to developing countries and many developing countries heavily rely on imported textile inputs due to the lack of local manufacturing capacity. This explains why more textile exports now go to the developing nations.

On the other hand, affected by consumers’ purchasing power (often measured by GDP per capita) and size of the population, the European Union, the United States, and Japan remained the top three importers of apparel in 2016. Altogether, these top three accounted for 62.9 percent of world apparel imports in 2016, up from 59 percent in 2015. Notably, China is quickly becoming one of the world’s top apparel importers. From 2010 to 2016, China’s apparel imports enjoyed an annual 17 percent growth, much higher than most other countries.

Mexico’s Apparel Exports Continue to Rely on the U.S. Market Heavily

Mexico’s textile and apparel (T&A) exports totaled USD$6,441 million in 2016, fell by 5.1% from 2015. Around 63% of these exports were apparel (or USD$4,061 million), and 37% (or USD$2,379 million) was textiles.

Could be negatively affected by the appreciation of the Mexican Peso against the U.S. dollar, plus the uncertainty associated with the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico’s apparel exports further went down 7.2% in the first half of 2017 compared to 2016.

In 2016, the United States remains Mexico’s top T&A export market with an 87.3% share (up from 87.0% in 2015, 86.7% in 2014 and 84.7% in both 2013 and 2012), followed by Canada with a 1.9% share (up from 1.6% in 2015). Overall, Mexico was the sixth largest T&A supplier for the U.S. market, accounting for 4.3% of the market shares measured by value in 2016.

Nevertheless, Mexico’s T&A exports to the United States fell by 4.7% between 2015 and 2016 (from USD$5,902 million to USD$5,625 million). Product categories that suffered the deepest drop include cotton hosiery (down by 57.3%), men’s and boys’ wool suits (down by 35.9%), manmade fiber underwear (down by 29.0%), and men’s and boys’ cotton woven shirts (down by 27.9%).

Overall, Mexican T&A exporters feel relieved that the United States has decided to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, without TPP, the Mexican T&A industry is still expected to face an increased competition from Vietnam and China both in the leading export markets (such as the United States and Canada) and the domestic market. Notably, the Mexican government has decided to lower the Most Favored Nation (MFN) import duty rates on the 73 clothing items and seven made-up textile items effective in January 2019.

References: Textile Outlook International (October 2017)

“Made in America”: A New Reality?

Panelists

Pete Bauman, Senior VP, Burlington Worldwide / ITG
Joann Kim, Director, Johnny’s Fashion Studio
Tricia Carey, Business Development Manager, Lenzing USA
Michael Penner, CEO, Peds Legwear
Moderator: Arthur Friedman, Senior Editor, Textiles and Trade, WWD

Video Discussion Questions

How does “Made in the USA” fit into US textile and apparel companies’ overall business strategy today?
What measures have been taken by US textile and apparel companies to bring more production back to the US? Can any measures be linked to the restructuring strategies we discussed in the class?
What are the significant obstacles to bringing textile and apparel manufacturing back to the US?
Any other exciting points/buzzwords did you learn from the panel discussion?

US Tables Proposal Aimed at Limiting the Yarn-Forward Exceptions in NAFTA Renegotiation

NAFTA-Article-201708251513

According to Inside US Trade, in the third round the NAFTA renegotiation (September 23-27, 2017), the United States has put forward several possible changes to the existing rules related to textile and apparel in the agreement:

USTR proposes to eliminate the tariff preference level (TPL) in NAFTA. The goal of eliminating TPL is to limit the exceptions to the yarn-forward rules of origin and “incentivize” more production in the NAFTA region as advocated by the U.S. textile industry.
As a potential replacement for TPL, USTR also proses to add a short supply list mechanism to NAFTA, but details remain unclear (e.g., whether the list will be temporary or permanent; the application process).
USTR further proposes a new chapter devoted to textile and apparel in NAFTA in line with more recent agreements negotiated by the U.S.. The current NAFTA does not include a textile chapter.

USTR’s proposal to remove TPL in NAFTA has met strong opposition from the U.S. apparel industry, fashion retailers, and brands as well as their partners in Mexico and Canada. According to these industry groups:

Eliminating TPLs would disrupt supply chains that have been in place for more than two decades.
Eliminating TPLs would not move production back to the U.S. but would instead further incentivize sourcing from outside the NAFTA region and put textile and apparel factories in the region out of business. For example, some apparel factories remain production in the NAFTA region largely because TPL allows them to use third-party textile inputs and the finished goods can still be treated as NAFTA originating.
Without the TPL, companies would opt to produce textile and apparel products in the least expensive way possible, likely outside the NAFTA region, and ship items into North America despite being hit with most-favored-nation (MFN) tariffs.
A short supply list would not ease the supply chain disruptions that would result from the removal of the TPLs because there is no guarantee products formerly subject to the TPL would make it onto a new NAFTA short supply list.

A potential compromise could involve a reduction in Canadian and Mexican TPLs to the U.S. and an increase in the U.S. TPLs to Mexico and Canada, which could boost the U.S. trade surplus in textiles and apparel with its NAFTA partners and throw a bone to the U.S. textile industry by ostensibly incentivizing domestic production.

Fact-check about TPL

TPL was included in NAFTA as a compromise for adopting the yarn-forward rules of origin in the agreement. Before NAFTA, the US-Canada trade agreement adopted the less restrictive fabric-forward rules of origin.

The TPL mechanism has played a critical role in facilitating the textile and apparel (T&A) trade and production collaboration between the United States and Canada, in particular, the export of Canada’s wool suits to the United States and the U.S. cotton or man-made fiber apparel to Canada. Statistics from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) show that in 2016 more than 70% of the value of Canada’s apparel exports to the United States under NAFTA utilized the TPL provision, including almost all wool apparel products. Over the same period, the TPL fulfillment rate for U.S. cotton or man-made fiber apparel exports to Canada reached 100%, suggesting a high utilization of the TPL mechanism by U.S. apparel firms too (Global Affairs Canada, 2017). Several studies argue that without the TPL mechanism, the U.S.-Canada bilateral T&A trade volume could be in much smaller scale (USITC, 2016). Notably, garments assembled in the United States and Canada often contained non-NAFTA originating textile inputs, which failed them to meet the “yarn-forward” rules of origin typically required for the preferential duty treatment under NAFTA.

Related articles:

NAFTA Renegotiating Objectives Related to the Textile and Apparel Industry

Untitled

On Tuesday (July 17, 2017), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released its detailed and comprehensive summary of the renegotiating objectives of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the statement, USTR says that “through the renegotiation of NAFTA, the Trump Administration will seek a much better agreement that reduces the U.S. trade deficit and is fair for all Americans by improving market access in Canada and Mexico for U.S. manufacturing, agriculture, and services.”

Several released negotiating objectives address textile and apparel (T&A) directly or are highly relevant to the sector:

Trade in Goods

Improve the U.S. trade balance and reduce the trade deficit with the NAFTA countries.
Maintain existing duty-free access to NAFTA country markets for U.S. textile and apparel products and seek to improve competitive opportunities for exports of U.S. textile and apparel products while taking into account U.S. import sensitivities.

Rules of Origin

Update and strengthen the rules of origin, as necessary, to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA go to products genuinely made in the United States and North America.
Ensure the rules of origin incentivize the sourcing of goods and materials from the United States and North America.
Establish origin procedures that streamline the certification and verification of rules of origin and that promote strong enforcement, including with respect to textiles.
-Establish origin procedures that streamline the certification and verification of rules of origin and that promote strong enforcement, including with respect to textiles.

Customs and Trade Facilitation

Provide for automation of import, export, and transit processes, including through supply chain integration; reduced import, export, and transit forms, documents, and formalities; enhanced harmonization of customs data requirements; and advance rulings regarding the treatment that will be provided to a good at the time of importation.

Comments:

Notably, reducing the trade deficit and bringing more manufacturing jobs back to the United States are at the core of the NAFTA’s renegotiating objectives. These two goals are also highly consistent with Trump’s rhetoric on his trade policy.
A dilemma facing the T&A sectoral negotiation is that the United States currently runs a robust trade surplus with Canada and Mexico for textiles: in 2016, the value of U.S. trade surplus (i.e. the value of exports minus the value of imports) totaled $680 million for yarns (up 56.7% from 1994), $4,342 million for fabrics (up 202.9% from 1994) and $1,461 million for made-up textiles (up 223.5% from 1994). Meanwhile, although the United States is in a trade deficit with NAFTA partners for apparel ($1,130 million in 2016), U.S. apparel imports from Canada and Mexico often contain textile inputs “Made in the USA” through the Western-Hemisphere supply chain. Blindly cutting the trade deficit on apparel ironically could affect the U.S. textile exports to the NAFTA region negatively.
Based on the released objectives, it seems unlikely that the NAFTA renegotiation will liberalize the yarn-forward rules of origin for textile and apparel. On the contrary, USTR could review the current exceptions to the yarn-forward rules, including the tariff preference levels (TPL) and some special regimes such as the 9802 program related to fabric sourcing to strengthen the manufacturing base and create MANUFACTURING jobs in the United States. Recognizing the competing arguments between the U.S. textile industry and the apparel industry (fashion brands and retailers) regarding the necessity and impact of these exceptions, USTR also needs more inputs of how companies use exceptions like the TPL in sourcing and why they use them.
Other than the rules of origin, trade facilitation and customs enforcement will be another major agenda related to the T&A sector in the NAFTA renegotiation. Elements from the newly enforced Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 could be added to the updated NAFTA.
A positive aspect of the NAFTA T&A sectoral negotiation is that all parties alongside the supply chain, from U.S. cotton growers, textile mills to apparel retailers and brands recognize the value of NAFTA and no one calls for pulling out of the agreement. It is also a consensus view of the U.S. T&A industry that NAFTA renegotiation should “do no harm”, i.e. strengthening rather than weakening the current supply-chain partnership between NAFTA members. Additionally, stakeholders in the U.S. T&A industry unanimously support keeping the renegotiation trilateral, but agree to use bilateral provisions to address some particular concerns.
The NAFTA renegotiation may officially start on August 17 or 18, 2017. However, Time is the enemy of the NAFTA renegotiation. While there is a strong incentive for all parties to finish the negotiation by the end of 2017 given the upcoming U.S. mid-term election and the Mexican presidential election in 2018, the ambitious renegotiation agenda makes it extremely challenging to meet that goal. Risks are still there that Trump may pull the United States out of NAFTA should he lose patience for the renegotiation. Notably, Trump’s dislike of NAFTA is real.

Sheng Lu

USTR Hearing on the Renegotiation of NAFTA: Textile and Apparel Industry

US Textile and Apparel Associations Comment on NAFTA Renegotiation

US Textile and Apparel Industry and NAFTA: Key Statistics (updated July 2017)

USTR Hearings on the Renegotiation of NAFTA: Textile and Apparel Industry

Panel:

Augustine Tantillo, President, and CEO, National Council of Textile Organizations
David Spooner, Counsel representing the U.S. Fashion Industry Association
Stephen Lamar, Executive Vice President, American Apparel and Footwear Association
Randy Price, VP, Managing Director Product Supply—Americas, VF Corporation
Marc Fleischaker, Trade Counsel, Rubber and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association
Reece Langley, VP of Washington Operations, National Cotton Council
Richard Gottuso, Vice President and General Counsel, Bracewell, LLP-Hunter Douglas

US Textile and Apparel Industry Associations Comment on NAFTA Renegotiation

This week, several leading U.S. textile and apparel industry associations submitted their comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) regarding the renegotiation objectives of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Below is a summary of these organizations’ viewpoints based on their submissions:

Appendix: Submitted written comments

Cheaper to Make Textiles in the United States than in China: Reality or Myth?

A New York Times article back in August 2015 suggests that “yarn production costs in China are now 30 percent higher than in the United States” because of savings in raw and auxiliary material. The article believes the cost difference is why some Chinese textile companies are coming to build factories in the United States, such as Keer Group’s cotton mill in South Carolina.

However, in a recent interview with China Textile News, Chairman of the Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co (Cixi) provides a different cost sheet (above). In September 2013, Cixi invested a $45million polyester staple fiber mill in South Carolina. Because nearly 80% of Cixi’s outputs are sold outside of China, and the United States is its single largest export market, the investment intends to help the company maintain its presence in the U.S. market and substantially save transportation cost.

According to Cixi, it is a misunderstanding that making textiles in the United States is cheaper than in China. Although moving factories to the United States may help Chinese companies save money in land, electricity, natural gas, and logistics, it will significantly increase the costs in purchasing manufacturing equipment, building factories and managing daily operation of the company. Additionally, culture and language barriers, as well as labor policy in the United States, could also become critical challenges facing Chinese investors. Cixi admits that to keep its U.S. factory running smoothly, members of its management team all come from China.

What Will Happen to the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry if NAFTA Is Gone?

Since its taking effect in 1995, NAFTA, a trade deal between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, has raised heated debate regarding its impact on the U.S. economy. President Trump has repeatedly derided NAFTA, describing it as “very, very bad” for U.S. companies and workers, and he promised during his campaign that he would remove the United States from the trade agreement if he could not negotiate improvements.

The U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) industry is a critical stakeholder of the potential policy change, because of its deep involvement in the regional T&A supply chain established by the NAFTA. Particularly, over the past decades, trade creation effect of the NAFTA has significantly facilitated the formation of a regional T&A supply chain among its members. Within this supply chain, the United States typically exports textiles to Mexico, which turns imported yarns and fabrics into apparel and then exports finished apparel back to the United and Canada for consumption.

So what will happen to the U.S. T&A industry if NAFTA no longer exists? Here is what I find*:

First, results show that ending the NAFTA will significantly hurt U.S. textile exports. Specifically, the annual U.S. textile exports to Mexico and Canada will sharply decline by $2,081 million (down 47.7%) and $351 million (down 14%) respectively compared to the base year level in 2015.Although U.S. textile exports to other members of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), will slightly increase by $42 million (up 1.5%), the potential gains will be far less than the loss of exports to the NAFTA region.

Second, results show that ending the NAFTA will significantly reduce U.S. apparel imports from the NAFTA region. Specifically, annual U.S. apparel imports from Mexico and Canada will sharply decrease by $1,610 million (down 45.3%) and $916 million (down 154.2%) respectively compared to the base year level in 2015 (H2 is supported). However, ending the NAFTA would do little to curb the total U.S. apparel imports, largely because U.S. companies will simply switch to importing more apparel from other suppliers such as China and Vietnam.

Third, ending NAFTA will further undercut textile and apparel manufacturing in the United States rather than bring back “Made in the USA.” Specifically, annual U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing will decline by $1,923 million (down 12.8%) and $308 million (down 3.0%) respectively compared to the base year level in 2015 (H3 is supported). Weaker demand from the NAFTA region is the primary reason why U.S. T&A manufacturing will suffer a decline.

These findings have several important implications. On the one hand, the results suggest that the U.S. T&A will be a big loser if the NAFTA no longer exists. Particularly, ending the agreement will put the regional T&A supply chain in jeopardy and make the U.S. textile industry lose its single largest export market—Mexico. On the other hand, findings of the study confirm that in an almost perfectly competitive market like apparel, raising tariff rate is bound to result in trade diversion. With so many alternative suppliers out there, understandably, ending the NAFTA will NOT increase demand for T&A “Made in the USA,” nor create more manufacturing jobs in the sector. Rather, Asian textile and apparel suppliers will take away market shares from Mexico and ironically benefit most from NAFTA’s dismantlement.

*Note: The study is based on the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model developed by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). Data of the analysis came from the latest GTAP9 database, which includes trade and production data of 57 sectors in 140 countries in 2015 as the base year. For the purpose of the study, we assume that if NAFTA no longer exists, the tariff rate applied for T&A traded between NAFTA members will increase from zero to the normal duty rate (i.e. the Most-Favored-Nation duty rate) in respective countries.

by Sheng Lu

How Americans Knew about Textile and Apparel Trade: New Survey Results

The following results are preliminary findings from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) 2016 survey. The survey was administrated by YouGov/Polimetrix and conducted from September to October 2016.

Acknowledgement:

Thanks to the University of Delaware Office of the Provost, Social Science Data Analytics Initiative, and Center for Political Communication in support of the data collection. For questions about the data, please contact Dr. Sheng Lu (shenglu@udel.edu).

Positions on Key Trade Issues: US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) V.S. National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)

From left to right: Julia Hughes (president of USFIA), Auggie Tantillo (president & CEO of NCTO) and Robert Antoshak (Managing Director of Olah Inc., moderator)

In a panel discussion hosted by Kingpins on February 9, 2017, Julia K. Hughes, President of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), and Augustine Tantillo, President and Chief Executive of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) shared their respective perspectives on key trade issues facing the U.S. textile and apparel industry in 2017.

Trade and job creation in the United States

Julia Hughes: Discussion on the relationship of trade and jobs in the public is often misguided. We support U.S. manufacturing. But along the supply chain, from product development, sourcing, marketing to retailing, fashion brands and retailers have also created many well-paid non-manufacturing jobs in the United States. Study further shows that 70%-80% of the retail value of an imported clothing actually stays in the United States.

Auggie Tantillo: Pleased and excited to see the discussion on the possibility of bringing back/expanding manufacturing in the United States. Still the United States produces $65—70 billion worth of textiles annually, which support many manufacturing jobs in the sector. The U.S. textile industry also makes around $2 billion investment annually (updating machines and equipment). We need to acknowledge the baseline value of manufacturing in the United States.

Border Adjustment Tax(BAT)

Julia Hughes: BAT is a complicated issue. However, if the current BAT proposal is adopted, it will raise the retail price (meaning ordinary US consumers will have to pay more) and appreciate the U.S. dollar (meaning U.S. exports will get hurt). This is why USFIA along with 100+ companies and industry associations opposes any BAT.

Auggie Tantillo: NCTO strongly believes that updating the tax structure in the United States is long overdue. NCTO welcomes a serious look at the BAT proposal, since the United States is the only major economy in the world that does not adopt BAT. The United States doesn’t need to run such a high trade deficit. Instead, we need to make the tax structure supporting the U.S. manufacturing base.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Julia Hughes: NAFTA is 20 years’ old and it can be improved. However, raising import tax (tariff) is NOT a good idea. NAFTA supports the Western-Hemisphere supply chain, which is critical for the U.S. textile and apparel industry. We need to defend this supply chain.

Auggie Tantillo: NAFTA works and benefits its members on all sides of the border, including the United States. NCTO supports the continuation of NAFTA as well as to update and modernize the agreement as necessary.

Yarn-forward Rules of Origin (RoO)

Julia Hughes: Apparel is a global industry and apparel supply chain needs to be nimble. The yarn-forward RoO prevents apparel companies and retailers from fully enjoying the duty-free benefits under a free trade agreement (FTA) since not always the FTA region makes the needed products or their textile components. Exceptions to the yarn-forward rules such as the tariff preference level (TPL), provide necessary flexibility.

Auggie Tantillo: The yarn-forward RoO has been a great success and we need to keep it (in existing and future trade agreements). The only things that need to be improved is the exception to the yarn-forward RoO (such as short supply list and trade preference level). RoO is supposed to keep benefits of a free trade agreement to its members only, yet these exceptions create loopholes and cause damages (to the U.S. textile industry).

On China

Julia Hughes: We need China, which still provides 40% of textiles and apparel consumed in the United States. It will be a disaster to trigger a trade war between the two countries.

Auggie Tantillo: We need to better help the Western-Hemisphere producers (in competing with textile and apparel made in China). China’s 40%+ market shares in the U.S. textile and apparel import market are not all based on its genuine competitiveness. Rather, China’s unfair trade practices such as IPR violation, government subsidy and unacceptable factory working conditions & environmental practices are of grave concerns.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Julia Hughes: TPP is not dead. On the other hand, countries around the world are actively negotiating new bilateral/regional free trade agreements. The United States doesn’t want to be left behind.

Auggie Tantillo: TPP is “in deep hibernation”, but trade agreement will never be really dead. It is still hopeful that TPP will come back later—but very likely to be in a different form, such as bilateral trade agreements. To be noted, many TPP members have already established bilateral/regional trade agreements with the United States.

Discussion questions: 1) Why do you think Julia Hughes and Auggie Tantillo disagree on many trade issues? On which topics they actually agree with each other and why? 2) What’s your response to Julia Hughes and Auggie Tantillo’s comments on trade issues above? 3) Based on the panel discussion, why do you think textile and apparel companies need to care about trade policy? Please feel free to share your views.

	Like Entrepreneurs,… on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Clothing prices fall… on Minimum Wage Level for Garment…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Patterns of Global Textile and…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Hot Button Apparel Trade and S…
	livsupa on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Julia Lampone on New Study: Explore U.S. Retail…
	Julia Lampone on VF Corporation’s Evolving Appa…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: