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

China’s Position as the No.1 Textile and Apparel Sourcing Destination Remains Unshakable

China as the top textile and apparel sourcing destination for U.S. companies remains “unshakable”, according to product level data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Specifically, based on the import value in 2015:

Of the total 11 categories of yarns, China was the top supplier for 3 categories (27.3%)
Of the total 34 categories of fabrics, China was the top supplier for 23 categories (67.6%)
Of the total 106 categories of apparel, China was the top supplier for 95 categories (89.6%)
Of the total 16 categories of made-up textiles, China was the top supplier for 12 categories (75.0%)

In comparison, Vietnam, the second largest textile and apparel supplier to the United States, was the top supplier for only four categories of apparel (3.8% of the total 106 categories).

For many textile and apparel products, China not only is the largest supplier, but also holds a lion’s market share. Specifically, for those textile and apparel product categories that China was the top supplier in 2015 (by value):

China’s average market share reached 20.7% for yarns, 2.3 percentage points higher than the 2nd top supplier
China’s average market share reached 42.0% for fabrics, 25 percentage points higher than the 2nd top supplier
China’s average market share reached 52.7% for apparel, 37.2 percentage points higher than the 2nd top supplier
China’s average market share reached 56.8% for made-up textiles, 42.7 percentage points higher than the 2nd top supplier

by Sheng Lu

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Herb Cochran, Executive Director of Amcham Vietnam

1509c7e

(photo courtesy: Amcham Vietnam)

Herb Cochran is the Executive Director at the American Chambers of Commerce (AmCham) Vietnam. He has helped transform AmCham Vietnam into an influential organization that promotes trade and investment between Vietnam and the United States, with a focus on developing networking, information-sharing, and advocacy activities to improve the business environment.

Herb mobilized AmCham Vietnam members’ substantial efforts to conclude negotiations on the Vietnam-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement and Vietnam’s WTO Accession, and to have these two agreements approved by the U.S. Congress. As a result, trade between Vietnam and the U.S. increased from $1.2 billion in 2000 to about $36 billion in 2014. And Herb expects that total Vietnam-U.S. trade will reach $ 72 billion in 2020.

With Herb’s leadership and support, AmCham Vietnam’s committees and industry sector experts have helped improve mutual understanding on key issues in U.S.-Vietnam trade and investment, including implementation of trade agreements, preserving Vietnam-U.S. apparel trade, strengthening governance and anti-corruption efforts, improved industrial relations, Project 30 (simplification of Vietnam’s administrative procedures), work force development for modern manufacturing, promoting trade and investment between the U.S. and Vietnam’s Southern Key Economic Region, and the Asia Development Bank’s strategy for the economic and social development of Vietnam and the Greater Mekong Subregion.

Prior to joining AmCham, Herb was Commercial Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and Principal Commercial Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City. He helped establish the commercial office of the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, hiring staff and establishing trade and finance programs, including the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). In 1998-99 he established the commercial office of the U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City.

Herb also served as Regional Director, East Asia and Pacific, U.S. Commercial Service, based in Washington DC. His responsibilities included program, personnel, and budget support for the commercial departments of 15 United States Embassies in the Asia/Pacific region, from Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing in Northeast Asia, to all the countries of Southeast Asia, and down to Australia and New Zealand. Other international working experiences of Herb include: Commercial Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, Commercial Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, U.S. Consulate General in Osaka, Japan, and Action Officer at the State Department’s Office of Japanese Affairs.

Born in North Carolina, Herb earned a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (History), and a Certificat from the Institut d’Études Politiques (Sciences Po) in Paris. He is also a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington DC (National Defense Strategy).

Interview Part

Sheng Lu: Can you provide us an overview about the US-Vietnam business ties?

Herb Cochran: Vietnam has succeeded at attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) and increasing trade. U.S. – Vietnam trade in 2015 will likely reach over $45 billion, another annual increase of over 20%. Vietnam accounts for 25% of all U.S. imports of goods from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The numbers are likely to reach $80 billion and a 33% market share by 2020.

More details can be found from a few recent AmCham statements to government officials and to press inquiries:

Note: Vietnam Business Forum a “structured dialogue” of about three hours 2 times a year, in June and in December, where the business associations present their views of the business ties and business environment and suggest areas for improvement.

Sheng Lu: What are the main reasons that U.S. companies come to invest in Vietnam? Are most U.S. business operations in Vietnam profitable?

Herb Cochran: Foreign Direct Investment into Vietnam has been increasing recently, as companies prepare for ASEAN integration, for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and for the expectation that 59% of global middle class consumer spending will be in the Asia – Pacific region by 2030, up from 23% in 2009. For example:

These are all world-class factories, by global companies, for export to ASEAN, TPP, and Asia-Pacific markets. Not to mention the high-tech investments by Intel, Samsung, Apple, and others in the microelectronics and consumer electronics sector.

Main reasons that U.S. companies come to invest in Vietnam include:

Availability of low cost labor
Availability of trained personnel
Stable government and political system

Regarding Vietnam’s business and investment environment, please also see the summary below from ASEAN AmChams’ Business Outlook Survey 2016.

Sheng Lu: Given the increasing labor cost in China, many people see Vietnam as an alternative sourcing destination for labor-intensive products such as apparel and footwear. What’s your view on this trend?

Herb Cochran: I agree. In Aug 2013, we had a delegation visit AmCham HCMC from AmCham Hong Kong, Footwear and Apparel Committee. They said, “We represent 80% of the apparel and footwear sourcing in the world. We are in Hong Kong because most of our sourcing is in China. But we are leaving China, for various reasons. Vietnam’s participation in TPP is certainly an attraction, but we are leaving China with or without TPP. We want to know if Vietnam will welcome us.”

It should be particularly noted that between 2013 – 2015, about $3 billion was announced in FDI in textiles to meet the yarn-forward rules of origin requirements of TPP. One estimate projects Vietnam’s apparel exports to the U.S. under TPP “… would be as high as US$ 22 billion” by 2020. Another projects that Vietnam’s apparel and footwear exports would increase by 45.9% over the baseline by 2025. A third expert said she expects the TPP will “change the sourcing landscape drastically;” and Vietnam’s share of the U.S. apparel import market could go from 10% to 35% very quickly.” [Note: 35% of the U.S. apparel imports market is $35 billion. I think this is the most interesting estimate, a microeconomic estimate from an industry expert and not a “macroeconomic model estimate.”] And Mr. Le Tien Truong, Deputy Director of VINATEX, expects that Vietnam’s exports of textiles and apparel could reach $50 billion by 2025. [I think this estimate is overoptimistic.]

Below is a historical comparison of U.S. imports of apparel from China, “2nd Tier Countries,” and “Other.” from 2005 to 2025. The actual trade statistics from 2005 to 2015 show that U.S. Imports of Apparel from China doubled from 2005 (when quotas on WTO members were lifted) to 2010, but they have been “flat” since then. Value of imports from 2016 to 2025 are forecasted numbers.

unnamed

Sheng Lu: In your view, what commercial opportunities does the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) present to U.S. companies in Vietnam, especially in the textile and apparel industry?

Herb Cochran: The most authoritative study was done by Professor Peter Petri of Brandeis University and the Peterson Institute. According to the findings:

The TPP would increase Vietnam’s exports from the expected “baseline” in 2025 without TPP of $239.0 billion (of which apparel and footwear exports would total $113 billion) by $67.9 billion to $307 billion (of which apparel and footwear exports would increase by $51.9 billion to $165 billion). In percentage terms, total exports would increase by 28.4% over the baseline, and apparel and footwear exports would increase by 45.9% over the baseline. Total Net Exports increase: 67.9 / 239.0 = 28.4%.

In addition, the expected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth benefits are substantial, Vietnam’s GDP in 2025 with TPP, would be 10.5% higher than the baseline estimate. This is particularly important now that Vietnam is in a “structural growth decline” period, according to the World Bank. Those are economic projections that give a general idea.

Sheng Lu: How is TPP discussed in Vietnam such as its local media?

Herb Cochran: Very positively. For example, see the below link: “89% of public in Vietnam thinks the TPP is “ … a good thing.” http://www.amchamvietnam.com/30448353/89-of-public-in-vietnam-supports-tpp-pew-research/

Part of the reason for this positive viewpoint is the series of seminars that we in AmCham HCMC organized in 2013 to explain about the TPP, create better understanding of and support for the TPP especially in the Vietnam business community.

Sheng Lu: What is the outlook for TPP ratification in Vietnam?

Herb Cochran: Very good. At the closing ceremony of the 14th Plenum of the 11th Party Central Committee, the Party General Secretary, Nguyen Phu Trong, said members of the Party Central Committee reached consensus on the signing and ratification of the Trans-pacific Partnership Agreement in conformity to laws on signing and joining international treaties. Mr. Trong said: “The TPP will bring great benefits but also opportunities and challenges to Vietnam. These challenges have been identified during Vietnam’s 30 years of renewal and international integration. With efforts, creativity, and determination of the Party, army, people, and the business community, we are confident that we will overcome all challenges and grasp opportunities created by the TPP to achieve rapid, sustainable growth.”

Sheng Lu: While living in Vietnam, have you encountered any culture shock? Can you share some stories with our students?

Herb Cochran: No culture shock. During my career as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, I lived in Vietnam, Japan, and Thailand for about 22 years, so I am used to living abroad. And I have lived in Vietnam since Jan 1997. I guess rather than “culture shock,” you might say that I have “culture insights” from time to time. The most common insight here in Vietnam is how polite, warm and gracious most people are. It is still a traditional society, very family oriented. One cultural insight is how they celebrate “death anniversaries” for many years, with special celebrations on certain multi-year anniversaries, to keep family ancestors in their memories, called lễ giỗ.

Sheng Lu: Last but not least, for our students interested in working/interning in Vietnam, do you have any suggestions?

Herb Cochran: It’s very tough to get started. Click the below link for some comments that I have put together in response to many questions: http://www.amchamvietnam.com/faqs/faq-how-do-i-find-employment-opportunities-with-amcham-member-companies/. A short commentary is that I think it is probably better to start in the U.S. with a large organization that has global operations, e.g. Walmart, Nike, etc., and learn about that organization’s international operations and get started that way. Especially when your students are younger, maybe not yet married, no children, etc. One real problem for American citizens is that they are taxed in the U.S. and in the country of employment, so that they are generally 25% to 50% more expensive than U.S. non-citizens.

–The End–

International Trade Supports Textile and Apparel “Made in USA”

International trade plays a critical role supporting textile and apparel (T&A) “Made in USA”, according to latest firm-level data from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce.

First and formost, textile and apparel “Made in USA” today contain imported components. Data collected from the OTEXA “Made in USA” Sourcing database shows that using imported inputs such as cut parts, fabrics, accessories and trims is a very common practice among the total 122 companies which claim making either yarn, fabric, home textiles, technical textiles or apparel in the United States. Particularly, more than 76% of companies which make apparel in the United States say they use imported inputs, followed by companies which make technical textiles (52%) and fabrics (46%). Moreover, the lack of sufficient supply of locally made fabrics is the top reason why U.S. T&A companies use imports as alternatives.

The supportive role played by imports to T&A “Made in USA” also explains why the U.S. T&A industry is in favor of the passage of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act 2016 (Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB). The Bill, which passed by the U.S. Congress in May, will eliminate or reduce hundreds of import duties on textile raw materials and intermediate products that are not produced or available domestically in the United States.

On the other hand, export promotes “Made in USA” textiles and apparel as well. Data from the OTEXA “Made in USA” sourcing database shows that as many as 88.9% of U.S.-based yarn manufacturers, 82.9% of technical textile manufacturers, 75% of fabrics manufacturers and 76% of home textile manufacturers currently export and sell their products overseas.

For more detailed data and analysis, please stay tuned…

Sheng Lu

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Julia K. Hughes, President of the United States Fashion Industry Association

headshot_USFIA-hughes_300x300px

Julia K. Hughes is President of the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), which represents textile and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers based in the United States and doing business globally. Founded in 1989 as the United States Association of Importers of Textiles & Apparel with the goal of eliminating the global apparel quota system, USFIA now works to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers that impede the industry’s ability to trade freely and create economic opportunities in the United States and abroad. Ms. Hughes represents the fashion industry in front of the U.S. government and international governments and stakeholders.

Ms. Hughes has testified before Congress and the Executive Branch on textile trade issues. She is recognized as an expert in textile and apparel issues and frequently speaks at international conferences including the Apparel Sourcing Show, MAGIC, Foreign Service Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, Cotton Sourcing Summit, International Textiles and Clothing Bureau, Young Presidents’ Organization, World Trade Organization Beijing International Forum, and others.

Ms. Hughes served as the first President of the Organization of Women in International Trade (OWIT) and is one of the founders of the Washington Chapter of Women in International Trade (WIIT) and WIIT Charitable Trust. In 1992, she received the Outstanding Woman in International Trade award and in 2008, the WIIT Lifetime Achievement Award.

Ms. Hughes has an M.A. in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.

Special thanks to Samantha Sault, Vice President of Communication for the U.S. Fashion Industry Association for facilitating and supporting this exclusive interview. Ms. Sault is responsible for the development and execution of the association’s communications strategy, including public relations, policy research and messaging, and social media. Prior to joining the association, Ms. Sault honed her communications expertise at DCI Group, a global public affairs communications firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. Previously, she worked in media as a web editor and fact checker at The Weekly Standard and an editorial assistant at Policy Review, the journal of the Hoover Institution. She began her career in the apparel industry at 17 at abercrombie kids in Bethesda, Maryland.

Interview Part

Sheng Lu: Our students are interested in knowing who the members of the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) are. Can you name a few of your member companies?

Julia Hughes: Our members range from major global brands and fast-fashion retailers, to small importers and wholesalers. While all of our members must be doing business in the United States, our membership roster also includes some international companies with a retail presence in the United States. Some of our most actively engaged members include iconic brands and retailers like Ralph Lauren, Macy’s, Levi Strauss & Co., JCPenney, Urban Outfitters, PVH Corp., and American Eagle Outfitters. We also represent small and medium-size importers, wholesalers, and manufacturers that you might not know by name, but supply to many of your favorite brands and retailers—companies like Michar, MGF Sourcing, and Golden Touch Imports, to name a few.

Sheng Lu: The USFIA is an advocate for trade liberalization and removal of trade barriers. Can you talk with us about the benefits of free trade, especially for the fashion industry both in the United States and globally?

Julia Hughes: As you know, USFIA was originally founded in 1989 (then known as the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel) with the mission to eliminate the global quota system. We were successful! But of course, as you also know, that work is not over. The quotas may have gone away, but there still are import barriers that are unique to the apparel industry. USFIA member companies continue to face some of the United States’ highest tariffs. Textiles and apparel, combined with footwear, still account for some of the highest peaks in the U.S. tariff schedule, with many double-digit tariffs and a high of 32 percent.

Not only are these tariffs higher than on other products, but these tariffs also are a regressive tax. We believe it is simply wrong for a single mom to pay a 32 percent import tax for her baby’s onesies and a 16 percent tariff for her baby’s booties, while the wealthy pay a 1.2 percent tariff for their silk scarves. In total, apparel tariffs take more than $10 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Americans annually. So eliminating these tariffs would be an immediate benefit to American consumers and to American families.

But even removing these tariffs would not mean that there is “free trade.” For example, the fact that the United States maintains these peak textile and apparel tariffs creates problems for new policy initiatives to expand export markets for U.S. products. Market access for American brands and exports is hindered by prohibitively high tariffs in attractive third country markets such as India and Brazil. Our own peak tariffs only encourage other governments to maintain their own high apparel and textile tariffs to “protect” their domestic industries. American brands such as Levi’s and Polo are among the most recognized brands in the world. American yarn spinners and fabric makers operate highly efficient operations that make them among the world’s most competitive producers. For all of these companies, we need every opportunity to remove barriers to trade.

There is a great opportunity to create high-paying jobs here in the United States, too. Fashion brands and retailers offer quality design, product development, logistics, sourcing, and service jobs in the United States, along with manufacturing jobs. These jobs are supported by global value chains, and will be on track to grow IF free trade agreements contain rules of origin and market access provisions that will decrease the cost of those fashion products. This would not only help the brands and retailers grow and create more jobs, but also help consumers by providing access to affordable, high quality apparel.

Finally, free trade isn’t just about tariffs – but also non-tariff barriers like regulations, certifications, and testing requirements all represent non-tariff barriers to trade. And since today’s global brands are selling everywhere from the United States to the UK to Japan to Dubai, we are working to eliminate these barriers, too.

Sheng Lu: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a buzzword for the fashion industry, with Vietnam and China at the core of the discussion. Many people see Vietnam as an alternative sourcing destination to China for labor-intensive apparel and footwear products. You’ve visited both Vietnam and China recently. What’s your first-hand observation? How competitive is “Made in Vietnam” compared with “Made in China”?

Julia Hughes: The TPP is a top priority for USFIA and for our member companies. But unlike some, we do not see the TPP as creating an either/or scenario for sourcing apparel and footwear. China remains the top supplier to the U.S. market, and we do not see that changing any time soon. The breadth of manufacturing operations in China, combined with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and logistics operations, mean that sourcing executives are comfortable with placing orders and knowing that they will get the quality product that they want delivered on time.

However, you are correct that Vietnam is seen as an alternative sourcing destination.—not just by U.S. sourcing executives, but also for Chinese companies. Both the TPP and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement make Vietnam an especially attractive destination for making apparel and for investments in manufacturing yarns and fabrics. But Vietnam is not necessarily the destination for companies searching for lower prices.

Sheng Lu: In the 2015 USFIA Benchmarking Study, around one-third of respondents report sourcing from 6-10 different countries and another one-third report sourcing from 11-20 different countries. What are some of the reasons that U.S. fashion companies today would choose to have such a diversified sourcing base?

Julia Hughes: There are a couple reasons why companies have such diversified sourcing bases. First, it is a holdover from the quota era, because companies were pretty much forced to diversify their sourcing since they couldn’t import everything from China. Following the elimination of the quotas in 2005, companies had cultivated trusted suppliers all over the world in countries as diverse as Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Mexico, and Colombia, so there was no reason to leave these good suppliers after they had spent the time and resources developing their supply chain. Second, diversification is a method of risk management. There are lots of risks that could impact your supply chain—from natural disasters to labor strife to terrorist attacks. The last thing a company wants is to have all of their production in one place—because when disaster strikes, you won’t be able to get your product to your customers. By keeping a diverse supply chain, you can ensure that you’ll always have products moving to the shelves. Finally, different countries have different specialties—and truthfully, no one country can do it all. Companies don’t necessarily prefer to source fabric, yarn, zippers, and buttons from four different countries and ship to a fifth for cutting and sewing, but sometimes, that’s the way it must be done in order to produce the best product at the best price for your target customer.

Sheng Lu: We know that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has been extended for another 10 years. How has the U.S. fashion industry reacted to the AGOA extension? Are U.S. consumers going to see more “Made in Africa” apparel in the retail stores?

Julia Hughes: USFIA member companies are definitely looking at sourcing opportunities in Africa after the extension of AGOA. Today a little more than 1 percent of U.S. apparel imports come from Sub-Saharan Africa—and there are only a few countries that ship apparel to the U.S. market. Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, and Madagascar are the major producers of apparel today – representing 87% of the U.S. imports. The ten-year extension of AGOA is allowing companies to take a fresh look at what is available to source in Africa today, as well as to plan to long-term growth. Both PVH and VF, for example, have been very public about their commitment to develop a vertically integrated industry in Ethiopia.

What is exciting is that new sourcing supply chains are opening up in Africa. While the level of U.S. imports remains low there are some growing suppliers. For example, during March 2016–a month when the overall U.S. apparel imports plunged by -21 percent compared to March 2015—there were a few Sub-Saharan African suppliers that bucked the trend. U.S. imports from Madagascar jumped by 160 percent, from Ethiopia by 83 percent, and from Ghana by 371 percent!

Sheng Lu: Textile and apparel trade policy is always one of the most challenging topics for students in FASH455. Many students wonder why the rules governing the global textile and apparel trade are always far more complicated than most other sectors. For example, in the past, students had to learn about the quota system, from the Short-term Arrangement (STA) to the Multi-Fiber Arrangement (MFA). The quota system is gone, but it seems students now have to know even more “terms”: the yarn-forward rules of origin, short supply list, third country fabric provision, trade preference level (TPL) and earned import allowance… What makes the textile and apparel trade so unique in terms of trade regulations?

Julia Hughes: This is a great question–and one that does not have an easy answer. Absolutely, when I first started working with the industry, it was a revelation to understand about quotas and labeling requirements classification issues. Today, the industry is even more complicated. I think that a lot of the complexity today is due to protectionism. Negotiators looked for ways to limit the market opening impact of trade agreements, and to try to protect their domestic industry. This isn’t just an issue for the United States. Starting with NAFTA in the 1990’s, the rules are more complicated in every free trade agreement—and none of the free trade agreements exactly matches the others. But the complexity isn’t just for FTAs, of course. Today, we also face more regulations, different labeling requirements for different countries (and unfortunately sometimes even different labels are required in different states!), and more testing and certification requirements.

Sheng Lu: Looking ahead in 2016, what important sourcing trends and trade patterns shall we expect in the U.S. fashion industry? What are the policy priorities for the USFIA this year?

Julia Hughes: The implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remains at the top of our list of policy priorities. But implementation is still a long way off, especially since the U.S. Congress is unlikely to vote on the agreement before the November elections. We don’t expect to see a huge shift to sourcing in Vietnam, Malaysia, and the other TPP partners in 2016-2017, since duty-free treatment is a long way off, but we do expect to see companies taking a closer look at opportunities there—and it helps that Vietnam is already the #2 supplier to the United States, so many companies are already sourcing there. We’re also prioritizing completion of the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (T-TIP) between the United States and European Union. The EU is a great source for luxury brands and companies manufacturing leather goods, but this agreement has an even greater potential in terms of regulatory harmonization, making it easier for many of our members to break into the retail markets in Europe. We’re also focused on enhancing the African Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA), cumulation of free trade agreements, and customs and ethical sourcing issues, too. As far as future trends, we’re looking forward to seeing the results of our third-annual Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study, which will give us a lot of insight into what brands are thinking about sourcing and expansion!

Sheng Lu: Last but not least, our students wonder what makes you and your staff personally interested in the fashion industry. Particularly, through your daily work, how do you see the impact of the fashion industry in the 21st century global economy?

Julia Hughes: My path to the world of fashion is from the policy side. I was always interested in international policy and after graduating from Georgetown University and SAIS, I was fortunate to hear about an opportunity to be the Washington Representative for Associated Merchandising Corporation (AMC). It was a terrific opportunity to be engaged in policy discussions, but also to spend time with the buyers, with the sourcing teams, and also with the overseas offices and vendors to understand the impact on trade policy on the clothes we wear. Let’s face it, it is a shock to realize the way that Congressional actions, and negotiations, can determine whether a jacket is made with down, or synthetic fibers, or cotton–or maybe it is manufactured to qualify as a shirt instead of a jacket. It also is inspiring to work with industry executives who are committed to fashion as well as doing good for the global economy. Textiles and apparel has always been an industry that can be a gateway for economic development–and I have seen the positive impact by creating jobs where there were none before–as well as expanding U.S. jobs in design, product development and compliance.

Samantha Sault: I have always loved fashion—in fact, my very first job in high school was folding clothes and working the register at abercrombie kids at the mall in my hometown!—but I never thought about fashion as a career until I had been working for a few years after college. I started my career in political media in D.C., and eventually started covering the intersection of fashion and politics for various publications, including exciting events like New York Fashion Week and President Obama’s first inauguration (and the First Lady’s fabulous dresses). After five years in media and public affairs, I found my way to USFIA and the business and policy side of the fashion industry. The most inspiring part about working in fashion has been getting to know our contacts at our member companies, and seeing how committed they are not only to their brands, but also to ethical sourcing and compliance. These are not just buzzwords—I’ve learned firsthand that many of the individuals at our member companies are deeply committed to ensuring that they are doing the right thing in their supply chains from the factory floor (especially for women) to the retail store, and it has made me appreciate these brands even more than I already did.

–The End–

EU Textile and Apparel Industry Sees Commercial Opportunities in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)

(picture source: Euratex)

According to the European Apparel and Textile Federation (Euratex), Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), if reached and implemented, will bring substantial commercial benefits to the EU textile and apparel (T&A) industry. Euratex sees T-TIP has the great potential to help EU T&A expand exports to the U.S. market, particularly in two areas:

One is high-end apparel. The United States is EU’s third largest apparel export market only after Switzerland and Russia. In 2014, apparel exports from EU(28) to the United States exceed €2.5 billion and most products were much higher priced than those exported from elsewhere in the world. Euratex expects that when the high tariff facing EU apparel products in the U.S. market is removed—such as 28% tariff rate for women’s jacket, and customs red tape is cut, many small and medium (SME) sized EU T&A companies will be able to gain more access to the 300 million people U.S. apparel market.

The other is technical textiles: Euratex highlighted that “technical textiles, like high functionality fabrics used for firefighters’ uniforms or airbags, represent half of our textiles exports to the US. European home textiles are of great success in the US: more than €92million of bedlinen were sold in 2014. Nonwoven textile products for hygiene and medical purposes (cleansing tissues, surgical bedsheets, gauze, bandages, etc.) are a growing part of our exports to the U.S.. High-tech textiles products cover a wide range of applications – transport, construction, agriculture, defense, personal protection and much more.”

Moreover, it seems that the EU technical textile industry is very interested in getting access to the U.S. market currently protected by the Berry Amendment. Euratex sees “Opening business opportunities in public sector for technical textiles is a must in T-TIP. “Europe is a recognized leader in production of smart technical textiles due to advanced manufacturing technologies and constant innovation of materials and their application. The production of technical textiles in Europe significantly increased over the past ten years. With TTIP, the US public services will be able to benefit from the innovative products manufactured in Europe.” Euratex says.

Background: the state of EU-US textile and apparel trade

African Growth and Opportunity Act and Textile & Apparel

(In the video: Gail Strickler, former Assistant US Trade Representative for Textiles, highlights the immense opportunities created by the renewal of AGOA for duty-free access to the massive US market for African textile and apparel producers.)

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a non-reciprocal trade agreement enacted in 2000 that provides duty-free treatment to U.S. imports of certain products from eligible sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. AGOA intends to promote market-led economic growth and development in SSA and deepen U.S. trade and investment ties with the region. (note: non-reciprocal means SSA countries do not need to offer equivalent benefits to imports from the United States.)

Because apparel production plays a dominant role in many SSA countries’ economic development, apparel has become one of the top exports for many SSA countries under AGOA. Like many trade agreements and trade preference programs, AGOA also set unique rules of origin for textile and apparel (T&A):

First, to enjoy the duty-free and quota-free treatment in the US market, eligible T&A products made in qualifying AGOA countries need to be one of the following categories:

Apparel made with US yarns and fabrics;
Apparel made with Sub-Saharan African (SSA) regional yarns and fabrics, subject to a cap;
Apparel made with yarns and fabrics not produced in commercial quantities in the United States;
Certain cashmere and merino wool sweaters; and
Eligible hand-loomed, handmade or folklore articles and ethnic printed fabrics.

Second, under a special rule called “third-country fabric” provision, AGOA countries with lesser-developed countries (LDBC) status can further enjoy duty-free access in the US market for apparel made from yarns and fabric originating anywhere in the world (such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan). This special rule is deemed as critical because most SSA countries still have no capacity in producing capital and technology-intensive textile products. [Note: Although the US imports of apparel made with third-country fabric are subject to a cap, the cap has never been reached].

According to a 2014 comprehensive study conducted by the USITC, the “third-country fabric” provision has three major benefits to the AGOA members:

1) Increase exports of apparel. This can be evidenced by the fact that most US apparel imports under AGOA came from those countries that are eligible for the “third-country fabric” provision, such as Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, and Swaziland. In comparison, because South Africa is not eligible for the “third-country fabric” provision, its apparel exports to the United States had significantly dropped since 2003 and only accounted for 0.6% among AGOA countries in 2013.

2) Encourage foreign investment. From 2003 to 2013, a total 21 T&A FDI projects were made in SSA, among which 18 projects (or 85.7%) were greenfield FDI. The third-country fabric provision is the main driver for these FDI projects. For example, many Chinese and Taiwanese investors had opened apparel factories in Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria and Tanzania as a source of exports to the United States and the EU.

3) Enhance trade diversification. Theoretically, relaxing rules of origin (RoO) such as the third-fabric provision can free up companies’ resources and allow them to expand export product lines. As observed by a few empirical studies, AGOA’s third-country fabric provision helped related countries increase the varieties of apparel exports between 39 and 61 percent.

AGOA receives new authorization in 2015, which will last for 10 years until 2025 (including the 3rd country fabric provision). This ten-year renewal of AGOA is regarded as critical and necessary to encourage more long-term investment in the region. As put by Florizelle Liser, Assistant US Trade Representative for Africa “What we know is that African producers of apparel, like producers of apparel all around the world, need to have the flexibility to source their input from wherever of those can be produced most effectively, cost effectively for the products that they are sewing. So we want through the “third country fabric” provision to give the African producers of apparel that flexibility. We do know in terms of establishing textiles business on the ground producing those inputs right there in Africa and that more of that indeed is going to happen. The reason is that as U.S. buyers of apparel and this is an enormous market for apparel… as U.S. buyers of apparel source more of their apparel from Africa, then investors in textile mills, which are very expensive, will be incentivized and are being incentivized to actually establish those fabric mills right there in Africa, and then be able to save time, in terms of getting those inputs that are needed for the clothing that is being produced. So we see that happening already: it’s happening in Kenya, it’s happening in Ethiopia and around the continent. And that is what we need to have more of as we go forward in this ten-year extension of AGOA.”

AGOA 1

AGOA 2

AGOA 3

TPP and the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: Questions from FASH455

tpp textile The following discussion questions are proposed by students enrolled in FASH455 (Spring 2016). Please feel free to join our online discussion.

#1 Is TPP successful in terms of “creating new market access opportunities” for the U.S. textile and apparel industry? Why or why not?

#2 Should the U.S. textile industry be worried that Vietnam is quickly building its own textile industry because of TPP?

#3 Compared with the case of Vietnam in TPP, why was there little discussion on Mexico and Central American countries developing their local textile industry and becoming less reliant on textile imports from the United States in the context of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR?

#4 If China joins the TPP, do you think they would support a “yarn-forward” rules of origin or a less restrictive one? Why?

#5 Given the grave concerns about the potential impact of TPP on the U.S. textile industry, what is the point of negotiating such a trade deal?

[Discussion is closed for this post]

Reference: TPP Chapter Summary: Textiles and Apparel

The L.A. Apparel Industry Gets Involved in the Debate on Minimum Wage

According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s newly proposed $15/hour minimum wage by 2022 could spur more local apparel manufacturers to exit the state if not leaving the country. For example, the American Apparel, the biggest clothing maker in Los Angeles, has announced it might wipe out about 500 local jobs and outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the United States.

Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the number of employment in the L.A. apparel manufacturing sector (NAICS315) decreased by around 32% from 61.8 thousand in 2005 to 42.0 thousand in 2015. Meanwhile, average hourly wage for sewing operators in California increased by around 25.5% from $8.98/hour to $11.27/hour. As another source, the California Fashion Association says that the hourly wage for LA apparel workers was around $15/hour in 2014 (all occupations).

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, many apparel companies see L.A. increasingly become a difficult place to do business because of the expensive and limited commercial real estate, the rising pressures of raw material cost and the difficulty of finding sufficient skilled workers who can afford to live in the city. Companies expect the situation to get even worse after the minimum-wage hike further raises their operation expenses in the years to come.

Some industry professionals suggest L.A. may “become for apparel what Silicon Valley is for technology: the hub for the design, but not the manufacturing, of products”. Data from the California Fashion Association shows that in May 2012, 3,770 independent fashion designers worked in Los Angeles, earning about $30 an hour in Orange County and $35 an hour in the L.A. County metro area. However, such a prospect is unclear given the advancement of technologies such as the CAD system which makes location less critical for fashion designers. On the other hand, L.A. is facing competitions from other apparel hubs such as the New York City for design businesses and talents.

The Percent of U.S. Apparel Imports Entering under Free Trade Agreements Fell to a Record Low Level in 2015

FTA use 2015 1

Latest statistics from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) show that the share of U.S. apparel imports entering under free trade agreements (FTAs) fell to a record low level of only 15.4 percent in 2015. This figure was not only lower than 16.2 percent in 2014, but also was THE lowest one since 2006, despite the implementation of a few new FTAs during that period.

FTA use 2015 2

Among the major FTAs reached by the United States, the U.S.-Bahrain has the highest utilization rate of 99.7 percent in 2015 (note: utilization rate =value of imports entering under FTA from a particular country/value of imports from a particular country), whereas a couple of FTAs whose utilization rate is below 80 percent, such as CAFTA-DR (75.8 percent), U.S.-Korea FTA (75.2 percent), U.S.-Israel FTA (65.5 percent), U.S.-Australia FTA (53.7 percent) and U.S.-Morocco FTA (34.6 percent). A low utilization rate implies that U.S. companies did not claim the preferential duty benefits while importing apparel from these FTA regions.

FTA use 2015 3

On the other hand, CAFTA-DR and NAFTA altogether account for around 76 percent of U.S. apparel imports entering under FTAs in 2015. This result is consistent with the findings in the 2015 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study which also finds that CAFTA-DR and NAFTA were the two most frequently utilized FTAs reported by the survey respondents.

As a result of the lower share of apparel imports entering under FTAs, the American Apparel and Footwear Association Apparelstat 2015 released this week found that the effective average U.S. apparel import duty reached 13.54 percent in 2014, which is even higher than 11.97 percent in 2001. In comparison, over the same period, the average U.S. import duty on ALL products dropped from 1.64 percent in 2001 to 1.40 percent in 2014.

by Sheng Lu

Extra-EU Trade for Textile & Apparel Went Up in 2015

EU export (2015)

EU import (2015)

According to statistics released by the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (Euratex), extra-EU trade for textile and apparel (T&A) achieved record high in 2015, suggesting a positive economic state of the industry.

Specifically, extra-EU T&A exports went up by 3.6 percent in 2015. Among the key export markets: thanks to the appreciation of U.S. dollar against Euro last year, EU’s textile and apparel exports to the United States respectively increased by 16 percent and 21 percent. Despite China’s slowed economic growth, EU’s export to China was also robust: 6 percent growth for textile and 19 percent growth for apparel. However, EU’s T&A exports to Russia (down 27 percent for textile and down 29 percent for apparel) and Ukraine (down 26 percent for apparel) sharped dropped, reflecting the substantial impact of political instability on trade.

In terms of the import side, extra-EU T&A imports rose 9.6% in 2015. China remained the top external T&A supplier to the EU, however, other Asian countries with lower-production cost are quickly catching up. This is particularly the case for apparel: while EU’s apparel imports from China went up 6 percent in 2015, imports from Bangladesh (up 24 percent), Cambodia (up 33 percent), Vietnam (up 26 percent), Pakistan (up 25 percent) and Myanmar (up 79 percent) grew much faster, suggesting a relative decline of China’s market share in the EU market.

Outsoucing and “Made in USA” An Ongoing Debate

The following questions are proposed by students enrolled in FASH455 Spring 2016. Please feel free to leave your comment and engage in our online discussion.

L.L Bean: A Business Model for “Made in USA”?

L.L. Bean has been a strong business for hundreds of years, yet recently their sales of Bean Boots have skyrocketed because they are now seen as trendy. Even though L.L. Bean’s orders and demand has gone up, they still somehow manage to have their products being handmade, sourced locally, and all in the US.

#1: Can L.L. Bean become a model for other businesses looking to manufacture in the US? How has L.L. Bean managed to keep this business model up for so many years and why have they not changed or decided to outsource?

#2: Why doesn’t L.L Bean look into other American cities for manufacturing options so they do not lose productivity by being exclusively made in Maine?

#3: Do you think it would be beneficial for L.L. Bean to outsource to foreign companies for their manufacturing? Would there still be as high of a demand if these boots were manufactured abroad?

Outsourcing v.s. “Made in USA”

#4: It is said that one reason why American brands choose to offshore their manufacturing is because there isn’t as many cutting edge machines readily available in the States as in other countries. Is it realistic for the American manufacturing market to invest in these machines for domestic manufacturing? If so, how can America make sure to stay relevant with these technologies and not fall behind as we have currently?

#5: One aspect commonly mentioned throughout these readings was the lack of skilled labor in the US in the fashion industry. Is the decrease in skilled areas, such as shoemaking and needle trade, due to the increase in skilled labor overseas? Are these professions considered outdated for young Americans to be learning? How can we jumpstart a desire for young people to take up these skills once again?

#6: One major problem the US has been facing regarding keeping production domestic has been the lack of skilled workers to work in factories. Is the cost of providing training to interested workers too high? Should it be required that all fashion majors should take a sewing class? Where does the decision to train apparel workers begin?

#7: Many American manufacturers refrain from manufacturing in the United States because it is too expensive because more people are formally educated and are not willing to work for a low wage, but only 15% of respondents actually are working towards that. Is it realistic to reach out to homeless communities looking to get back onto their feet to see if they would work in factories? Would this help promote American manufacturing and decrease importing?

#8: In today’s fast paced fashion world, trends come and go rather quickly. The striking disadvantage of manufacturing overseas is the slow turnaround time which could be up to 3-5 months. By manufacturing domestically, turnaround can be as quick as 2 weeks. Why do the majority of fashion companies still choose to manufacture overseas when there is a possibility the trend could be over by time they reach store shelves (Thus, a lack in profit)? When will trend pressures become too much for overseas production?

#9: Is it even worth it to bring manufacturing back to America if it is not benefitting the workers and creating jobs? If manufacturing in the US is simply machine based, what is the point of doing so when it could be cheaper elsewhere and benefit countries that need the jobs?

[Discussion is closed for this post].

Made in USA: A New Reality?

Video 1: Panel discussion on “Made in USA”

Recording of a seminar on “Made in USA” hosted by the Texworld USA in January 2015. Panelists include:

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

Video 2: Standing Still-The real story of the North Carolina textile industry

It may also be interesting to link this video with the article How a U.S. textile maker came to embrace free trade from page 3 to 9 in the reading packet.

Video 3: Panel discussion on apparel “Made in NYC”

The video is a recorded panel discussion hosted by the Texworld USA in July 2015 on the topic of apparel “Made in NYC”. Most panelists have years of experiences working in NYC as a fashion designer, including:

Eric Johnson, Director, Fashion & Arts Teams Center for Economic Transformation, NYC Economic Development Corporation
Erin Kent, Manager of Programs at The Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA)
Michelle Feinberg, NY Embroidery Studio
(The event was moderated by Arthur Friedman, Senior Editor, Textiles and Trade, WWD)

What’s your view on the future of textile and apparel “Made in USA”?

[Discussion is closed for this post]

Textile and Apparel Sector in the 2016 U.S. Trade Policy Agenda

In the recently released 2016 President’s Trade Agenda, the textile and apparel (T&A) sector was mentioned four times (up from only once in 2015*):

1.Trade enforcement

“THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has a record of trade enforcement victories that have helped to level the playing field for American workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers. In 2016, we will continue to aggressively pursue a robust trade enforcement agenda, including by using new and stronger tools under the bipartisan Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 to hold our trading partners accountable.

Ongoing disputes include challenges to:

China’s far-reaching export subsidy program extending across sectors and dozens of sub-sectors, including textiles, industrial and agricultural products.”

2.Trade preference programs

“Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act (HOPE) program, which supports nearly $900 million in garment imports from Haiti, is an essential support for Haiti’s long-term economic growth and industrial development. HOPE supports thousands of jobs in Haiti’s textile and garment sectors, while providing important protections to workers. Early extension of this program will provide the necessary stability and continuity for companies to continue investing in Haiti’s future.”

3.Benefits of trade to the American people

“More recent trends are similar, with families steadily gaining purchasing power as the price of traded goods, such as smart phones, apparel, and toys, falls. While all households benefit, the gains from trade have predominantly benefited lower-income Americans, who spend a greater portion of their incomes on highly-traded staples like food, shoes, and clothing.”

4.Trade and labor

Our engagement has produced an Implementation Plan Related to Working and Living Conditions of Workers that is helping to address concerns about workers’ rights and working conditions in Jordan’s garment sector, particularly with respect to foreign workers. Jordan has issued new standards for dormitory inspections, submitted new labor legislation to its parliament and hired new labor inspectors. USTR and Department of Labor continue to work with Jordan on the issues under the Plan.

Overall, it seems:1) Reflecting the global nature of the sector, T&A is a topic that involves multiple trading parties for the United States; 2) Economic development and foreign aid are important elements in the U.S. trade policy for T&A. 3) Social responsibility and labor practices in the T&A sector remain a grave concern and need further improvement through international collaborations. 4) The T&A sector is involved in some topics with divisive public opinions, such as the impact of imports.

* Textile and apparel mentioned in the 2015 U.S. Trade Policy Agenda:

[Discussion is closed for this post]

Sourcing Strategy of Leading U.S. Apparel Companies

The Global Journey of a Marks and Spencer Wool Suit

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

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

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

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

Discussion questions:

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

Clothing Label Reveals the Global Nature of the Textile and Apparel Industry

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

Do you find any example of globalization from your clothing label or closet? Please feel free to leave your comment or send your pictures to shenglu@udel.edu (selected pictures will be shared through the blog).

Minimum Wage in the Apparel Industry Continues to Rise in Most Asian Countries in 2016

Apparel producers across Asia may face a more than 5% minimum wage increase in 2016, according to an industry source. India, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan may see the biggest increase of minimum wage (up more than 15%) among the leading Asian apparel producers, whereas minimum wage in Bangladesh and Philippine may remain roughly unchanged from last year.

As noted by the industry source, this year’s minimum wage increase comes from various reasons. In Cambodia, the increase is mostly pushed by local labor unions. Indonesian government raises the wage aiming to shorten the gap between minimum and living wage in under-developed regions. Additionally, countries such as India adjust their minimum wages more based on economic factors such as inflation rate, GDP growth rate and consumers’ price index.

Data further shows that the gap in minimum wage between Asian apparel producers somehow is widening. For example, monthly minimum wage in some parts of China has reached $321 USD in 2016, which is $253 USD higher than in Bangladesh ($68 USD/month), up from $225 USD in 2015. A wide gap in minimum wage is also found within some Asian countries. For example, in Philippine, Indonesia and China, the highest minimum wage could be almost twice as high as the lowest minimum wage in the country.

Despite the increase, minimum wage in Asia remains a fraction of the level in the developed countries. For example, minimum wage in the United States was $7.5/hour in 2015, meaning a worker’s monthly minimum wage shall no less than $1,200 (assume working 40 hours/week, 4 weeks/month).

State of China’s Textile and Apparel (T&A) Industry (Updated in January 2016)

Textile-factory-in-China-007

How to deal with China as a sourcing destination remains a tough and controversial issue facing U.S. apparel retailers and fashion brands in 2016. Although companies are of grave concerns about China’s continuous rising production cost (especially labor cost), few other lower-wage countries can beat China in terms of industry integration, supply chain efficiency, and reliability.This blog post intends to add to the discussion by taking a look at the supply side, i.e. what is happening in the China textile and apparel (T&A) industry.

First, China’s production capacity remains unparalleled in the world. In 2014, the latest statistics available, textile fiber production in China exceeded 50 million tons, accounting for 54.36 percent of world share. By 2013, as much as 64.2 percent of the world’s chemical fibers, 64.1 percent of synthetic fibers and 26.2 percent of cotton were produced in China (see the table blew). On the other hand, apparel production in China reached 29.9 billion units in 2014, up 10.4 percent from 2013. Given China’s vast production capacity, very likely it will remain the top apparel sourcing destination for most EU and US fashion apparel companies for many years to come. For example, Vietnam’s apparel production in 2015 totaled 2.85 billion units, which was only around 10 percentage of China’s production scale in 2014.

Second, China’s T&A industry is growing slower. Specifically, output of China’s T&A industry (measured by value added) grew only 7.0 percent between 2013-2014, a significant drop from 10.3 percent between 2009-2010. Other major economic indicators in the industry, from sales revenue, net profit to investment, followed a similar pattern (see the figure below). Additionally, for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, China’s T&A exports suffered a 3.9 percent decline in 2015 (-1.3% for textiles and -5.4% for apparel). Given the downward pressure on China’s economy and uncertainties in the world marketplace, such a slow-growth pattern is likely to continue in the years ahead.

investment

Third, China’s T&A industry is undergoing important structural adjustment. Within the total industry output, the ratio of apparel, home textiles and industrial textiles has turned from 51:29:20 in 2010 to 46.8: 28.6: 24.6 in 2014, reflecting China’s efforts to move towards making more value-added and technology-intensive textile products. This ratio is expected to become 40:27:33 by the end of 2020 (i.e. the end of China’s 13th five-year plan). In order to overcome the pressure of rising labor and production cost, China’s T&A manufacturing base is gradually moving from the east coast to the western and central part of the country (accounting for 22.5 percent of China’s T&A production in 2014, up from 16.8 percent in 2010; this share may further increase to 28 percent by 2020). Additionally, T&A companies in China are encouraged to increase spending on research and development (R&D), which on average had accounted for 0.47 percent of T&A companies’ sales revenue in 2013, up from 0.43 percent in 2011.

Fourth, T&A companies in China are actively seeking business opportunities in the domestic retail market. Apparel retail sales in China reached 893.6 billion yuan in 2014 (around $137.5 billion), among which 30.77 percent were sold online (up from 14.54 percent in 2011). Apparel retail price on average rose 2.6 percent between 2013-2014, compared with 2.0 percent increase of China’s overall CPI over that period. However, it shall be noted that apparel retail sales in China’s tier 1 and tier 2 cities achieved almost zero growth in 2014, partially reflecting the negative impact of retail price increase on consumers’ demand. In comparison, apparel retail sales in China’s tier 3 & 4 cities as well as rural areas remain robust and strong. Additionally, financial performance of T&A companies in China is becoming more polarized. Companies that follow the traditional business model of manufacturing and exporting are facing their most difficult time since the 2008 financial crisis. However, there are also many success stories of apparel companies that focus on function upgrading, i.e. moving from simply “manufacturing” products to “serving” the market needs.

Sheng Lu

Textile and Apparel (T&A)-Specific Rules of Origin in TPP—Apparel Products

Textile and apparel (T&A)-specific rules of origin (RoO) for most apparel articles under TPP are known as the nickname “yarn forward”. “Yarn-forward “means preferential treatment under TPP will be allowed if the component determining classification meet BOTH the following two criteria:

knit or woven in TPP countries FROM yarn spun or extruded in TPP countries;
apparel is cut or knit to shape or both + sewn or otherwise assembled in TPP countries

In other words, “yarn forward” RoO not only requires the activity of apparel manufacturing must happen in one or more TPP countries, but also requires certain textile material used to make the apparel products must come from the TPP region.

The following is an example of how TPP describes “yarn-forward” rules of origin:

“A good is an originating good if it is produced entirely in one or more TPP countries by one or more producers using non-originating materials and each of the non-originating materials used in the production of the good satisfies any production process requirement, any applicable change in tariff classification requirement or any other requirement specified.”

The followings are details of T&A-specific RoO for apparel products in TPP compiled based on released TPP text. “Regular yarn-forward” means all textile material listed in the table must be TPP originating. Overall, TPP allows much fewer exceptions to “yarn-forward” rules than most existing free trade agreements in the United States (such as NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and Columbia Free Trade Agreement).

The Future of “Made in China”: Robots are taking over China’s Factory Floors

The video echoes one recent Wall Street Journal article about Levi Strauss using automation technologies to revamp their apparel production in China:

“In an apparel factory in Zhongshan, a gritty city of three million stuffed with industrial parks across the Pearl River from Hong Kong, lasers are replacing dozens of workers who scrub Levi’s blue jeans with sandpaper to give them the worn look that American consumers find stylish. Automated sewing machines have cut the number of seamstresses needed to stitch arc designs into back pockets. Digital printers make intricate patterns on jeans that workers used to do with a mesh screen.”

One important factor that gives a push to adopting robots in China’s factory floor is the end of very cheap labor in China. China’s wage level has been rising in double-digit percentages for the past decades. And as a consequence of its “one-child policy”, by 2050, the working-age population in China could decline by 212 million according to estimation from the United Nations.

But Levi executives say they have largely abandoned a strategy of relocating production to one impoverished country after another, known as “chasing the needle,” in favor of other forms of cost-cutting.” “Labor is getting more expensive and technology is getting cheaper,” says Andrew Lo, chief executive of Crystal Group, one of Levi’s major suppliers in China.

“Levi is adapting its laser technology so it can etch different patterns to make one type of denim look like another, reducing costs by buying less fabric. For a new line of women’s wear, Levi said it needed only 12 fabrics, rather than 18. In the past three years, Levi said, it cut the number of its suppliers by 40% and the number of fabrics by 50%.”

“The changes also give Levi greater flexibility, said Ms. O’Neill, the 44-year-old executive who helps oversee the company’s supply chain. If a pair of jeans using a particular fabric is selling well, she says, Levi can use lasers to produce more of the desired look, and pare back designs that are losers. “The idea is to delay decision-making for as long as possible,” said Ms. O’Neill.”

And this is only the beginning! Some technologists think that inventions such as 3-D printing—essentially printers that replicate solid objects like copiers reproduce printed pages—will have a big impact by 2050. In such a world, printers could spew out clothing, food, electronics and other goods ordered online from a nearly limitless selection, with far fewer workers involved in production.

“In 2050, you could potentially have a 3-D printer at home that could produce all the fabrics you want,” said Roger Lee, the chief executive of Hong Kong’s TAL Group, which makes 1 of every 6 dress shirts sold in the U.S. for brands from Banana Republic to Brooks Brothers. “That would make us obsolete.”

Ironically but not surprisingly, automation also keeps wages down. Levi said it expects China production to rise only “modestly” next year; new orders are up for grabs. Apparel InternationaI’s president, Oscar Gonzalez, says the company now boasts an advantage over China—a large pool of apparel workers who were laid off in past downsizings. Excess labor has helped him keep wage increases to 2% or 3% a year he says. “Every Monday when we recruit,” he adds, “there are long lines of applicants.”

Welcome for any comments and discussion questions.

US Tariff Phaseout Schedule for Textile and Apparel in TPP by OTEXA Code

[This post is updated on July 1, 2016]

Please also read:TPP tariff phase-out can steer Vietnam sourcing plans

The United States includes as many as 38 different types of phaseout schedule in TPP and 8 of them apply to the textile and apparel (T&A) sector.

In general, T&A products with lower base tariff rate seem to be given more generous phaseout treatment than T&A that are subject to higher base tariff rate. For example, although T&A products under category EIF can immediately enjoy duty-free treatment once TPP takes into force, their base tariff rate is also the lowest (7.9% on average). In comparison, whereas T&A products under category US6, US7, US8 and US9 are subject to the highest base tariff rate, they are given the least generous tariff cut (i.e. 35%) once TPP takes into effect. This will makes average tariff rate applied to these products remain the highest almost throughout the whole phaseout period. It should be noted that even though US11 apparently seems to be the most restrictive phaseout category (i.e. 50% cut on day 1 and the resulting rate will remain unchanged until the end of year 12), its average tariff rate actually will be lower than phaseout category US6, US7, US8 and US9.

In the following table, the U.S. phaseout schedule for T&A in the released TPP text based on the 8-digit Harmonized System (HS) code is matched with the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) product category. Results show that products equivalent to around 37.5% of the value of U.S. textile and apparel imports from Vietnam in 2015 will enjoy immediate duty-free treatment once TPP takes into force (i.e. EIF), approximately 4% will be subject to medium-level protection (i.e. EIF+B5) and 58.6% are under high (i.e. EIF+ any of the followings: US6, US7, US8, US9, US10, US11) or very high level of protection (i.e. any of the followings: US6, US7, US8, US9, US10, US11).

Note: “Level of protection” in the above table is defined as the following: 1) Low level of protection: EIF only; 2) Medium level of protection: EIF+B5; 3) High level of protection: EIF+any of the followings: US6, US7, US8, US9, US10, US11; 4) Very high level of protection: any of the followings: US6, US7, US8, US9, US10, US11 only.

Sheng Lu

Potential Impact of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) on Related Textile and Apparel Trade Flows

The presentation was delivered at the 2015 International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico on November 13, 2015. Welcome for any suggestions and feedback.

Tariff Remains a Critical Trade Barrier Worldwide for the Textile and Apparel Sector

According to data from the World Trade Organization:

In 2013, average applied tariff rate remained at 10.73% for textiles and 18.25% for apparel worldwide. Compared with the average tariff rate for all sectors, the rate for textiles on average is 1.4 percentage points higher and the rate for apparel is 8.9 percentage points higher. This implies that although tariff may not be a critical trade barrier for some sectors anymore, it still significantly matters for the textile and apparel sector.
Least developed countries (LDC) overall set a higher tariff rate for textiles and apparel than the world average level. Ironically, many LDCs heavily rely on imports for textile supply. Should these LDCs lower their tariff rate for textiles, it may help apparel manufacturers there save sourcing cost for yarns and fabrics and improve the price competitiveness of finished apparel products.
At the country level, countries with the highest tariff rate for textiles include Ethiopia (27.8%), Sudan (27.4%), Argentina (23.3%, Brazil (23.3%), Gabon (19.8%), Cameroon (19.6%), Chad (19.6%) and Congo (19.6%). And countries with the highest tariff rate for apparel include Zimbabwe (72.26%), South Africa (41.02%), Namibia (41.02%), Swaziland (41.02%), Botswana (41.02%), Lesotho (41.02%), Bolivia (40.0%), Sudan (40.0%), Argentina (35.0%), Ethiopia (35.0%) and Brazil (35.0%). Interesting enough, many of these countries are members of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) which are eligible for the third country fabric provision.

Sheng Lu

The Future of Asia-Pacific and Implications for the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry

The following discussion questions are proposed by students enrolled in FASH455 (Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing) Fall 2015 after learning the unit on textile and apparel industry & market in the Asia-Pacific region. Please feel free to leave your comment and engage in our online discussion.

We’ve heard so much about China’s superior involvement in the textile & apparel sectors globally, but how are these industries contributing to the local economy?
As rules on working conditions and minimum wage have been enforced in Mainland China many business people have moved their operations to Southeast Asia, do you think the Southeast Asia will eventually become like mainland China forcing businessmen to seek low wages elsewhere?
Will Vietnam shift its sourcing of yarns and fabrics from China to US after TPP? What are some setbacks associated with this? What are some potential opportunities?
While Vietnam is currently one of the primary exporters of apparel to the United States, what should be the actions taken by the United States if they continue to “refuse” to cut out Chinese Textiles? Or, should the United States continue their trading patterns with Vietnam despite their reliance on Chinese Textiles?
The Asia pacific region is made up of a variety of countries with different strengths and political infrastructure. How does the variety of policies and governments affect how we do business abroad, and is there a way to set standards that are not individualized to each country?
China and the US can be seen as a threat to one another. However the president of China said the “Pacific Ocean has enough space for the two large countries”. Do you think they are threats to each other, or are they ultimately helping each other’s economies grow?
What will happen as more and more countries that used to produce apparel move into producing more capital intensive production?
What are the advantages or disadvantages of excluding China from international trade agreements such as TPP?
If the T&A industry in China is envisioned by policymakers as beginning to focus more on technical textiles, how will the textile industry in China compete with the industry in the United States?
Why has East Asia become one of the most economically interconnected regions in the world?
What are some of the reasons that China still remains one of most price competitive export markets in the World? Also, does China face challenges in losing their top spot as leader in price competitiveness? If so, what are some of the reasons they are in danger of competition?
How is the discussion about yarn forward rules of origin different in regards to TPP countries than the same discussion between the NAFTA/CAFTA-DR countries?

[Discussion for this post is closed].

FIBERcast8: Two Years After the Rana Plaza, What Has Changed?

Panelists:

Zara Hayes, Director of Clothes to Die For
Sarah Hamilton, Producer of Clothes to Die For
Mara Burr, Senior vice president from the Albright Stonebridge Group
Avedis Seferian, President and CEO of Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production(WRAP)
Marsha A. Dickson, Professor of Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, Irma Ayers Professor of Human Services, Co-Director of Sustainable Apparel Initiative, University of Delaware

Panel discussion questions:

What does the Rana Plaza tragedy bring out those aspects of the garment industry that many people don’t know?
What was it like going to Bangladesh and talking to survivors of the Rana Plaza? What are the behind the scene stories of filming the documentary Clothes To Die For?
What changes are happening in the Bangladesh garment industry after the Rana Plaza? Particularly, what people in Bangladesh are doing to prevent tragedies like the Rana Plaza from happening again?
The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety (the Alliance) is a major effort from the U.S. business community in response to the Rana Plaza tragedy. What the Alliance has being doing, what major accomplishments have been achieved and what is the future work plan of the organization?
Has corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the Bangladesh garment industry critically improved after the Rana Plaza? Compared with other leading apparel manufacturers in the world such as China, Vietnam, India, Cambodia and Indonesia, is Bangladesh still significantly lagging behind in terms of corporate social responsibility practices?
How does the academia look at the Rana Plaza? Does the tragedy lead to some new research questions? What is the “academic” recipe for improving the CSR practices in the Bangladesh garment industry?
Will enhanced factory inspection increase production cost and make apparel “Made in Bangladesh” lose price competitiveness?
To prevent tragedies like the Rana Plaza from happening again, what each individual consumer can do or should do?
Sub-contracting is regarded as an indispensable part of today’s global apparel supply chain. But factories undertaking sub-contracting work operate in a “black box”—many of them are off the chart for inspection and audit. Any progress or new thinking on how to solve the sub-contracting issue in the garment industry?

USTR Michael Froman Comments on the Textile and Apparel Chapter under TPP

In an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations on October 15, 2015, U.S. Trade Reprehensive Michael Froman left a comment on the textile and apparel chapter (T&A) under TPP. He said that:”

“You know, we worked very hard to find solutions that could address the broad range of stakeholder interests here, even when we had conflicting interests here in the U.S. I’ll take textile as an example. You know, we have a domestic textiles industry that’s been investing in more production in the U.S., growing their employment in the U.S. And obviously we have a strong sector of our economy that brings in apparel from other countries, apparel importers and retailers. We worked very closely with both groups of stakeholders to come up with a solution, to come up with an outcome that we think both will be comfortable with and both will be supportive of. And that’s been very important to us to try and address the broad range of U.S. stakeholder interests, whether it’s labor, environment, importers, exporters, to make sure we’re covering everybody’s interests well.”

In the remarks, Forman also ruled out the possibility that TPP would be renegotiated. He said that:

“So this isn’t one of those agreements where, you know, you can, you know, reopen an issue or renegotiate a provision. This is one where, you know, every issue is tied to every other issue and every country’s outcome is balanced against every other country’s outcome. And so that’s the agreement that we’ll be putting forward under TPA for a vote by Congress.”

According to Inside U.S. Trade (October 9, 2015), the final TPP reflects some of the key priorities of the U.S. textile industry by allowing limited exceptions from the prevailing yarn-forward rules of origin and by including tariff phaseouts for “sensitive apparel items” of 10 to 12 years.

Besides the basket of goods that will become duty-free upon entry into force (which include cotton shirts and cotton sweaters), TPP sets up three other categories for tariff reductions on apparel:

Major exceptions other than the “short supply list” mechanism under TPP include:

An “earned import allowance“ program for cotton pants made in Vietnam from third-country fabric by importing a specified amount of U.S. cotton pants fabric. This would allow cotton pants from Vietnam would enter the U.S. duty-free as soon as the agreement is implemented. It is said the ratio for the program is “close” to 1:1. However, for men’s cotton pants, there could be a 15 million square meter equivalents (SMEs) annual cap until year 10, after which it will increase to 20 million. There is no quantitative limit for the other types of cotton pants that can be shipped under the program, such as women’s, girls’ and boys’ pants.
A limited list of cut-and-sew items that Vietnam and other TPP countries can ship to the U.S. under the preferential TPP duty rate. These include synthetic baby clothes, travel goods including handbags, and bras.

JCPenney’s Global Sourcing Practices

In the class, we discussed how global U.S.-based apparel companies have become. The typical business model in the U.S. apparel industry today is “producing anywhere in the world and selling anywhere in the world”. Here is one more example: JCPenney.

JCPenney has been importing products from across the world since 1959. The company’s sourcing organization has eight offices globally aside from its office in Dallas. The offices are in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Korea, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Pakistan, India, and Taiwan.

In terms of its future growth opportunities, JCPenney identifies the following three:

Omnichannel: Implementing the necessary tools, processes and technologies that enable us to serve the customer no matter how they’re shopping with us. By creating a seamless shopping experience in stores and online, customers are likely to shop and spend more at JCPenney.
Center Core: Strengthening and revitalizing the highest traffic area in the store to become a leading destination for women’s shoes, handbags, fashion jewelry, intimate apparel and accessories, which are anchored by two very strong businesses: Sephora inside JCPenney and the Fine Jewelry store.
Home: Restoring our Home store to its previous sales productivity with a compelling assortment of value-driven products backed by a promotional strategy that builds customer loyalty and increases traffic.

(Source: JCPenney’s 2014 Annual Report)

What role do you see global sourcing could play in helping JCPenney achieve these strategic development goals? How do you understand the statement that sourcing is part of a company’s overall business strategy? Do you think JCPenney will likely to source more “Made in USA” products in the future? Please feel free to share your views.

Potential Impact of TPP on the Textile and Apparel Sector: A Summary of Recent Studies

(Picture credit: Lu, S. (2015) Does Japan’s accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership mean an opportunity or a threat to the U.S. textile industry? A quantitative evaluation, Journal of the Textile Institute, 106(5), 536-549.)

With the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiation on Oct 5, 2015, it is time to think about its potential impact. Specifically for the textile and apparel (T&A) industry, the followings studies may offer some hints (to read more, you can click each title):

Trade Statistics

Statistics show the 12 TPP partners altogether imported $65 billion worth of textiles and $154 billion worth of apparel in 2013, which accounted for a world import share of 20 percent and 32 percent, respectively (WTO, 2015). In 2014, around 55 percent of U.S. textile and apparel exports (or $13.3 billion) went to the other 11 TPP partners, and 17 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports (or $17.8 billion) came from the TPP region (OTEXA, 2015).

Impact of TPP on U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing: A Preliminary Estimation

TPP overall will have a negative impact on U.S. domestic textile and apparel manufacturing. In all simulated scenarios, the annual manufacturing output in the United States will decline by $846 million–$3,780 million for textile and $1,154 million–$1,828 million for apparel than otherwise.

2.The “yarn-forward” rule may not substantially benefit U.S. domestic textile and apparel manufacturing as some people had suggested, for two reasons: 1) results show that Vietnam is more likely to use Japanese textiles than U.S. textiles when yarn-forward rule is in place. 2) U.S. apparel imports from Vietnam directly compete with those imported from NAFTA and CAFTA regions, the largest export market for U.S.-made yarns and fabrics. When NAFTA and CAFTA’s market share in the U.S. apparel import market is taken away by Vietnam, U.S. textile exports to NAFTA and CAFTA will decline anyway, regardless of whether Vietnam uses U.S.-made textiles.

3.Results suggest that compared with the “yarn-forward” rule, development of Vietnam’s local textile industry will have an even larger impact on the future of U.S. domestic textile and apparel manufacturing. Particularly, when Vietnam becomes more capable of making textile inputs by its own, not only Vietnam’s overall demand for imported textiles will decline, but also Vietnam’s apparel exports will become even more price-competitive in the U.S. as well as the world marketplace.

“Import Sensitive” Clothing and the TPP X-basket : What might include

Based on examining three recent trade programs, including: U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) monitoring program on T&A imports from China based on the U.S.-China Textile Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (2008—present), Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) monitoring program on U.S. T&A imports from Vietnam (2007-2008) and U.S. textile safeguard measures against China (2003-2005), it seems “import sensitive” T&A in the United States mostly refer to cotton and man-made fiber apparel and fabrics. OTEXA product Code 338, 339, 340, 345, 347, 348, 352, 447, 638, 639, 640, 645, 646, 647, 648 and 652 are most likely to be included in the TPP X-basket.

Because Vietnam’s T&A exports to the United States heavily concentrate on these “import sensitive” T&A categories, the X-basket has the potential to substantially affect the actual trade liberalization that can be enjoyed by the T&A sector under TPP:

By the most conservative estimation, i.e. the X-basket only covers Category A “import sensitive” apparel products, it will affect about 41.6 percent of U.S. apparel imports from Vietnam (or 38.7 percent of total U.S. T&A imports from Vietnam) if trade pattern remains the same as in 2014.
In the worst case, i.e. the X-basket covers all “import sensitive” T&A products identified by this study, it will affect about 70.0 percent of total U.S. T&A imports from Vietnam, if trade patterns remains the same as in 2014.

2015 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study

The survey results show that TPP matters for the U.S. fashion industry, with as many as 79 percent of respondents saying implementation of the agreement will impact their business practices. Specifically:

72 percent expect to source more textiles and apparel from TPP partners, suggesting the imminent impact of TPP for the U.S. fashion industry could be trade creation.
Fewer than 10 percent expect to source less from non-TPP members after the implementation of the agreement, suggesting the trade diversion effect of TPP could be limited.
48 percent expect to strategically adjust or redesign their supply chain based on TPP, implying TPP could be a game changer and has the potential to shape new patterns of textile and apparel trade in the Asia-Pacific region in the long term.
However, as few as 7 percent expect to export more products to TPP partners, while only 10 percent expect to invest more in TPP partners (building factories, operating retail stores and e-commerce operations) after implementation of the agreement. It seems the U.S. fashion industry hasn’t focused much on TPP’s potential to promote exports and achieve greater market access.
Additionally, 45 percent say the TPP Short-Supply List should be expanded, and comments indicate the proposed “yarn-forward” Rule of Origin is a major hurdle to the industry realizing real benefits from the agreement. In fact, as many as 83 percent support or strongly support abandoning the strict “yarn-forward” Rule of Origin and adopting a more flexible one in future FTAs (Figure 21). This suggests that the benefit of TPP for the U.S. fashion industry and the utilization of the agreement will largely depend on the Rule of Origin. In particular, there is a strong call among U.S. fashion companies to make the textile and apparel Rule of Origin less restrictive and more flexible in TPP.

Why does the US Textile Industry Want Yan-forward Rule of Origin (RoO) in TPP?

The US textile industry insists yarn-forward RoO in TPP is not because they expect a substantial increase of textile exports to Vietnam as the case of NAFTA and CAFTA which help capture the export markets in Mexico and Central America. But rather it is because:

1) Without yarn-forward, situation will get even worse. Particularly, a less restrictive RoO will make Vietnam’s apparel exports which contain textiles made in China, Taiwan or South Korea qualified for duty free access to the US market. Definitely this will be a more imminent and bigger threat to the US textile industry than simply facing competition from Vietnam’s apparel which contains Japanese made textiles. And still many US textile companies don’t treat the Japanese textile industry very seriously, although I think they should. Remember, Japan currently is the fourth largest textile supplier to Vietnam and the NO.1 textile supplier to China.

2) With yarn-forward RoO in place, at least US textile companies can invest in Vietnam (remember, globalization is about movement of capital as well. Many apparel companies in Mexico and Central America actually are invested by US companies). Without yarn-forward RoO however, Vietnam can simply rely on imported textiles as the case mentioned in (1) and there will be no incentive for US textile companies to move factories to Vietnam (meaning, capital holders will lose).

So overall yarn-forward RoO may win a few more years for the US textile industry. But in the long run, it is my view that the US textile production and its exports to the Western Hemisphere countries may still inevitably decline (especially those output to be used for apparel assembly purposes) after the implementation of TPP. In the 21st century, the nature of competition is supply chain v.s. supply chain.

Regional Production-Trade Network Remains an Important Feature of Global Textile and Apparel Trade

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

There are three major textile and apparel (T&A) RPTNs in the world today:

Asia: more economically advanced countries/regions such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and China supply textiles to the less economically developed countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka for apparel manufacturing, where the wage level was much lower. On the other hand, Japan is a leading apparel importer and consumption market in Asia.
Europe: among EU members, textile inputs can be supplied by developed countries in Southern and Western Europe such as Italy and Germany. In terms of apparel manufacturing in the European Union, low and medium-priced products can be undertaken by developing countries in Southern and Eastern Europe such as Poland and Romania, whereas high-end luxury products can be produced by Southern and Western European countries such as Italy and France. Furthermore, finished apparel can be shipped to developed EU members such as UK, Germany, France and Italy.
America: within the region, the United States as a developed country supplies textile materials to developing countries in North, Central and South America (such as Mexico and countries in the Caribbean region), which assemble imported textiles into apparel by taking advantage of the local low labor cost. The finished apparel articles are eventually exported to the United States for consumption.

Latest data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that RPTN in the above three regions remain an important feature of today’s global T&A trade as the graphs shown below:

(Note: Data comes from the World Trade Organization)

Particularly, three specific trade flows are worth watching:

One is Asian countries’ growing dependence on textile supply from within the region, which rose to 90.2% in 2014 from 87.7% in 2000. This is a reflection of a growing integrated T&A supply-chain in Asia. As a result, apparel “Made in Asia” is becoming even more price-competitive in the world marketplace today and this has posted pressures on the operation of the T&A RPTNs in EU and America.

Second one is the stable intra-region trade pattern both for textile and apparel in EU. In 2014, 58.8% of EU’s (28 members) textile imports and 46.2% of apparel imports came from other EU members; at the same time, 68.8% of EU’s (28 members) textile exports and 74.7% of apparel exports also went to other EU members.

Additionally, developing countries in North, Central and South America still heavily rely on regional supply of textile inputs; at the same time, their finished apparel are also mostly consumed within the region. Data show that 80.3% of American countries’ textile imports still came from within the region in 2014; at the same time, 88.9% of American countries’ apparel exports were also shipped to the region, mostly the United States and Canada as the final consumption market.

Sheng Lu

	10 Reasons Why Europ… on EU Textile and Apparel Industr…
	Like Entrepreneurs,… on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Clothing prices fall… on Minimum Wage Level for Garment…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Patterns of Global Textile and…
	Apparel Sourcing and… on Hot Button Apparel Trade and S…
	livsupa on Updated Impact of Increasing T…
	Julia Lampone on New Study: Explore U.S. Retail…

Tag: apparel

China’s Position as the No.1 Textile and Apparel Sourcing Destination Remains Unshakable

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Herb Cochran, Executive Director of Amcham Vietnam

International Trade Supports Textile and Apparel “Made in USA”

FASH455 Exclusive Interview with Julia K. Hughes, President of the United States Fashion Industry Association

EU Textile and Apparel Industry Sees Commercial Opportunities in Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)

African Growth and Opportunity Act and Textile & Apparel

TPP and the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: Questions from FASH455

The L.A. Apparel Industry Gets Involved in the Debate on Minimum Wage

The Percent of U.S. Apparel Imports Entering under Free Trade Agreements Fell to a Record Low Level in 2015

Extra-EU Trade for Textile & Apparel Went Up in 2015

Outsoucing and “Made in USA” An Ongoing Debate

Made in USA: A New Reality?

Textile and Apparel Sector in the 2016 U.S. Trade Policy Agenda

Sourcing Strategy of Leading U.S. Apparel Companies

The Global Journey of a Marks and Spencer Wool Suit

Clothing Label Reveals the Global Nature of the Textile and Apparel Industry

Minimum Wage in the Apparel Industry Continues to Rise in Most Asian Countries in 2016

State of China’s Textile and Apparel (T&A) Industry (Updated in January 2016)

Top 10 Most Read FASH455 Blog Posts in 2015

Textile and Apparel (T&A)-Specific Rules of Origin in TPP—Apparel Products

The Future of “Made in China”: Robots are taking over China’s Factory Floors

US Tariff Phaseout Schedule for Textile and Apparel in TPP by OTEXA Code

Potential Impact of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) on Related Textile and Apparel Trade Flows

Tariff Remains a Critical Trade Barrier Worldwide for the Textile and Apparel Sector

The Future of Asia-Pacific and Implications for the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry

USTR Michael Froman Comments on the Textile and Apparel Chapter under TPP

JCPenney’s Global Sourcing Practices

Potential Impact of TPP on the Textile and Apparel Sector: A Summary of Recent Studies

Regional Production-Trade Network Remains an Important Feature of Global Textile and Apparel Trade

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: