While U.S. textile manufacturers and the apparel and retail
industries have expressed overall support for the newly reached
US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA or NAFTA2.0), textile producers
and the apparel sector still hold divergent views on certain provisions:
Rule of Origin
USMCA vs. NAFTA1.0: The
USMCA will continue to adopt the “yarn-forward” rules of origin. The USMCA will
also newly require sewing thread, coated fabric, narrow elastic strips, and
pocketing fabric used in apparel and other finished products to be made in a
USMCA country to qualify for duty-free access to the United States.
U.S. textile industry: U.S.
textile manufacturers almost always support a strict “yarn-forward” rules of
origin in U.S free trade agreements and
they support eliminating exceptions to the “yarn forward” rule as well. The
National Council of Textile Organization (NCTO) estimates that a yearly USMCA
market for sewing thread and pocketing fabric of more than $300 million.
U.S. apparel and retail
industries: The U.S. apparel industry opposes “yarn forward” and argues
that apparel should be considered of
North American origin under a more flexible regional “cut and sew” standard,
which would provide maximum flexibility for sourcing, including the use of
foreign-made yarns and fabrics.
Levels (TPL) for Textiles and Apparel
USMCA vs. NAFTA1.0: With some adjustments, the USMCA would continue a program that allows duty-free access for limited quantities of wool, cotton, and man-made fiber apparel made with yarn or fabric produced or obtained from outside the NAFTA region, including yarns and fabrics from China and other Asian suppliers.
U.S. textile industry: The
textile industry contends China is a major
beneficiary of the current NAFTA TPL mechanism, and it strongly pushed for its
complete elimination in the USMCA.
U.S. apparel and retail
industries: U.S. imports of textiles and apparel covered by the tariff preference level mechanism supply 13% of
total U.S. textile and apparel imports from Canada and Mexico. Apparel
producers assert that these exceptions give regional producers flexibility to
use materials not widely produced in North America.
Viewpoints on other Provisions in USMCA
U.S. textile industry: The
U.S. textile industry also opposes the USMCA newly allows visible lining fabric
for tailored clothing could be sourced
from China or other foreign suppliers, and it would permit up to 10% of a
garment’s content, by weight, to come from outside the USMCA region (up from 7%
in NAFTA1.0). The U.S. textile industry also welcomes that the USMCA would add specific textile verification and
customs procedures aimed at preventing fraud and transshipment. Additionally, the U.S. textile industry is also pleased
that the USMCA would end the Kissell
Amendment. The Kissell Amendment is an exception in NAFTA that allows
manufacturers from Canada and Mexico to qualify as “American” sources when Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) buys textiles, clothing, and footwear using
appropriated funds (about $30 million markets
for textiles, clothing, and shoes altogether).
U.S. apparel and retail
industries: Apparel importers are of
concern that the USMCA continue to incorporate the existing NAFTA short
supply procedure, which is extremely difficult to get a new item approved and
added to the list, limiting their flexibility to source apparel with inputs
from outside North America.
Finally, the report argues that “Regardless of whether the USMCA takes effect, the global competitiveness of U.S. textile producers and U.S.-headquartered apparel firms may depend more on their ability to compete against Asian producers than on the USMCA trade rules.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
October 16, 2018, the Trump
Administration notified U.S. Congress its intention to negotiate the
U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement. Between
2013 and 2016, the United States and EU were also engaged in the negotiation of
a comprehensive free trade agreement– Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(T-TIP) with the goal to unlock market access opportunities for
businesses on both sides of the Atlantic through the ambitious elimination of
trade and investment barriers as well as enhanced regulatory coherence. The T-TIP
negotiation was stalled since 2017, although
the Trump Administration has never officially announced to withdraw from the
II. Negotiating Objectives
January 11, 2019, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released
objectives of the proposed U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement after
seeking inputs from the public. Overall, the proposed agreement aims to address
both tariff and non-tariff barriers and to “achieve fairer, more balanced trade”
between the two sides.
Regarding textiles and apparel, USTR says it will secure duty-free access 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” during the negotiation. The proposed U.S.-EU free trade
agreement also will “establish origin procedures for the certification and
verification of rules of origin that promote strong enforcement, including with respect to textiles.” T-TIP
had adopted similar negotiating objectives for the textile and apparel sector.
III. Industry viewpoints on the agreement
January 2019, leading trade associations
representing the U.S. apparel industry and the EU textile and apparel industries
have expressed support for the proposed U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement. In general,
these industry associations recommend the agreement to achieve the following
First, eliminate import duties. For example:
Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA): “We
support the immediate and reciprocal elimination of the high duties that both
countries maintain on textiles, travel goods, footwear, and apparel.”…” We also
support the immediate elimination of any retaliatory duties imposed by the
E.U., as well as any duties imposed by the U.S. (that led to that retaliation).
The duties impose costs on activities, including manufacturing activities in
the U.S., and undermine markets for U.S. exporters in Europe.”
Apparel and Textile Confederation (Euratex):“The
European Textile and Clothing sector faces high tariffs while exporting to the
US market from 11% to up to 32% for some products, namely sewing thread of
man-made filaments, suits, woven fabrics of cotton, trousers and t-shirts. Zero
customs duties while ensuring modern rules of origin will allow EU companies to
boost exports and offer more choice to American consumers and professional
Second, promote regulatory coherence (Harmonization). For example:
AAFA: “The E.U. and the
United States both maintain an extensive array of product safety, chemical management,
and labeling requirements regarding apparel (including legwear), footwear,
textiles, and travel goods.”…” Yet they often contain different requirements,
such as testing or certification, that greatly add compliance costs.”…” We
believe the U.S.‐E.U. trade agreement presents an important opportunity to achieve
harmonization or alignment for these regulations.”
Euratex: “Maintaining high
level of standards while eliminating unnecessary burdens, removing additional
requirements and facilitating customs procedures that impede business are top
priorities. Mutual recognition of the EU and US standards will preserve high
level of consumer protection on both sides of the Atlantic. Convergence on labelling (fibre
names, care symbols and wool labelling),
consumer safety on children products and flammability standards is key for the
T&C sector.” “EURATEX believes the EU and US standardization bodies should
cooperate on setting standards for Smart Textiles taking into account the
industry views for facilitating development and trade of such products of the
Third, adopt flexible/modern rules of origin. For example:
AAFA: “We should also support higher usage of the agreement by making sure the rules of origin reflect the realities of the industry today…”the yarn forward” rules, although theoretically promote usage of trade partner inputs, in practice they operate as significant barriers that restrict the ability of companies to use a trade agreement in many cases”…” We need to incorporate sufficient flexibilities into the rules of origin so that different supply chains –and the U.S. jobs they support – can take advantage of the agreement.”
Euratex: “Zero customs
duties while ensuring modern rules of
origin will allow EU companies to boost exports and offer more choice to
American consumers and professional buyers.”
The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), which represents the U.S. textile industry, hasn’t publically stated its position on the proposed U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement. However, NCTO had strongly urged U.S. trade negotiators to adopt a yarn-forward rule of origin in T-TIP. NCTO also opposed opening the U.S. government procurement market protected by the Berry Amendment to EU companies.
IV. Patterns of U.S.-EU textile and apparel trade
United States and the EU are mutually important textile and apparel (T&A)
trading partners. For example, the United States is EU’s largest extra-region
export market for textiles, and EU’s fifth largest extra-region supplier of
textiles in 2017 (Euratex, 2018).
the EU is one of the leading export markets for U.S.-made technical textiles as
well as an important source of high-end apparel products for U.S. consumers (OTEXA,
2018). Specifically, in 2017, U.S. T&A exports to the European Union
totaled $2,572 million, of which 73.2% were textile products, such as specialty
& industrial fabrics, felts & other non-woven fabrics and filament
yarns. In comparison, EU’s T&A exports to the United States totaled $4,163
million in 2017, among which textiles and apparel evenly accounted for 48.7%
and 51.3% respectively.
V. Potential economic impact of the agreement
By adopting the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, Lu (2017) quantitatively evaluated the potential impact of a free trade agreement between the U.S. and EU on the textile and apparel sector. According to the study:
the trade creation effect of the agreement will expand the EU-U.S.
intra-industry trade for textiles. Meanwhile, the agreement is likely to
significantly expand EU’s apparel exports to the United States.
the trade diversion effect of the U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement will affect other
T&A exporters negatively, including Asia’s T&A exports to the U.S. market
and EU and Turkey’s T&A exports to the EU market.
Third, the U.S.-EU Textile and Apparel Trade might affect the intra-region T&A trade in the EU region negatively but in a limited way.
Overall, the study suggests that the EU T&A industry will benefit from the additional market access opportunities created by the U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement.One important factor is that the U.S. and EU T&A industries do not constitute a major competing relationship. For example, the United States is no longer a major apparel producer, and EU’s apparel exports to the United States fulfill U.S. consumers’ demand for high-end luxury products. The U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement is also likely to create additional export opportunities for EU textile companies in the U.S. market, especially in the technical textiles area, which accounted for approximately 40% of EU’s total textile exports to the United States in 2017 measured in value. Compared with traditional yarns and fabrics for apparel making purposes, technical textiles are with a greater variety in usage, which allows EU companies to be able to differentiate products and find their niche in the U.S. market.
Further, the study suggests that we shall pay more attention to the details of non-tariff barrier removal under the U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement, which could result in bigger economic impacts than tariff elimination.
To better understand companies’ latest sourcing practices, we recently examined the detailed sourcing portfolios of the 50 largest U.S.-based apparel companies ranked by the Apparel Magazine. Specifically, we conducted a content analysis of each company’s publicly released annual reports and their financial statements from 2014 to 2017 (the latest information available), with a focus on the following two research questions: 1) How have the sourcing strategies of U.S. apparel companies evolved? 2) How have the evolving sourcing strategies affected companies’ financial performance? Here are the key findings:
apparel companies overall adopt a diverse sourcing base. Among the 50
companies we examined, on average they sourced from over 20 different countries
or regions using more than 200 vendors in 2017. These results echo the findings
of the 2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S.
Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) in July. Based on a survey of nearly 30
executives from leading U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers, the study
also found companies with more than 1,000 employees typically source from more
than ten different countries and regions. Also, larger companies, in general,
adopt a more diverse sourcing base than smaller ones.
Second, while U.S.
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. Specifically, among the top 50 U.S. apparel
companies examined, around 28 percent increased the number of countries or
regions they use as sourcing bases between 2014 and 2017. However, over the
same period, 52 percent chose to consolidate their existing sources base, but
on a small scale. Likewise, among the top 50 U.S. apparel companies examined,
approximately half reduced the number of vendors they use between 2014 and
2017, compared with 33 percent that chose to source from more vendors.
Third, for risk
control purposes, most U.S. apparel companies avoid relying too much on any
single vendor; however, some companies have begun to allocate more sourcing
orders to its largest vendors. The top 50 U.S. apparel companies we
examined on average assigned no more than 10 percent of their total sourcing
value or volumes to any single vendor in 2017. This practice suggests that
minimizing supply chain risks is a critical consideration of U.S. apparel
companies’ sourcing strategy. Nevertheless, between 2014 and 2017, around 45
percent of apparel companies we examined raised the cap slightly.
Fourth, regarding the financial implications of the adjustment of sourcing strategies, companies that diversified their sourcing bases between 2014 and 2017, in general, were able to reduce sourcing cost and improve gross margin. In comparison, U.S. apparel companies we examined that consolidated their sourcing base between 2014 and 2017 suffered a slight decline in their gross margin percentage.
On the other hand, however, there was no clear pattern between a company’s choice of sourcing strategy and their net profit margin. While multiple factors could come into play, one possible explanation for the results is that that either diversifying or considering the sourcing base would incur additional management cost for the company.
The deepening of the regional production and trade network(RPTN) is a critical factor behind the increasing concentration of world textile and apparel exports. RPTN refers to the phenomenon that geographically proximate countries form a regional supply chain.
In general, three primary textile and apparel regional
supply chains are operating in the world today:
Asia: within this regional supply chain, more economically advanced Asian countries (such asJapan, South Korea, and China) supply textile raw material to the less economically developed countries in the region (such as Bangladesh, 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 supply chain, developed countries in Southern and Western Europe such as Italy, France, and Germany, serve as the primary textile suppliers. Regarding apparel manufacturing in EU, 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.
Western-Hemisphere(WH): within this regional supply chain, the United States serves as the leading textile supplier, whereas developing countries in North, Central andSouth 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 UnitedStates or Canada for consumption.
Associated with these
regional production and trade networks, three particular trade flows are
important to watch:
First, Asian countries are increasingly sourcing textile inputs from within the region. In2017, close to 80 percent of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries, up from around 70 percent in the 2000s.
Second, the pattern of EU intra-region trade for textile and apparel stays strong and stable. Intra-region trade refers to trade flows between EU members. In 2017, 55 percent of EU countries’ textile imports and 47 percent of EU countries’ apparel imports came from within the EU region. Over the same period, 68 percent of EU countries’ textile exports and 75 percent of their apparel exports also went to other EU countries.
Third, trade flows under the Western-Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain are becoming more unbalanced. On the one hand, textile and apparel exporters in the Western-Hemisphere still rely heavily on the region. In 2017, respectively as much as 80 percent of textiles and 89 percent of apparel exports from countries in the Western Hemisphere went to the same region. However, on the other hand, the operation of the Western-Hemisphere supply chain is facing growing competition from Asian suppliers. For example, in 2017, only 24.8 percent of North, South and Central American countries’ textile imports and 15.7 percent of their apparel imports came from within the region, a record low in the past ten years.
Look ahead, it will be interesting to see how will the reaching and implementation of several new free trade agreements, such as CPTPP, RCEP, EU-Vietnam FTA, and the potential US-EU and US-Japan FTAs, affect the regional pattern of world textile and apparel trade.
First, in general, USMCA still adopts the so-called “yarn-forward” rules of origin. This means that fibers may be produced anywhere, but each component starting with the yarn used to make the garments must be formed within the free trade area – that is, by USMCA members.
Second, other than the source of yarns and fabrics, USMCA now requires that some specific parts of an apparel item (such as pocket bag fabric) need to use inputs made in the USMCA region so that the finished apparel item can qualify for the import duty-free treatment.
Third, USMCA allows a relatively more generous De minimis than NAFTA 1.0.
1) Compared with NAFTA, USMCA will cut the TPL level, but only to those product categories with a low TPL utilization rate;
2) Compared with NAFTA, USMCA will expand the TPL level for a few product categories with a high TPL utilization rate.
Fifth, USMCA will make no change to the Commercial availability/short supply list mechanism in NAFTA 1.0.
Sixth, it remains to be seen whether USMCA will boost Made-in-the-USA fibers, yarns and fabrics by limiting the use of non-USMCA textile inputs. For example, while the new agreement expands the TPL level for U.S. cotton/man-made fiber apparel exports to Canada (currently with a 100 percent utilization rate), these apparel products are NOT required to use U.S.-made yarns and fabrics. The utilization rate of USMCA will also be important to watch in the future.
Before taking into effect, USMCA still needs to be ratified by all member countries. In the United States, the earliest that President Trump can sign the agreement will be 11/29/2018 (i.e., 90 days after notifying the Congress). The U.S. International Trade Commission has until 3/14/2019 (i.e., 150 days after President signing the agreement) to release an assessment of the new trade agreement. Afterward, the Trump Administration will need to work with the Congress to develop legislation to approve and implement the agreement.
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.
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.
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.”
Business challenges facing U.S. fashion companies: Protectionism is the top challenge for the U.S. fashion industry in 2018. More companies worry about increases in production or sourcing cost, too. For the second year in a row, “protectionist trade policy agenda in the United States” ranks the top challenge for U.S. fashion companies in 2018.
Industry outlook:Despite concerns about trade policy and cost, executives are more confident about the five-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry in 2018 than they were a year ago, although confidence has not fully recovered to the level seen in 2015 and 2016. In addition, 100 percent of respondents say they plan to hire more employees in the next five years, compared with 80-85 percent in previous studies; market analysts, data scientists, sustainability/compliance related specialists or managers, and supply chain specialists are expected to be the most in-demand.
U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategy: When it comes to sourcing, diversification is key for many companies.
Most respondents continue to maintain a diverse sourcing base, with 60.7 percent currently sourcing from 10+ different countries or regions, up from 57.6 percent in 2017.
Larger companies, in general, continue to be more diversified than smaller companies.
Reflecting the U.S. fashion industry’s growing global reach, respondents report sourcing from as many as 51 countries or regions in 2018, the same as in 2017. Asia as a whole continues to take the lead as the dominant sourcing region. Meanwhile, with the growing importance of speed-to-market and flexibility, the Western Hemisphere is becoming an indispensable sourcing base.
Keeping a relatively diverse sourcing base will remain a key element of U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategy. Nearly 80 percent of respondents plan to source from the same number of countries, or more countries, in the next two years. However, respondents are equally divided on whether to increase or decrease the number of suppliers they will work with.
“China plus Vietnam plus Many” has become an ever more popular sourcing model among respondents. And this model is evolving as companies further diversify their China production. In particular, China now typically accounts for only 11-30 percent of companies’ total sourcing value or volume, compared with 30-50 percent in the past.
Although China’s position as the top sourcing destination is unshakable, companies are actively seeking alternatives to “Made in China.” This does not seem to be due to concerns about cost, but rather the worries about the escalating U.S.-China trade tensions.
Benefiting from the diversification away from China, Vietnam and Bangladesh are expected to play a bigger role as apparel suppliers for the U.S. market in the near future.
Rules of origin and the utilization of trade agreements for sourcing: Rules of origin, and exceptions to the rules of origin, significantly impact whether companies use free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs for sourcing.
While FTAs and trade preference programs remain largely underutilized by U.S. fashion companies, more companies are using NAFTA (65 percent), CAFTA-DR (58 percent) and AGOA (50 percent) than in the past two years.
Still, it’s concerning that companies often do not claim the duty-free benefits when sourcing from countries with FTAs or preference programs. Companies say this is primarily due to the strict rules of origin.
Exceptions to the “yarn-forward” rules of origin, including tariff preference levels (TPLs), commercial availability/short supply lists, and cumulation, are priorities for respondents; 48 percent say they currently use these mechanisms for sourcing. These exceptions provide critical flexibilities that make companies more likely to use FTAs and source from FTA regions.
NAFTA: U.S. fashion companies call for a further reduction of trade barriers and urge trade negotiators to “do no harm” to NAFTA, the most-utilized free trade agreement by respondents.
Respondents predominantly support initiatives to eliminate trade barriers of all kinds, from high tariffs to overcomplicated documentation requirements, to restrictive rules of origin in NAFTA and future free trade agreements.
More than half of respondents explicitly say NAFTA is important to their business—and they have grave concerns about the uncertain future of the agreement.
Sourcing in sustainable and socially compliant ways: Overall, U.S. fashion companies are making more commitments to sustainability and social responsibility.
85 percent of respondents plan to allocate more resources for sustainability and social compliance in the next two years, in areas including providing training to suppliers and internal employees, adding more employees, and working more closely with third-party certification programs on sustainability and social compliance. However, the availability of operational budget remains the primary hurdle for companies that want to do more.
100 percent of respondents map their supply chains (i.e., keep records of name, location, and function of suppliers), up from 90 percent in 2017. Over 80 percent of respondents track not only Tier 1 suppliers (i.e., factory where the final product is assembled), but also Tier 2 suppliers (i.e., subcontractors or major component suppliers, such as fabrics). However, it’s less common for companies to map Tier 3 (i.e., yarn spinners, finding and trimming suppliers) and Tier 4 suppliers (i.e., raw materials suppliers, such as cattle/pig hides, rubber, cotton, wool, goose down, minerals/metals and chemicals).
100 percent of respondents audit their suppliers for issues including building safety, fire safety, and treatment of workers. The vast majority of respondents (96 percent) currently use third-party certification programs to audit, with both announced and unannounced audits.
The US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study from 2014 to 2017 can be downloaded from HERE
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.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Between 1985 and 2011, the United States entered into 14 free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 countries. Data from the Census shows that U.S. merchandise trade (or trade in goods) with FTA partner countries represents nearly 70% of all U.S. exports in goods and services, and more than 80% of all U.S. imports of goods and services.
In 2016, the United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of -$71.3 billion with the 20 FTA partner countries and a services surplus of $68.9 billion. The share of the U.S. trade deficit with FTA partners, however, has fallen by nearly half over the 2007-2017 period, from 18% to only about 10% of the total -$734.4 billion U.S. merchandise trade deficit.
Regarding the economic impact of FTAs on the United States, a study conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission suggests that bilateral and regional trade agreements increased U.S. aggregate trade by about 3%, but less than 1% for U.S. employment (or 159,300 full-time equivalent employees). Specifically, the study finds that rising imports, due in part to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), accounted for most of the reduction in U.S. employment in the apparel industry between 1998 and 2014.
Current trade data treat exports and imports as though the full value of an export was produced domestically and the full value of an import was produced abroad. However, the rapid growth of global value chains and intra-industry trade (importing and exporting goods in the same industry) has significantly increased the amount of trade in intermediate goods in ways that can blur the distinction between domestic and foreign firms and goods. For example, foreign value added accounts for about 11% of the content of U.S. exports in 2010. As a result of the growth in value chains, traditional methods of measuring trade may obscure the actual sources of goods and services and the allocation of resources that are used in producing those goods and services.
Trade agreements of the type currently being negotiated by the United States comprise a broad range of issues that could have significant economic effects on trade and commercial relations over the long run between the negotiating parties, particularly for developing and emerging economies. However, the negative effects of international trade and trade agreements, particularly potential job losses and lower wages, often are distributed disproportionately with the effects falling more heavily on some workers and on some firms.
The picture above: Shannon Brady, Junior, UD Fashion Merchandising Major (Fourth one from the left in the front row) visited Cotton Inc together with other Cotton Student Ambassadors.
Question: What is the CottonWorks™ Ambassador program about and what is your role as an ambassador?
The CottonWorks™ ambassador program is a program where students in fashion and apparel related majors get to promote CottonWorks™ on their college campuses. Ambassadors are charged with helping faculty and students understand the resources available through CottonWorks™ as well as promote this resource through social media. This semester there are twelve ambassadors (including myself) from 12 different schools across the country.
My role as an ambassador is to raise awareness about CottonWorks™ on campus as it is a new program here at the University of Delaware. In January of this year, I had the opportunity to visit the Cotton Incorporated Headquarters in Cary, North Carolina. I, along with other CottonWorks™ ambassadors participated in an all-day CottonWorks™ training as well as a tour of the production facilities at Cotton Incorporated. I got to see everything from raw cotton to state-of-the-art laser finished denim. It was a unique experience and such a cool way to see the material I learned about in class come to life.
Question: Cotton Incorporated recently launched a new CottonWorksTMprogram to help industry professionals and emerging professionals (like our FASH students) know more about cotton. Can you give us an overview of the program, particularly the learning resources related to the sourcing of cotton products?
CottonWorks™ is a free website where students and professionals can access a multitude of resources about cotton and the fashion and apparel industry. The site offers many learning resources. Detailed guides are offered on topics such as sourcing and manufacturing, retail and marketing, fabric and technology, fashion and trend, and sustainability. These topics really apply to the fashion curriculum at UD. Additionally, the site offers a mobile-friendly textile encyclopedia where students can look up any textile related word anytime, anywhere.
However, the site offers more than just learning resources. CottonWorks™ is a great supplemental learning tool, but the site also offers emerging professionals ways to get engaged with their industry. Free webinars and workshops are offered through the website and are a great way to engage with industry professionals and learn about the issues pressing the industry right now. Their next webinar is on Tuesday 24 April 2018 registration is open on the CottonWorks™ website, and the topic of discussion is Cotton’s Biodegradability in Aquatic Environments.
Particularly regarding learning resources on sourcing cotton products, the sources and manufacturing topic on the website offers dozens of guides all kinds of cotton products, ranging from denim to cotton nonwovens.
Last but not the least, the Executive Cotton Update and Monthly Economic Letter, both posted every month at cottonworks.com/news are great resources for students and industry professionals interested in knowing what is happening in the U.S. and world cotton industry.
Question: Developing a sustainable supply chain is critical for the textile and apparel industry. So how is cotton related to sustainability? What are the facts important to know?
Cotton Incorporated is committed to being at the forefront of cotton sustainability, and the CottonWorks™ site offers many resources on how cotton is related to sustainability, including guides on responsible cotton production and manufacturing because sustainability happens throughout the lifecycle of cotton.
Cotton is a natural fiber, unlike some manmade fibers such as polyester it can biodegrade. If you log on to CottonWorks™ website you can view a recap of their webinar last month that went in depth about cotton’s biodegradability in soil and septic environments.
Additionally, CottonWorks™ has information on campaigns such as Cotton LEADS™ and Blue Jeans Go Green™ to promote the sustainability of cotton. Cotton LEADS™ is a joint program with Australia and the United States that supports a reliable and responsible cotton supply chain through five core principles of sustainability, use of best practices and traceability in the supply chain. Blue Jeans Go Green™ initiative collects denim sent to landfills and recycles it in partnership with Bonded Logic Inc. You can learn more about both these initiatives on the CottonWorks™ site at cottonworks.com/topics/sustainability.
Question: What are the opportunities for our FASH and UD students to get involved with CottonWorks™ and learn more about cotton?
Students can get started today! By registering for a free account on cottonworks.com, they have access to all of the amazing resources I touched on and many more. Additionally, they can follow @cotton_works on Instagram and Twitter to learn more about cotton and get cotton inspiration for their projects.
I will also be hosting a tabling event where students can learn more about these resources, talk to me, and win free food and prizes on Thursday 19April 2018 in Perkins! There will be more tabling events in the future that I will be posting about in my social media as well.
#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)
#1 Why do you agree or disagree with the video that automation will post a significant challenge to garment workers in developing countries such as Bangladesh? How should policymakers react to the challenges?
#2 Can automation be a permanent solution to the social responsibility problem in the garment industry?
#3 In your view, how will automation affect the big landscape of apparel sourcing and the patterns of world textile and apparel trade?
#4 Why or why not do you anticipate a sizable return of apparel manufacturing to the United States if apparel production can be largely automated?
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.
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 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 (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.
I encourage everyone to watch the above two short videos, which provide an excellent wrap-up for FASH455 and remind us the meaning and significance of our course.
First of all, I do hope students can take away essential knowledge about textile and apparel (T&A) trade & sourcing from FASH455. So far in the course we’ve examined the phenomenon of globalization and its implications; we also discussed various trade theories and the general pattern of the evolution of T&A industry in a country’s industrialization process; we further explored three primary T&A supply chains in the world (namely the “Western-Hemisphere” supply chain, “Factory Asia” supply chain based on the flying geese model and the phenomenon of intra-region T&A trade in Europe); last but not least, we looked at trade policies that are unique to the T&A sector (e.g.,: MFA and yarn-forward rules of origin) as well as the complicated economic, political and social factors behind the making of these trade policies. No matter your dream is to be a fashion designer, buyer, merchandiser, sourcing specialist or marketing analyst, understanding how trade and sourcing work will be highly relevant and beneficial to your future career given the global nature of today’s fashion industry.
Second, I hope FASH455 helps students shape a big picture vision of the T&A industry in the 21st-century world economy and provides students a fresh new perspective of looking at the world. Throughout the semester, we’ve examined many critical, timely and pressing global agendas that are highly relevant to the T&A industry, from apparel companies’ social responsibility practices, the debate on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Trump Administration’s trade policy agenda to the controversy of second-hand clothing trade. It is critical to keep in mind that we wear more than just clothes: We also wear the global economy, international business, public policy and trade politics that make affordable, fashionable, and safe clothes possible and available for hardworking families. This is also the message from many of our distinguished guest speakers this semester and I do hope you find these sessions enlightening and inspiring.
Likewise, I hope FASH455 puts students into thinking the meaning of being a FASH major (as well as a college graduate) and how to contribute to the world we are living today positively. A popular misconception is that T&A is just about “sewing,” “fashion magazine,” “shopping” and “Project Runway.” In fact, as one of the largest and most economically influential sectors in the world today, T&A industry plays a critical and unique role in creating jobs, promoting economic development, enhancing human development and reducing poverty. As we mentioned in the class, globally over 120 million people remain directly employed in the T&A industry, a good proportion of whom are females living in poor rural areas. For most developing countries, T&A usually accounts for 70%–90% of their total merchandise exports and provide one of the very few opportunities for these countries to participate in globalization. Indeed, T&A is such an impactful sector and we are as important as any other majors on the campus!
Last but not least, I hope from taking FASH455, students can take away meaningful questions that can inspire their future study and even life’s pursuit. For example:
How to make the growth of global textile and apparel trade more inclusive?
What trade policy can promote and support textile and apparel manufacturing in the United States?
How to make sure that tragedies like the Rana Plaza building collapse will never happen again?
How to distribute the benefits & cost of globalization among different countries and groups of people more equally?
How to use trade policy as a tool to solve some tough global issues such as labor practices and environmental standard?
Is inequality a problem caused by global trade? If global trade is the problem, what is the alternative?
These questions have no real answer yet. But they are waiting for you, the young professional and the new generation of leaders, to write the history, based on your knowledge, wisdom, responsibility, courage, and creativity!
So what do you take away from FASH455? Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments.
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
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?
The United States maintains a bilateral trade surplus in yarns and fabrics ($4.1 billion in 2016) as well as made-up textiles ($720 million in 2016) with NAFTA members.
Regarding apparel, the United States had a trade surplus with Canada of $1.4 billion and a trade deficit with Mexico of $2.7 billion in 2016.
Impact of NAFTA on employment and production in the U.S. textile and apparel industry
The effects of NAFTA are NOT straightforward, and the drop in U.S. domestic textile and apparel production and jobs cannot be blamed solely on NAFTA.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) concluded that imports of textiles had a tiny effect on U.S. textile industry employment (a 0.4% decline) from 1998 to 2014, which covers most of the period since NAFTA’s enactment. However, the collapse of the U.S. domestic apparel industry and changing clothing tastes may have had a more significant impact on domestic textile production.
There is little evidence that NAFTA was the decisive factor for the loss of jobs in the U.S. apparel manufacturing sector, given that the major growth in apparel manufacturing for the U.S. market has occurred in Asian countries that receive no preferences under NAFTA.
Impact of the Tariff Preference Level (TPL) in NAFTA
In nearly every year since 2010, Mexico has come close to exporting the maximum allowable amount of cotton and man-made fiber apparel with duty-free foreign content. Canada’s TPL fill rates are typically highest for cotton and man-made fiber fabric and made-up products but are not usually fully filled.
It is not clear that eliminating the TPL program would result in a substantial return of textile production or jobs to the United States;if it were to raise the cost of Mexican apparel production, it could instead result in imports from other countries displacing imports from Mexico.
Other than U.S. fashion brands and retailers, Mexico and Canada reportedly oppose the elimination of the NAFTA TPL program too.
Possible Effects of Potential NAFTA Modification
Mexico’s focus on basic apparel items suggests that S. importers could quickly source from elsewhere if duty savings under NAFTA are eliminated. However, even now, some U.S. fashion companies say the duty savings are not worth the time and resources required to comply with the NAFTA rules of origin and documentation requirements. In 2016, roughly 16% of qualifying textile and apparel imports from NAFTA failed to take advantage of the duty-free benefits and instead paid applicable tariffs.
Whatever the outcome of the NAFTA renegotiation, in the medium and long run, the profitability of the North American textile and apparel industry will likely depend less on NAFTA preferences such as yarn forward and more on the capacity of producers in the region to innovate to remain globally competitive.
One change in NAFTA proposed by the United States would require motor vehicles to have 85% North American content and 50% U.S. content to qualify for tariff-free treatment. If auto manufacturers were to import more passenger cars from outside the NAFTA region and pay the 2.5% U.S. import duty rather than complying with stricter domestic content requirements, automotive demand for U.S.-made technical textiles could be adversely affected.
If the TPP-11 countries strike a trade deal, one possible effect is that Canada and Mexico may import more textile and apparel products from other TPP countries, including Vietnam. This could ultimately be a disadvantage for U.S.-based producers. How the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in a fresh TPP-11 arrangement would affect their participation in NAFTA is unknown.
#1 The US textile industry and the fashion retailers/brands/importers have very different priorities regarding modernizing and updating NAFTA. Do you believe that a compromise acceptable to both sides can be found? If so, what do you believe that compromise can be?
#2 Overall, why or why not do you think the U.S. textile and apparel industry is a beneficiary of NAFTA over the past decade? From the perspective of the U.S. textile and apparel industry, should or should not reducing the U.S. trade deficit be a prioritized objective in the NAFTA renegotiation?
#3 What will happen to the U.S. textile and apparel industry if NAFTA is gone? How should U.S.-based textile and apparel companies respond to NAFTA’s termination?
#4 In your view, why or why not the “yarn-forward” rules of origin are outdated in today’s global-based textile and apparel supply chain?
#5 Why do you think the “yarn-forward” rules of origin vary from free trade agreement (FTA) to FTA? Do you think there’s a way to make a universal “yarn-forward” rule for all U.S. FTAs?
#6 Why are the textile-specific rules of origin under free trade agreements so complex? What potential issues do you think can arise because of the complexity of these rules?
(Please feel free to join our online discussion. In your comment, please mention the question #)