Tag: Asia

Apparel Sourcing and Trade Outlook for 2026

Top challenges in 2026

I believe the global fashion apparel industry will continue to face two macro-level challenges in 2026. One is the relatively weak consumer demand for clothing amid sluggish economic growth and persistent inflationary pressures. For example, according to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) October 2025 forecast, global GDP growth in 2026 is expected to decrease from 3.2% in 2025 to 3.1% in 2026. Specifically, U.S. GDP growth will be around 2.1% (down from 2.8% in 2024), and growth in the EU could drop to 1.1% (down from 1.2% in 2025).

Likewise, several consulting firms forecast that clothing retail sales in key apparel import markets, including the United States and Western Europe, could be stagnant or even decline in 2026. Notably, while Gen Z (i.e., those born between 1997 and 2012) has increasingly become a key customer group for many fashion brands and retailers, analysis shows that this generation has turned more cautious about shopping for clothing, especially for new items. The tariff-driven price increases could further discourage these groups from buying new clothing in the new year ahead.

Meanwhile, the trade policy environment facing the global fashion apparel industry could remain highly uncertain in 2026. Notably, in addition to tariffs, several trade agreements could create new uncertainties for fashion companies when sourcing from affected regions. Specifically:

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement will begin its formal six-year review process in 2026. Despite broad industry support for upholding the existing agreement and calls to “do no harm,” we cannot rule out the possibility that the Trump administration might seek significant renegotiation or even replace the USMCA with separate bilateral trade deals.

Likewise, the outlook for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Haiti HELP/HOPE program, both of which expired in September 2025, remained highly uncertain. Because both programs play a critical role in supporting U.S. apparel sourcing from Sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti, whether and under which conditions they are renewed will directly influence fashion companies’ sourcing decisions and the long-term competitiveness and investment prospects of these regions.

Furthermore, even with several “trade deals” reached between the US and major trading partners like the EU, Vietnam, Cambodia, and potentially China and India, their implementation and enforcement will warrant close attention. In particular, the meaning and definition of critical terms like “transshipment” in these “trade deals” remain largely unclear. However, the impact could be significant for apparel sourcing if the Trump administration ultimately decides to revisit or set new rules of origin in these agreements to reduce the “China content” in products imported into the United States. Notably, according to OECD’s newly released “trade in value-added database,” apparel exports from Asian countries, including Vietnam and Cambodia, commonly contain 20-30% of value created in China.

Key apparel sourcing trends to watch in 2026

First, trade and economic impacts of tariffs could become more visible and significant in 2026. In particular, almost all U.S. apparel imports will be subject to the higher tariffs in 2026, leaving fashion companies with fewer options to use existing inventory to mitigate the effects. Consequently, fashion companies will face increased pressure to control their sourcing costs and protect their profit margins.

Second, fashion companies will continue to leverage sourcing diversification to navigate market and trade policy uncertainties. For example, according to the 2025 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), a record-high percentage of surveyed U.S. fashion brands and retailers (i.e., over 80%) reported sourcing from 10 or more countries. Nearly 60% of respondents plan to source from even more countries in 2026. In a recent study I conducted, some leading U.S. and EU fashion companies mentioned in their 2025 Q2 earnings call transcripts that they intentionally seek vendors with production capacity across multiple countries to achieve sourcing diversification and mitigate risks.

Third, in addition to seeking competitive sourcing costs, fashion companies will increasingly look for vendors that can offer speed to market, flexibility, and agility. As one leading fashion company noted, “increasing the speed” does not necessarily mean “nearshoring,” but also refers to vendors that can deliver products quickly and at scale. Meanwhile, fashion companies increasingly expect suppliers to accommodate last-minute order changes, accept low minimum order quantities (MOQs), arrange raw material sourcing, and offer other value-added services. This shows why, based on trade data, Asian suppliers overall are more competitive and have captured more market share in the U.S. and EU markets in 2025 than “near-shoring” suppliers.

Additionally, China and Asia’s role in apparel sourcing could continue to evolve in 2026. I recently attended an industry event featuring textile and apparel manufacturers in Southeast Asian countries (ASEAN) and China. A few observations from the event stood out to me.

  1.  While the tariff was a top concern for most U.S. fashion companies, the conference mainly focused on facilitating investment and creating a more integrated, resilient, and sustainable textile and apparel supply chain in Asia. In other words, Asia-based textile and apparel suppliers did not seem panicked by the tariffs, nor do they believe the tariffs fundamentally challenge their long-term growth trajectory or hurt their export competitiveness.
  2. The Asia-based textile and apparel industry is becoming ever more global, mature, and advanced. Consistent with recent trade data, Asia-based fashion brands today commonly conduct global sourcing. They are investing heavily in new sustainable textile materials and digital technologies. They remain the largest buyer of the most sophisticated textile machinery in the world. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Asian suppliers as a whole will continue to dominate textile and apparel production and export into 2026 with no near competitors. 
  3. China’s leadership and influence within the Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain are increasingly visible. At the conference, ASEAN-based textile and apparel associations see China as a vital partner and source of investment. Through China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), collaboration is extending from trade and investment to education and skills training. Overall, industry sentiment toward China in ASEAN differs significantly from the “decoupling” and “reducing China exposure” narratives that are gaining traction in the United States.
  4. An interesting question that I took away from the conference was whether China truly worries about losing market share in the U.S. and other markets for final apparel products. Perhaps not. Chinese industry leaders appear confident because they know that many Asian garment-producing countries remain heavily dependent on Chinese textile inputs, and many garment factories are funded or owned by Chinese investors. Given these dynamics, it will be interesting to observe how China’s confidence and its broader leadership role in Asia’s regional textile and apparel supply chain will continue to grow in 2026.

Opportunities in 2026

In 2026, we may see a significant increase in AI use in apparel sourcing. For example, fashion companies could use new AI tools to help optimize inventory levels and logistics, identify and evaluate new suppliers, and improve operational efficiency. AI may also play a more crucial role in supporting efforts around supply chain mapping, traceability, and sustainability data collection. Overall, we could see a more digitalized and data-driven sourcing process in the new year ahead.

On the other hand, in 2026, fashion companies could benefit from investing in and exploring new business models that support designing, making, sourcing, and selling sustainable apparel products. For example, a recent study of mine found that, by stock keeping units (SKUs) count, the number of clothing items made with recycled textile fibers increased by about 24% from 2024 to 2025 (August to October) in the U.S. retail market. Similarly, clothing items made with “regenerative” textile fibers surged by nearly 90% over the same period. These figures represent consumers’ increasing demand and fashion companies’ growing business interest in offering these products. New sustainability legislation, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) at the state, regional, or international levels, will also create new incentives and pressure for fashion companies to revisit many of their current business practices. That said, balancing the sustainability benefits with other key sourcing metrics, such as costs, quality, and traceability, for these sustainable apparel products, will require ongoing efforts and improvements by fashion companies and their supply chain partners in 2026.

by Sheng Lu

Interview with Modaes (Spain) about the Shifting Global Apparel Trade and Sourcing Patterns (November 2025)

Full interview in English HERE ; Spanish version HERE

Below is the interview summary

Q1. Since the pandemic, has the global fashion supply chain changed?

Key point: The pandemic taught fashion companies the importance of flexibility and agility in sourcing. Heavy reliance on China caused major disruptions during lockdowns, prompting companies to diversify their sourcing base and develop stronger supplier relationships to reduce various sourcing risks.

Q2. Is supply security now more important than price in sourcing decisions?

Key point: Security and sourcing are becoming more closely linked. Leading fashion companies understand that sourcing now requires balancing cost with other important factors such as flexibility, regulatory compliance, and risk management. New regulations related to sustainability demand increasingly detailed supply-chain documentation and transparency. Meanwhile, geopolitical tension between the U.S. and China further adds complexity to fashion companies’ sourcing decisions.

Q3. Are companies continuing to reduce the number of suppliers, and why?

Key point: Recent studies show that many fashion companies are diversifying sourcing beyond China, importing more from emerging supplying countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Egypt, and more. However, there are two divergent strategies: some brands expand their supplier base to spread risk and enhance capabilities in sustainable fibers, while others consolidate suppliers to strengthen partnerships with large vendors operating across multiple countries, many of which are still based in China.

Q4. Can the value chain function without China?

Key point: Not realistically. While China’s share of finished garment exports is declining, it still dominates in textiles raw materials. Even when apparel is made in other countries (like Vietnam and Cambodia), much of its fabric, investment, or ownership is Chinese. The newly released OECD data also show that about 30% of Southeast Asian apparel exports include Chinese content.

Q5. Which countries could take advantage of China’s declining role?

Key point: China’s dominance comes not only from its low costs but also from its capacity to produce almost any product category at large scale. To replicate this, companies need to use multiple sourcing locations — a “many-country model” instead of relying on just one. Therefore, diversification, rather than substitution, is the most practical approach. Firms seek to avoid over-dependence on any single country, especially given the volatility of tariffs and supply-chain disruptions.

Q6. Does “friendshoring” apply to fashion?

Key point: Politically appealing but impractical for apparel sourcing. The idea of friendshoring — trading only with “like-minded” nations — doesn’t fit with fashion’s global manufacturing system. Europe and the U.S. share values, but Europe lacks large-scale apparel production. Over 70% of U.S. apparel imports still come from Asia, where most countries are not formal U.S. allies. Therefore, political alignment cannot guide sourcing strategy in fashion; cost, capacity, and speed are more important.

Q7. Will geopolitics and the trade war reshape fashion sourcing in Europe or the U.S.?

Key point: Nearshoring remains a popular concept. European companies explore Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean; U.S. firms consider the Western Hemisphere and limited domestic production. Sustainability has emerged as the new opportunity for near-shoring. Fashion companies now aim to use more sustainable fibers in their clothing products. EU sustainability rules could also attract new investment to expand production in the EU. However, in general, small-sized firms need more resources and support to meet these high environmental standards, both to comply with the law and sustain their businesses.

Q8. Is de-globalizing production possible?

Key point: True de-globalization is unlikely. Instead, globalization is shifting toward greater transparency and accountability. Companies now need to track and report where products are made and how workers are treated, including the sourcing of raw materials. This encourages brands to work closely with their suppliers and promote stronger and strategic collaboration.

Q9. Are there enough incentives for production automation in fashion?

Key point: Yes — Automation provides a way to increase efficiency in high-wage countries like the U.S. With labor costs high and factories shrinking, machines and AI are being adopted to boost productivity and customization. Automation can also help cut down on overproduction — one of fashion’s major waste issues — by supporting made-to-order or small-batch manufacturing.

Q10. Why don’t we see full automation yet?

Key point: Cutting, sewing, and material handling today still require human labor, although factories increasingly use automated tools to boost productivity. Asian suppliers are upgrading equipment to handle smaller, faster orders. Automation is bringing back niche manufacturing (e.g., sock production in the U.S.) and supporting recycling efforts, such as sorting used garments. It helps lower minimum order quantities, matching production to uncertain consumer demand.

Q11. How can Europe maintain relevance amid the U.S.–China trade war?

Key point: Europe continues to be a key player in both textile and apparel manufacturing and consumption. Nearly half of the apparel in the EU is produced locally, often in high-wage countries like Italy, Germany, and France. Asian countries are looking for more market access to the EU because of higher tariffs imposed by the US (e.g., trade diversion). Europe also leads in sustainability and regulatory standards. Complying with EU rules often means meeting the highest global standards. Luxury branding (“Made in Italy/France”) remains highly influential, and the EU’s proactive trade agreements might even enable it to export textiles for processing in Asia, expanding supply chain integration.

Q12. Why hasn’t Africa become a viable textile hub yet?

Key point: Africa’s potential greatly relies on trade preferences like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which recently expired. Without duty-free U.S. access, U.S. companies are less likely to source there. However, the EU could help bridge the gap by forging partnerships for recycled textile materials and sustainable production. Regional collaboration could unlock Africa’s place in circular fashion supply chains.

For students in FASH455: Feel free to share your thoughts on any of the interview questions above. You may also challenge and debate any points raised in the interview and present your arguments.

Patterns of Global Textile and Apparel Trade Measured by Origin of Value Added (updated October 2025)

Textiles and apparel today are produced through a global supply chain. For clothing labeled as “Made in Vietnam,” it is likely that the textile raw materials, such as yarns, fabrics, and trims, are sourced from elsewhere.

According to the newly released 2025 OECD trade in value added estimation, as of 2022, a country’s apparel exports commonly contain value added created in another country due to the use of imported textile materials and other inputs. This is the case for exports from leading apparel exporting countries in Asia, such as Vietnam (44% foreign value added), ASEAN members (35% foreign value added), Cambodia (45% foreign value added), India (21% foreign value added), and Jordan (42% foreign value added). Other emerging apparel sourcing destinations in North, South, and Central America, as well as the EU, also used substantial imported inputs for their apparel exports, such as Mexico (27.3% foreign value added), Türkiye (23.9% foreign value added), and Egypt (19.7% foreign value added). [See detailed data here]

Notably, among the sixteen countries and regions examined, they mostly increased the use of non-domestic value added in textile and apparel exports between 2015 and 2022 (note: paired T-test result was statistically significant at the 99% confidence level). This suggests that co-production through regional or global supply chains, rather than 100% domestic production, has become a more prominent phenomenon in the textiles and apparel industry. [See detailed data here]

Furthermore, the value added from China appears to be increasing in the textile and apparel exports of many countries. Specifically, between 2015 and 2022, textile and apparel exports from several countries contained a higher percentage of value added from China, including not only Asian countries such as Vietnam (up 6 percentage points), ASEAN (up 4.1 percentage points) and Jordan (up 6.1 percentage points), but also those in other regions such as Egypt (up 3.3 percentage points), Mexico (up 1.7 percentage points), and South & Central America as a whole (up 4.7 percentage points). [See detailed data here] This result reflected China’s deliberate effort to expand its global economic presence through foreign direct investment, Belt and Road initiatives, and new trade agreements in recent years. 

The latest data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) also shows that while China’s market share in the world clothing exports fell to 29.6% in 2024—the lowest level since 2010—China’s market share in textile exports increased to 43.3% in 2024, up from 41.5% a year earlier. In other words, consistent with the stage of development theory, China’s role as a major textile supplier to other apparel-exporting countries continues to grow, despite a decline in its finished garment exports. [See detailed data here]

In comparison, while the United States remained an important contributor to the value added of textile and apparel exports from Mexico and Canada, its contribution slightly declined between 2015 and 2022 (i.e., from about 12%-14% to 11%). As the USMCA undergoes its mandated six-year review, it is critical to strengthen, rather than weaken, this North American co-production supply chain, which has a significant impact on the economic interests of the U.S. textile and apparel industry. This is particularly important given that supply chain collaboration between the U.S. and Asian or EU countries for textile and apparel production has been limited, with little indication of growth: According to OECD data, the U.S. value added in Asian and EU countries’ textile and apparel exports remained only around 1.5% [See detailed data here].

by Sheng Lu

(This post is not open for discussion due to its technical nature)

2025 August Sourcing at MAGIC Recap

The latest Sourcing at MAGIC, one of the largest and most influential fashion apparel trade shows in North America, was held from August 18 to 20, 2025 in Las Vegas. Drawing thousands of apparel manufacturers, textile raw material suppliers, brands, and retail buyers from over 30 countries around the globe, the event provides a unique opportunity to observe the latest U.S. apparel sourcing trends and market sentiment.

Aligned with the results of the 2025 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), the hiking tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and ongoing policy uncertainty were among the top concerns for MAGIC attendees. One major tariff impact often heard at the MAGIC show was the growing inflationary pressure. It was a prevailing view among vendors, brands, and retailers that a price increase had begun and would become even more noticeable to U.S. consumers in the upcoming months. Some also argue that “tariff is no longer a sourcing problem,” but how brands and retailers should handle their “profit margin, product assortment, and pricing.”

Meanwhile, apparel suppliers care significantly about the additional “reciprocal tariff” rates they face compared to their key competitors. For instance, a jeans supplier from Pakistan said they were relieved to see more order inquiries come in, as their Indian competitors faced significantly higher tariff rates threatened by the Trump administration.

Still, nearly 600 exhibitors from China attended MAGIC, making it the largest delegation from any country. Two interesting phenomena revealed how Chinese suppliers try to stay competitive in today’s challenging business environment. One is to offer various value-added sourcing services beyond physical products.  For example, there was a dedicated session at this year’s MAGIC show that featured Chinese manufacturers that provide services such as drop shipping (i.e., when a customer places an order, the retail store never physically handles the product. Instead, the manufacturer is responsible for inventory, packing, and shipping), director to consumer (DTC) e-commerce and warehousing. Meanwhile, some Chinese vendors accept small orders (i.e., 6 pieces or less) or low minimum orders (i.e., 300 pieces) and promise a short lead time of 45 days. In comparison, the minimum order quantity (MOQ) required by suppliers in other Asian and Western Hemisphere countries typically exceeds thousands of pieces.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see that vendors from Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, or even Egypt and Ghana were actually owned by Chinese investors. Several Chinese factories purposefully highlight that they own factories across the world, from China and Southeast Asia to Africa. According to the USFIA benchmarking study, some U.S. fashion companies also prefer vendors with production capabilities in multiple countries to reduce sourcing risks.

As U.S. fashion companies continue to diversify their sourcing beyond the traditional top three—China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh—emerging destinations are increasingly optimistic about their U.S. export prospects. For instance, a supplier from Jordan noted that recent U.S. tariff hikes have boosted Jordan’s competitiveness, given the zero most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff under the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and a 15% reciprocal tariff rate, which was lower than many Asian suppliers face.Jordanian suppliers speak highly of the capacity-building support from international organizations such as the International Trade Centre (ITC), particularly in areas like skills training and market intelligence.

Similar to Jordan, Egypt’s apparel exports can benefit from a zero most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff, provided they meet the rules of origin under the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZ) initiative. However, unlike Jordan, suppliers from Egypt tend to specialize in cotton and other natural-fiber–intensive apparel, leveraging their advantages in producing locally made, high-quality natural textile fibers.

Clothing made from preferred sustainable fibers, particularly those incorporating recycled textiles, has grown increasingly popular. Nearly every country represented at MAGIC, including developing nations in Asia and Africa, showcased such products.

It should be noted, however, that producing clothing with sustainable textile fibers requires suppliers to obtain certifications such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), Global Recycled Standard (GRS), and Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). Although these certifications add costs, most vendors view sustainability as an opportunity to enhance export competitiveness rather than a threat in the long term. Some also mentioned that buyers were often willing to pay a premium for products made with sustainable materials, providing a significant financial incentive.

On the other hand, achieving sustainable sourcing and production is becoming increasingly comprehensive, requiring continuous innovation in both technology and business models. For example, at the show, some vendors showcased apparel products that integrated multiple sustainability concepts, ranging from material development and eco-design to social responsibility and post-consumption solutions.

by Sheng Lu

2025 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The full report is HERE.

Key findings of this year’s report:

#1 This year, the top business challenges facing U.S. fashion companies center on the Trump Administration’s escalating tariff policy and its wide-ranging impacts on companies’ sourcing and business operations.

  • 100 percent of respondents rated “Protectionist U.S. trade policies and related policy uncertainty, including the impact of the Trump tariffs” as one of their top business challenges in 2025. This included as much as 95 percent of respondents who ranked the issue among their top two concerns.
  • Respondents also expressed significant concerns about the wide-ranging effects of Trump’s tariff policy, including “Inflation and economic outlook in the U.S. economy” (80 percent), “Increasing production or sourcing cost” (nearly 50 percent), and “Protectionist trade policies and policy uncertainty in foreign countries, including retaliatory measures against the U.S.” (52 percent).
  • Over 70 percent of surveyed companies reported that the higher tariffs increased sourcing costs, squeezed profit margins, and led to higher consumer prices. Approximately half of the respondents reported a decline in sales, and 22 percent stated that they had to lay off employees due to increased tariffs.

#2 Maintaining a geographically diverse sourcing base has been one of the most popular strategies adopted by U.S. fashion companies to mitigate the impact of rising tariffs and policy uncertainty. 

  • This year, respondents reported sourcing apparel products from 46 countries, similar to the 48 countries reported in 2024 and an increase from 44 countries in 2023. At the firm level, approximately 60 percent of large companies with 1,000+ employees reported sourcing from ten or more countries in 2025, a notable increase from the 45–55 percent range reported in 2022 and 2023 surveys.
    • Amid escalating tariffs and rising policy uncertainty, Asia has become an ever more dominant apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies in 2025. Respondents reported increased use of several Asia-based sourcing destinations other than China in 2025 compared to the previous year, including Vietnam (up from 90 percent to 100 percent), Cambodia (up from 75 percent to 94 percent), Bangladesh (up from 86 percent to 88 percent), Indonesia (up from 75 percent to 77 percent), and Sri Lanka (up from 39 percent to 53 percent).As part of their sourcing diversification strategy, U.S. fashion companies are also gradually increasing sourcing from emerging destinations in the Western Hemisphere and beyond, such as Jordan, Peru, and Colombia.
    • Most respondents intend to build a more geographically diverse sourcing base and broaden their vendor network over the next two years. Nearly 60 percent of respondents plan to source apparel from more countries, and another 40 percent plan to source from more suppliers or vendors. Reducing sourcing risk, especially to minimize the impact of rising tariffs and tariff uncertainty, is a key driver of companies’ sourcing diversification strategies

#3 U.S. fashion companies remain deeply concerned about the future of the U.S.-China relationship during Trump’s second term and intend to further “reduce China exposure” to mitigate sourcing risks.

  • While 100 percent of respondents reported sourcing from China this year, a record-high 60 percent of respondents reported sourcing fewer than 10% of their apparel products from China, up from 40 percent in 2024. Approximately 70 percent of respondents no longer used China as their top apparel supplier in 2025, representing a further increase from 60 percent in 2024 and significantly higher than the 25-30 percent range prior to the pandemic.
  • Despite the announcement of the reaching of a U.S.-China “trade deal” in May 2025, more than 80 percent of respondents plan to further reduce their apparel sourcing from China over the next two years through 2027, hitting a new record high. Many large-scale U.S. fashion companies are already limiting or plan to limit their apparel sourcing from China to a “low single-digit” percentage by 2026 or earlier, mainly due to concerns about the increasing geopolitical and trade policy risks associated with sourcing from the country.
  • Still, respondents rated China as highly economically competitive as an apparel sourcing base compared to many of its Asian competitors regarding vertical manufacturing capability, low minimum order quantity (MOQ) requirements, flexibility and agility, sourcing costs, and speed to market. However, non-economic factors, particularly the perceived extremely high risks of facing U.S. import restrictions, geopolitical tensions with the U.S., and concerns about forced labor, are driving U.S. fashion companies to continue their de-risking efforts.

#4 No evidence indicates that the Trump Administration’s tariff policy has successfully encouraged U.S. fashion companies to increase domestic sourcing of “Made in the USA” textile and apparel products or to expand sourcing from the Western Hemisphere.

  • Only about 44 percent of respondents explicitly say that they would expand sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, and even fewer respondents (17 percent) plan to source more textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” amid the tariff increase.
  • This year, fewer respondents reported sourcing apparel from Mexico and Canada (down from 60 percent in 2024 to 50 percent in 2025) and members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA-DR (down from 75 percent in 2024 to 64 percent in 2025).
  • About half of the respondents plan to expand apparel sourcing from Mexico and CAFTA-DR members over the next two years. Notably, nearly all of these companies also intend to increase sourcing from Asia, indicating that U.S. fashion companies view near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere as a complement, not a replacement, to their broader sourcing diversification strategy.
  • Respondents consider the most urgent capacity-building needs within CAFTA-DR lie in the production of textile raw materials (e.g., spandex) and accessories (e.g., zippers, threads, and buttons). Meanwhile, USMCA members are considered to have relatively stronger capacities in yarn and fabric production but face more pressing shortages in accessories.

#5 Respondents overall remain highly committed to sustainability, social responsibility, and compliance issues in the sourcing process.

  • This year, the top sustainability and compliance areas where respondents plan to allocate more resources include “Investing in technology to enhance supply chain traceability or isotopic testing” (53 percent), “Providing sustainability and social compliance training for internal employees” (50 percent) and “Providing sustainability and social compliance training for suppliers” (50 percent). 
  • As part of U.S. fashion companies’ sustainability efforts, all respondents (100 percent) report sourcing clothing made with “sustainable textile fibers” in 2025. Having 11–50% of apparel products containing various “sustainable textile fibers” is the most common (40 percent of respondents), followed by having 1–10% of the total sourcing value or volume(30 percent of respondents).
  • Moreover, most respondents (over 70 percent) plan to increase their use of various “sustainable fibers” in clothing over the next three years. This trend is especially strong for recycled materials, with 80 percent of respondents indicating they intend to increase their use.
  • The top three positions with the highest demand among respondents from 2025 through 2030 are “Environmental sustainability-related specialists or managers,” “Trade compliance specialists,” and “Data scientists”—more than 40 percent of respondents plan to increase hiring. There is also strong demand for “Textile raw material specialists” and “Sourcing specialists.”

#6 With the upcoming expiration of the trade preference program this September, respondents again underscore the importance of immediate renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and extending the agreement for at least another ten years.

  • Due to the upcoming expiration of AGOA and uncertainty about its future, this year, respondents sourced from only six SSA and AGOA members (i.e., Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Tanzania), fewer than the seven countries in 2024.  And none of these countries were used by more than 20 percent of respondents.
  • Nearly 80 percent of respondents support “renewing AGOA for at least another ten years,” and no one opposes. This shows a consistent and wide base of support for AGOA among U.S. fashion companies.
  • More than 70 percent of respondents say that securing a long-term renewal of AGOA for at least ten years is essential for expanding apparel sourcing from the region. Similarly, another 60 percent of respondents believe that a long-term renewal of AGOA is necessary for U.S. fashion companies and their supply chain partners to commit to new investments in the region. 
  • Respondents warned that AGOA’s pending renewal has already begun to harm the region’s prospects as an apparel sourcing base. Approximately 30 percent of respondents explicitly stated that they had already reduced sourcing from AGOA members due to the uncertainty surrounding the agreement’s renewal.

About the study

Authored by Dr. Sheng Lu in collaboration with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), this year’s benchmarking study was based on a survey of executives from 25 leading U.S. fashion companies from April to June 2025. The study incorporated a balanced mix of respondents representing various businesses in the U.S. fashion industry. Approximately 85 percent of respondents were self-identified retailers, 60 percent were self-identified brands, and about 50 percent were importers/wholesalers.

The survey respondents included large U.S. fashion corporations and medium-sized companies. Around 90 percent of respondents reported having over 1,000 employees; the rest (10 percent) represented medium-sized companies with 100-999 employees.

Patterns of U.S. Apparel Sourcing and Imports (updated April 2025)

The following analysis was based on the latest trade statistics from the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce.

First, the growth of U.S. apparel imports significantly slowed as fashion companies shifted from eagerly piling up stock to the wait-and-see mode. Specifically, in February 2025, U.S. apparel imports moderately went up 3.2% in value and 1.5% in quantity, much lower than the 18-19% increase seen in late 2024 and January 2025. The much-slowed growth confirmed that the earlier U.S. apparel import surge was largely driven by fashion companies’ worries about the upcoming tariff hikes rather than an actual increase in consumer demand.

Adding to the concern, U.S. consumer confidence fell sharply, which could lead to a steep drop in U.S. apparel imports ahead. For example, the Consumer Confidence Index dropped to a two-year low of 92.9 in March 2025, down from 100.1 the previous month (1985=100). Similarly, the Expectations Index—which measures consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions—plunged to 65.2, marking its lowest level in 12 years. With the announcement of reciprocal tariffs and the growing likelihood of an economic recession, U.S. consumer demand for clothing may decline significantly, potentially leading to the cancellation of many sourcing orders.

Second, apparel imports have become more expensive. Measured in dollars per square meters equivalent (SME), the unit price of U.S. apparel imports averaged $3.06/SME in the first two months of 2025, up from $3.03/SME a year ago (or a 1.3% increase). The unit price of U.S. apparel imports from many leading Asian countries rose at a notably higher rate, including China (up 2.9%), Vietnam (up 3.6%), and Bangladesh (up 2.6%), as well as those from Mexico (up 4.7%) and CAFTA-DR (up 0.6%). This result reflected the growing pressure of sourcing and production costs facing U.S. fashion companies and their suppliers, driven by rising labor costs and raw material prices among other factors. Indeed, if Trump’s reciprocal tariffs ultimately take effect, import prices could increase even more significantly.

Third, U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing diversification efforts appeared to slow amid rising uncertainty. In February 2025, Asian countries collectively accounted for 71.5% of the total value of U.S. apparel imports—unchanged from a year earlier. Similarly, in the first two months of 2025, the top five suppliers (China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and India) made up 63.7% of total apparel imports by value, up from 59.7% during the same period in 2024. Even China’s market share remained largely stable at 18.4% in value and 32% in quantity, compared to a year ago.

These figures suggest that U.S. fashion companies somehow have become more hesitant to adjust their sourcing base in response to the universal tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which target nearly all U.S. trading partners. As a result, U.S. fashion companies may find the sourcing diversification strategies no longer as effective as in the past in effectively mitigating their sourcing risks.

Meanwhile, data from the United Nations (UN Comtrade) show that Asian countries’ dependence on the U.S. market for apparel exports varied. In 2024, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and ASEAN members exported about 40% of their apparel to the U.S., whereas the U.S. accounted for only about 20% of China’s and Bangladesh’s total apparel exports to the world. At the same time, the U.S. remained the single largest export market for Mexico and CAFTA-DR members, due to the integrated Western Hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain.

Fourth, no evidence shows that the current trading environment has benefited from near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere. On the contrary, measured in quantity, in February 2025, only 7.6% of U.S. apparel imports came from CAFTA-DR members, a notable drop from 9.6% a year ago. Similarly, Mexico accounted for 2.3% of U.S. apparel imports in February 2025, also lower than 2.4% a year earlier.

As a silver lining, the utilization rate of CAFTA-DR reached 81.1% in 2025 (January to February), much higher than 73.8% over the same period in 2024. About 75.3% of U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR in 2025 (January to February) complied with the yarn-forward rules of origin compared to 67.4% a year ago. However, the use of “short-supply” remained low–only about 2.0% in 2025 so far.

by Dr. Sheng Lu

Related analysis: Lu, S. (2025). Patterns of U.S. Apparel Imports in 2024. Global Textile Academy, International Trade Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.

VF Corporation’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Base: 2023-2024

VF Corporation (VF) is one of the largest apparel companies in the US, with an estimated global sales revenue to exceed $10 billion in 2024. VF owns several well-known apparel and outdoor performance brands, including The North Face, Timberland, and Icebreaker. VF also has a global presence. According to its latest annual report, in Fiscal 2024, “VF derived 52% of its revenues from the Americas, 33% from Europe, and 15% from Asia-Pacific.”

The following analysis is based on VF’s publicly released supplier list. Only factories identified as producing “apparel” products and related textile raw materials are included in the analysis.

First, while VF maintained a geographically diverse global sourcing base, it reduced the number of factories it sourced from between 2023 and 2024. Specifically, as of Q3 2024 (the latest data available), VF sourced apparel from 36 countries, the same number as in Q1 2023. These countries spanned almost all continents, including Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa. Similarly, over the same period, VF sourced textile raw materials for apparel production—including factories producing polymers—from approximately 30 countries.

However, between Q1 2023 and Q3 2024, VF reduced the number of apparel factories it contracts with from 463 to 426. The number of textile mills VF contracts also declined, from 665 to 546. This pattern aligned with the findings of other industry studies, which indicate that many U.S. fashion companies, particularly larger ones, are consolidating their vendor base to reduce sourcing risks and enhance operational efficiency.

Additionally, VF’s annual reports indicate that no single supplier accounted for more than 6% of its total cost of goods sold during Fiscal Year 2024, the same as in 2023, but lower than 7% in Fiscal Year 2021.

Second, in line with macro trade data, Asia served as VF’s largest apparel sourcing base in Q3 2024, led by China (23.1 percent) and Vietnam (11.5 percent). Specifically, as of Q3 2024, approximately 55.3 percent of VF’s garment factories were located in Asia, an increase from 48.8 percent in Q1 2023. Meanwhile, VF is also adjusting its apparel sourcing strategy within the Asia region. For example, between 2023 and 2024, VF decreased the number of garment factories it worked with in China (down 5), Bangladesh (down 12), and India (down 17), while adding more contract factories in Vietnam (up 36), Cambodia (up 7), and Indonesia (up 4).  The pattern indicates that while VF may attempt to reduce its “China exposure,” it also actively seeks new sourcing opportunities within Asia. 

Conversely, in Q3 2024, around 21.2 percent of VF’s garment factories were based in the Western Hemisphere, a decrease from 27.0 percent in Q1 2023. In most situations, VF worked with about 10-20 garment factories in each Western Hemisphere country. Furthermore, from 2023 to 2024, VF cut the number of garment factories in Mexico (down 16) and the United States (down 10), indicating that expanding near-shoring and on-shoring was not the company’s preferred strategy in the current environment. 

Third, compared to garments, VF’s supply of textile raw materials relies even more heavily on Asia, especially China. Specifically, as of Q3 2024, approximately 83.5 percent of VF’s textile raw material suppliers were located in Asia, the same as in Q1 2023. Notably, China represented nearly half of VF’s textile material suppliers in Q3 2024, including 41.2 percent of textile yarn and fabric mills and 50.9 percent of trim mills. Although VF reduced the number of textile mills in China from Q1 2023 to Q3 2024, China’s share of VF’s total textile raw material supplier base remained the same. Overall, the pattern aligns with previous research suggesting that finding alternative sourcing bases for textile raw materials outside of China and Asia will be more difficult and time-consuming for US fashion companies, considering the capital-intensive nature of making textile products.

Fourth, VF’s contract garment factories worldwide varied in size, reflecting the company’s diverse sourcing needs. Specifically, in Asia, garment factories in China typically were small and medium-sized, with 11-100 workers (43.9 percent) or 101-500 workers (33.7 percent). In contrast, nearly 90 percent of VF’s contract garment factories in Bangladesh had more than 1,000 workers, with similar patterns observed in Vietnam (52.2 percent), Cambodia (50.0 percent), Indonesia (63.2 percent), and Pakistan (100 percent). These findings suggest that VF may use China as a sourcing base for relatively small, diverse orders while relying on other Asian countries with lower labor costs for high-volume production.

Meanwhile, in the Americas and Africa, VF’s contract garment factories in Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, Kenya, and Jordan included more large-scale operations with over 1,000 workers. These locations could serve as emerging alternatives to sourcing from Asia, especially for specific categories. In contrast, VF’s contract garment factories in Mexico, the US, and Guatemala featured many medium and small operations, which are more likely to fulfill replenishment orders or produce specialized products.

by Sheng Lu

FASH455 Video Discussion: The State of Textiles and Apparel “Made in Asia” (Updated February 2025)

Video 1: Threads of Resilience: China’s textile manufacturing goes automated
Video 2: Asian factories struggling to keep young workers
Video 3: How Millions Of Jeans Get Recycled Into New Pairs in Pakistan
Video 4: Vietnam becomes second biggest garment exporter globally

Discussion questions:

#1 How are textiles and apparel “Made in Asia” changing their faces? What are the driving forces of these changes?

#2 How would you assess Asia’s competitiveness as a hub for textile and apparel production and sourcing in the next five years? Why? What relevant factors could come into play?

#3  Is there anything else in the videos that you find interesting, intriguing, thought-provoking, or debatable? Why?

(Note: Anyone is welcome to join the discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two of the questions above. Please mention the question number in your response, but there is no need to repeat the question.)

New Study: Exploring India as an Apparel Sourcing Base for U.S. Fashion Companies

The full article is published in Just-Style and below is the summary:

India’s Textiles and Apparel Production

Data from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) shows that India produced around $76.5 billion in textiles and $26.64 billion in wearing apparel in 2022. Although still smaller than China’s, this production scale has already surpassed that of most other Asian countries, including Vietnam. Behind these numbers were India’s over 4,000 ginning factories, 3,500 textile mills, and around 45 million workers directly employed by the textile and apparel sector.

India is one of the world’s largest textile fiber producers, including regular cotton, organic cotton, silk, polyester, and viscose. India also has more advanced local textile manufacturing capabilities than most other developing apparel-exporting Asian countries, allowing it to benefit from a vertically integrated local textile and apparel supply chain. A recent U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) study noted that more than 90 percent of India’s textile raw materials needed for its apparel production can be sourced domestically. In comparison, as the World Trade Organization (WTO) global value chain analysis estimated, more than 64 percent of Vietnam’s apparel exports in 2022 contained foreign-made content (i.e., imported yarns and fabrics), 57 percent for Cambodia, 49 percent for Indonesia, and 33 percent for Bangladesh.

India’s Apparel Export

India remained a much smaller apparel exporter than China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), India exported about $15 billion in apparel in 2023, ranked the world’s sixth largestor 2.8 percent of the global total.  Similarly, in 2023, India accounted for 5.5 percent of U.S. apparel imports and 3.5 percent of the EU, showing its position as a significant supplier but not among the largest. However, unlike most other developing Asian countries, India exports less than half of its apparel output due to its massive domestic market with a population of 1.43 billion. This implies that India’s substantial untapped apparel export potential should not be ignored.

Why Sourcing from India?

Firstly, aligned with trade statistics, many U.S. fashion companies already source from India, although in a relatively small volume.  For example, the USFIA benchmarking survey respondents consistently ranked India as the 3rd or 4th most utilized apparel sourcing base from 2021 to 2024, after China and Vietnam. However, U.S. fashion companies typically place less than 10 percent of their total sourcing value or volume in India. The recent USITC study also raised concerns that India’s apparel factories were primarily small and medium-sized, which could limit their ability to fulfill large-volume sourcing orders.

Secondly, “Made in India” clothing is not necessarily cheap but could be perceived as “worth the value.” Notably, from January to October 2024, clothing labeled “Made in India” sold in the U.S. retail market was, on average, priced much higher than imports from Bangladesh and Vietnam, particularly in the mass market segment. Meanwhile, in the premium market segment, clothing “Made in India” was, on average, priced relatively lower than “Made in China,” such as dresses, tops, and bottoms. These results suggest that U.S. fashion companies do not typically consider India a preferred sourcing base for basic and price-sensitive items. Instead, India may be seen as a more cost-effective alternative to China for high-quality, value-added clothing.

Thirdly, India has been strengthening its competitiveness in export flexibility and agility, enabling its vendors to quickly adjust the delivery, volume, and product of the sourcing order upon customers’ requests. In the latest 2024 USFIA survey, respondents rated India’s sourcing flexibility and agility second only to China, surpassing Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Central American countries. Likewise, India was regarded as one of the few Asian countries that could fulfill apparel sourcing orders with relatively low “minimum order quantity (MOQ)” requirements.

One major factor contributing to India’s perceived advantages in sourcing flexibility and agility is its ability to produce a wide range of apparel products. For example, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) calculated using trade data at the 6-digit HS code level indicates that U.S. apparel imports from India cover more diverse product categories than most Asian countries.

Moreover, due to India’s position as one of the world’s leading cotton producers, in the first ten months of 2024, nearly 60 percent of U.S. apparel imports from India contained cotton fibers, including 13 percent using organic cotton. This percentage was much higher than imports from other Asian suppliers such as China and Vietnam. In comparison, over the same period, U.S. apparel imports from India appear less likely to contain man-made fibers like polyester, nylon, spandex, and recycled polyester. This fiber composition explains why India has yet to become a leading supplier of certain apparel product categories, like outerwear, which more commonly uses man-made fiber than cotton.

Additionally, in the first ten months of 2024, over 45 percent of India’s apparel newly introduced to the U.S. market targeted the luxury and premium segment, closely matching China’s nearly 50 percent and exceeding other Asian suppliers such as Vietnam (20 percent), Bangladesh (13 percent), Cambodia (5 percent), and Indonesia (18 percent). This result explains why U.S. fashion companies increasingly consider India a strategic alternative to sourcing from China, given the similarities in their product offerings.

Reflections

India’s large country size and population, the presence of an already highly integrated and sophisticated textile and apparel supply chain, and its ability to make a great variety of high-quality products suitable for various market segments position it well in the export competition. U.S. fashion companies’ eagerness to reduce sourcing from China due to rising geopolitical concerns and the limited sourcing capacity elsewhere created historical opportunities for India to expand its apparel exports to the U.S. market further.

Nevertheless, it remains a question mark whether India is fully committed to expanding labor-intensive apparel production and exports, given the country’s economy is moving toward more capital and technology-intensive sectors. Notably, in value, apparel only accounted for about 5.6 percent of India’s total merchandise exports in 2023, similar to China’s 5.3 percent but much lower than other lesser-developed Asian countries, including Vietnam (10 percent), Bangladesh (88 percent), and Cambodia (44 percent).

Moreover, while India is not a primary focus for compliance issues like forced labor, sourcing from the country still carries general social and environmental compliance risks similar to those in most developing countries (note: see the 2024 USITC report). It remains to be seen whether India’s textile and apparel mills are technically and financially prepared to meet more stringent social and environmental standards being adopted in the U.S. and can effectively compete in the growing market for “sustainable apparel.”

by Gabriella Giolli (Honors Marketing major & Fashion management minor, University of Delaware) and Sheng Lu

New USITC Report: Apparel: Export Competitiveness of Certain Foreign Suppliers to the United States

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) released its new fact-finding report examining the competitiveness of Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan as apparel suppliers to the United States. The study was conducted in 2024 based on input from secondary sources (e.g., trade statistics, public hearings, and desk studies) and fieldwork. Below are summaries of the key findings regarding apparel export competitiveness.

Factors that affect export competitiveness in the global apparel sector

One key issue the study explored is what factors affect a country’s apparel export competitiveness and how to become a preferred apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies.

The studies suggest that four types of factors are most important (see the figure above). However, consistent with existing literature, the USITC report could not determine which factor is decisive in fashion companies’ apparel sourcing decisions. For example, the report found that:

  • “cost—the price buyers pay their suppliers—plays a key role in sourcing decisions, although opinions vary regarding the importance of cost relative to other factors.”
  • “Depending on the product, target consumer, and identity of a brand or buyer, apparel buyers will place varying degrees of importance on product differentiation factors such as quality, specialization, product mix, and full package offerings, which include design services, finishing, packaging, and logistics.”
  • “The emphasis on reliability has particularly grown in response to various recent disruptions to global apparel supply chains such as a global pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, and trade policy.”
  • “Although emerging research suggests that compliance programs concerning wages, social inclusion, and climate change mitigation may increase competitiveness, buyers and brands remain divided on the topic…the relative importance, or “weight,” of such compliance in sourcing decisions remains a topic of active study and discussion within the industry.”

Cost and export competitiveness

The USITC report highlighted the complex and nuanced relationship between “costs” and a country’s apparel export competitiveness. Several patterns are noteworthy:

  • Apparel is a buyer-driven industry, meaning “the global apparel supply chain gives buyers the power to negotiate based on price, which can push down prices and transfer greater costs to the supplier.”
  • The ability to produce textile raw materials locally can provide cost advantages in garment production—“Material inputs are widely recognized as the largest component in the cost of a final apparel product, and these prices are largely determined by the presence of a domestic textile industry or costs of importing textiles.”
  • It is difficult to compare wages across countries to measure labor competitiveness. In particular, low labor costs “do not reflect the true cost of doing business (e.g., via wage suppression)” in a country and “they can harm a country’s reputation for social compliance and negatively affect labor productivity.”

Buyer-supplier relationships in apparel sourcing

The USITC report revealed some positive developments in the buyer-supplier relationships involving U.S. fashion companies.

  • Fashion companies increasingly recognize the value of building long-term relationships with their vendors. Buyers emphasize that maintaining these relationships is a key factor in sourcing decisions, largely due to the cost and time involved in finding and establishing relationships with new suppliers.
  • Fashion companies’ efforts to improve supply chain transparency and traceability also need  “suppliers who will act in line with their brand’s values.”
  • Suppliers benefit from the long-term relationship, too. As the USITC report noted, some fashion companies guarantee suppliers a particular profit margin to ensure their continued operation. Additionally, some buyers gain a deep understanding of their suppliers’ cost structures, enabling them to calculate the costs of compliance with various standards and assist suppliers in reducing costs where possible.
  • Subcontracting is still regarded as necessary for the garment industry. As noted in the USITC report, apparel orders fluctuate seasonally, making it impractical for suppliers to hire additional permanent workers or invest in machinery for peak demand. To meet buyer expectations during busy periods, manufacturers often subcontract parts of orders and increase overtime or rely on temporary contract workers. This practice is seen as essential for ensuring a reliable supply of apparel.

Social and environmental responsibility and apparel sourcing

The USITC report acknowledged the growing importance of social and environmental compliance to a country’s apparel export competitiveness. However, the relationship remains complex.

  • The extent to which voluntary social and environmental responsibility programs and their associated auditing practices have influenced outcomes, especially regarding worker rights, remains unclear.
  • Suppliers report that the increased frequency of flooding and high temperatures due to climate change negatively affect their ability to meet labor and environmental standards.
  • Increased compliance with social and environmental standards raises supplier costs, negatively impacting their cost competitiveness. Many stakeholders note that while brands and consumers demand greater responsibility, this often does not come with a “price premium” for suppliers, who ultimately absorb these increased costs.

Note: The USITC report also evaluated the export competitiveness of each apparel-exporting country it examined, including their respective competitive advantages and issues to address.

New Study: PVH Corporation’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Strategies (updated Septmeber 2024)

PVH Corporation (PVH), which owns well-known brands including Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, Arrow, and Izod, is one of the largest US fashion companies with nearly $9.2 billion in sales revenues in 2022.

By leveraging PVH’s publically released factory lists, this article analyzes the company’s detailed sourcing strategies and changes from 2021 to 2022. Key findings:

Trend 1: PVH adopts a diverse apparel sourcing base and continues to work with more vendors. Specifically, in 2022, PVH sourced apparel from as many as 37 countries in Asia, Europe, America, the Middle East, and Africa, the same as in 2021. Despite not expanding the number of countries it sources from, PVH increased its total number of vendors from 503 in 2021 to 553 in 2022, highlighting the company’s ongoing commitment to diversifying its sourcing base.

Trend 2: Asia is PVH’s dominant sourcing base for finished garments and textile raw materials.

Specifically, about 56.2% of PVH’s apparel suppliers were Asia-based in 2022, followed by the EU (20.3%). Compared with a year ago, PVH even added twenty new Asia-based factories to its supplier list in 2022, suggesting no intention of reducing sourcing from the region. Moreover, From 2021 to 2022, as many as 83% of PVH’s raw material suppliers were Asia-based, far exceeding any other regions.

Trend 3: PVH’s China sourcing strategies are evolving and more complicated than simply “reducing China exposure.”

  • First, PVH continued to work with MORE Chinese factories. Specifically, between 2021 and 2022, PVH added 17 Chinese factories to its apparel supplier list, more than other countries. However, the expansion could be because of PVH’s growing sales in China.
  • Second, PVH’s garment factories in China are smaller than their peers in other Asian countries. For example, in 2022, most PVH’s contracted garment factories in top Asian supplying countries, such as Bangladesh (87.5%), Vietnam (63.3%), and Sri Lanka (65.3%), had more than 1,000 workers. In comparison, only 11.3% of PVH’s Chinese vendors had 1,000 workers, and more than 62.5% had fewer than 500 workers. The result suggests that PVH treats China as an apparel sourcing base for flexibility and agility, particularly those orders that may include a greater variety of products in relatively smaller quantities.
  • Further, PVH often priced apparel “Made in China” higher than those sourced from the rest of Asia.

Trend 4: PVH actively used “emerging” sourcing destinations outside Asia. Other than those top Asian suppliers, PVH’s apparel sourcing base includes several countries in America, the EU, and Africa that deserve more attention, including Portugal, Brazil, Tunisia, and Turkey. Overall, PVH sourced from these countries for various reasons, from serving local consumers, seeking sourcing flexibility, accessing raw materials, and lowering sourcing costs.

by Sheng Lu and Ally Botwinick

Further reading: Lu, Sheng & Botwinick, Ally (2023). US fashion companies’ evolving sourcing strategies – a PVH case study. Just-Style. Retrieved from https://www.just-style.com/features/us-fashion-companies-evolving-sourcing-strategies-a-pvh-case-study/

PVH’s market shares in the China apparel retail market

(discussion for this post is closed)

Mega Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region and Textiles and Apparel Trade (Updated August 2024)

Speaker: Dr. Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director of the Asian Trade Centre and the President of the Asia Business Trade Association. The clip was part of the webinar “Asia’s Noodle Bowl Of Trade” (March 2023).

Background

The Asia-Pacific region includes several mega free trade agreements:

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is a regional intergovernmental organization comprising ten countries in Southeast Asia (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam). In 2022, ASEAN members have a combined nominal GDP of $3.6 trillion and a population of 671.6 million.

CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile. The CPTPP covers a market of 495 million people with a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion in 2021. The United States was originally a participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, but in January 2017, former US President Trump withdrew the US from the agreement. The Biden administration has indicated no interest in rejoining CPTPP. Additionally, China is actively seeking to join CPTPP (as of March 2024).

RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a free trade agreement signed by 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. In 2021, RCEP members collectively represented a market of 2.3 billion people with a combined GDP of $26.3 trillion. India was an RCEP member but withdrew from the agreement due to concerns about import competition with China.

IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity) is a US-led economic cooperation framework that aims to “link major economies and emerging ones to tackle 21st-century challenges and promote fair and resilient trade for years to come.” IPEF is NOT a traditional free trade agreement, and it does not address market access issues like tariff cuts. Instead, IPEF includes four pillars: trade, supply chains, clean economy, and fair economy. IPEF members in the Asia-Pacific region include the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India, Fiji, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The IPEF is designed to be flexible, meaning that IPEF partners are not required to join all four pillars. For example, India chooses not to join the trade pillar of the framework. In 2021, IPEF countries collectively represented a market of 2.1 billion people with a combined GDP of $23.3 trillion. The potential economic impact of IPEF remains too early to tell.

Notably, ASEAN, CPTPP, RCEP, and IPEF members play significant roles in the world textile and apparel trade. Specifically:

ASEAN and RCEP members have established a highly integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain. For example, a substantial portion of ASEAN and RECP members’ textile imports came from within the region.

ASEAN and RCEP members’ supply chain connection with China has substantially strengthened over the past decade. In contrast, the US barely participated in Asia-based textile and apparel supply chains. For example, other than CPTPP, the US accounted for less than 2% of ASEAN, RCEP, and IPEF members’ textile imports in 2022.

ASEAN and RCEP members also hold significant market shares in the world textile and apparel exports (over 50%). Meanwhile, the US and EU are indispensable export markets for ASEAN and RCEP members.

Because of the inclusion of the United States, IPEF represented one of the world’s largest apparel import markets (i.e., 33.7% in 2021, measured in value). Similarly, in 2022, about 26% of US apparel imports came from current IPEF members. Should IPEF address market access issues, it could offer significant duty-saving opportunities for textile and apparel products.

Additionally, the UK’s membership in CPTPP may have a limited direct impact on the textile and apparel sector, at least in the short to medium terms. For example, current CPTPP members only accounted for about 6% of the UK’s apparel imports in 2022.

New Study: Is Sub-Saharan Africa Ready to Serve as an Alternative Apparel Sourcing Destination to Asia for U.S. Fashion Companies? A Product-Level Analysis

Full paper: Lu, S. (2024), “Is Sub-Saharan Africa ready to serve as an alternative apparel-sourcing destination to Asia for US Fashion companies? A product-level analysis“, Competitiveness Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2024-0041

Summary:

The prospect of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as an apparel-sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies has been a growing heated debate. On the one hand, U.S. fashion companies, driven by increasing geopolitical concerns and other market factors, were eager to diversify apparel sourcing away from Asia. The SSA region was often regarded as one of the most popular alternative sourcing destinations thanks to its large population, relatively low labor costs, and shorter shipping distance to U.S. ports compared to most Asian. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program enacted in 2000, in particular, allowed eligible apparel exports from SSA countries to enter the United States import duty-free, creating substantial financial incentives for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region.

However, empirical trade data shows that U.S. apparel imports from SSA members have stagnated over the past decades without evident growth. Notably, with little change from 2010, SSA countries collectively accounted for only 1.8% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, with no single SSA member achieving a market share of more than 1%. In contrast, over the same period, despite China’s declining market shares, the following five largest Asian suppliers—Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia—jointly accounted for 43.0% of U.S. apparel imports in 2023, a notable increase from 27.4% in 2010.

This study aims to evaluate SSA countries’ capacity to serve as an alternative apparel sourcing destination to Asian suppliers for US fashion companies. Specifically, the study examined the detailed product information of a total of 10,000 stock keeping units (SKUs) of clothing items sold in the U.S. retail market from January 2021 to December 2023. Half of these items were sourced from the six largest apparel-exporting countries in SSA: Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Tanzania. Together, these countries accounted for over 96% of the value of U.S. apparel imports from the SSA region between 2021 and 2023. The remaining half came from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Indonesia, the six largest Asian apparel exporters, which stably accounted for approximately 90% of U.S. apparel imports from Asia over the past decade.

Key findings:

First, the results revealed that U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategies for SSA countries appeared more subtle and complicated than simply treating the region as another low-cost sourcing destination, as suggested by previous studies. Instead, according to the results, U.S. fashion companies seemed to leverage SSA countries as suppliers of “niche products,” such as those relatively simple and basic apparel categories containing African cultural elements and targeting the luxury and premium market segment. Meanwhile, the demand for such products could be much smaller than regular apparel items sold in the value and mass market. This allows SSA countries to fulfill these smaller orders despite their limited production capacity, often family-owned or involving handmade processes.

Second, the study’s findings identified significant challenges for SSA countries serving as immediate alternatives to sourcing from Asia for U.S. fashion companies. While SSA countries could offer relatively low sourcing costs, the range of apparel products available for U.S. fashion companies to source from the SSA region remained significantly more limited than those from Asia. For example, results show that U.S. fashion companies preferred sourcing relatively basic and technologically simple categories like knitwear, T-shirts, and bottoms from SSA countries. However, imports from SSA countries offered more limited sizing and color choices and were less likely to include womenswear and relatively more sophisticated or specialized product categories such as outerwear and swimwear. As another example, U.S. apparel imports from SSA countries were primarily made of cotton and polyester, with less use of other fiber types, including nylon, rayon, viscose, wool, and those made from recycled textile materials (see table below).

Third, building on the previous point, the results call for new thinking on strengthening SSA countries’ genuine competitiveness as an apparel-sourcing destination. Over the past decades, trade preference programs such as AGOA have mainly focused on improving the price competitiveness of SSA countries’ apparel exports. However, as this study’s findings illustrate, AGOA and other trade preference programs seemed inadequate in assisting SSA countries in developing capacity beyond basic apparel categories and securing a sufficient variety of textile materials. As U.S. fashion companies have placed greater emphasis on factors beyond price in their sourcing decisions, such as flexibility, agility, sustainability, and vendors’ capability to make a wide variety of products, this could put SSA countries at even more significant disadvantages down the road to being considered alternatives to Asia for apparel sourcing.

The results also reminded us that AGOA’s liberal rules of origin, which allowed least-developed SSA countries to use textile materials from anywhere worldwide, cannot replace the crucial need to develop the local textile manufacturing capacity within the SSA region. Without a robust local textile manufacturing sector, SSA countries would encounter significant challenges in diversifying their product offerings to include more complex and versatile clothing categories, such as outerwear and women’s dresses. These categories typically require a wide variety of raw textile materials and accessories, making it highly impractical and inefficient to rely solely on imports for their supply.

On the other hand, the findings reveal the necessity of creating a stable and foreseeable business environment, such as the long-term renewal of AGOA, to attract more long-term investments in SSA. For example, investing in and strengthening SSA countries’ local supply of sustainable textile materials, such as recycled or organic fibers, could strategically enhance SSA countries’ competitiveness in meeting the increasing demand from U.S. fashion companies for sustainable apparel products.

Additional reading:

New Study: Importing Clothing Made from Recycled Textile Materials? A Study of Retailers’ Sourcing Strategies in Five European Countries

Full paper: Leah Marsh and Sheng Lu (2024). Importing clothing made from recycled textile materials? A study of retailers’ sourcing strategies in five European countries. Sustainability, 16(2), 825.

Summary & Key Findings:

With consumers’ growing awareness of the environmental impacts of clothing production and consumption, retailers in Europe (EU) have expressed a heightened interest in selling clothing using recycled textile materials (referred to as “recycled clothing” in this study). For example, fast fashion giants like H&M and Zara and luxury brands such as Hugo Boss have started carrying recycled clothing, aiming to integrate circularity into their product designs and business models.

In the study, we examined retailers’ sourcing strategies for clothing made from recycled textile materials in five European countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. These five countries represent the EU’s largest clothing retail markets, consistently accounting for over 60% of the region’s total apparel sales.

Through an industry source using web crawling techniques and manual verification, 5,000 Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) of clothing items made from recycled textile materials were randomly selected and analyzed. These items were sold by retailers in the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain between January 2021 and May 2023.

The results show that Firist, EU retailers sourced clothing using recycled textile materials from diverse sources, including over 40 developing and developed countries across Asia, America, Europe, and Africa. Second, other than assortment diversity (i.e., the number of color or sizing options for a clothing item), no statistical evidence shows that developing countries had advantages over developed ones regarding product sophistication, replenishment frequency, and pricing for recycled clothing in the five EU markets. Third, a supplying country’s geographic location statistically affects the type of recycled clothing EU retailers import. For example, retailers in the five EU countries typically adopt the following sourcing portfolio by region:

  • Asia: relatively sophisticated clothing items (e.g., dresses and outerwear) targeting the mass and value market.
  • America (North, South, and Central): relatively simple clothing categories (e.g., T-shirts and socks) targeting the mass and value market.
  • Europe: sophisticated clothing categories primarily for the luxury or premium market
  • Africa: relatively simple clothing categories targeting the premium market

The findings offered new insights into the business aspects of recycled clothing, particularly regarding its intricate supply chains and leading suppliers. The study’s results have several additional important implications.

First, while existing studies often suggest “local for local” textile recycling, the study’s findings revealed promising global sourcing opportunities for clothing using recycled textile materials. Particularly, leveraging a diverse sourcing base would allow EU retailers to take advantage of each supplying country’s unique production strength regarding product categories and assortment features and more efficiently balance various sourcing factors ranging from costs and flexibility to speed to market. Meanwhile, the study’s findings indicate that many countries worldwide have begun producing and exporting clothing using recycled textile materials, and the sourcing options and capacities will hopefully continue to grow.

Second, according to the study’s findings, unlike the patterns of making regular garments using virgin fiber, low-wage developing countries demonstrated no noticeable competitive edges over developed economies regarding producing and exporting clothing using recycled textile materials. Instead, developed economies, including many high-wage Western EU countries, emerged as top suppliers and leading sourcing destinations for recycled clothing. Thus, expanding clothing production using recycled textile materials presents an exciting economic opportunity with a promising future in developed countries, where many have plans to revitalize the domestic manufacturing sector and establish a sustainable circular economy.

Third, building on the previous point, the sustained commitment of fashion brands and retailers to carry more clothing made from recycled textile materials in their product assortment could hold significant implications for the future landscape of global apparel trade and sourcing patterns. For example, whereas apparel products are predominantly exported from developing to developed countries today, more trade flows could occur between developed economies in the future, attributed to their increasing production capacity and growing demand for clothing using recycled textile materials. Similarly, major apparel exporters in Asia, such as China and Bangladesh, might assume a less dominant role as a sourcing base for recycled clothing due to their insufficient infrastructure for efficiently sorting used clothing and generating high-quality recycled textile materials.

By Leah Marsh and Sheng Lu

Discussion questions proposed by FASH455:

#1 How might EU fashion companies’ sourcing strategies change as they increase carrying clothing made from recycled textile materials?

#2 Could the US emerge as a leading sourcing destination for clothing made from recycled textile materials? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages?

#3 Is expanding clothing made from recycled textile materials the right approach to achieve fashion sustainability? What is your thought?

Red Sea Attacks and the Global Textile and Apparel Trade (updated January 2024)

Impacts of the Red Sea Attacks on the Supply Chain

Impacts of the Red Sea attacks on the global textile and apparel trade: A summary from the media

US retailers/importers: 1) “40 percent of shipments from Asia go to the U.S. through the Panama Canal” and “with access to the Suez Canal also now limited, vessels carrying goods to the East Coast of America will now take longer to deliver their shipments.” 2) “Companies that depend on inventory supplies from Asia will be impacted…These include things like sneakers, apparel and consumer electronics from countries such as China. Companies may be forced to pay more to get their inventory delivered, the costs of which could be passed on to consumers pushing up prices.”

EU retailers/importers: 1) “the rates for shipping goods from Asia to northern Europe have “more than doubled” since the start of December 2023.” 2) some EU fashion companies say “the crisis has delayed stock deliveries “by three to four weeks” and increased delivery costs by 20%” 3) some fashion retailers are “keen to avoid flying stock from Asia to Europe due to the significant amounts of carbon emissions caused by air freight.” 4) many EU fashion brands and manufacturers “expressed concern that they will have to shoulder the financial burden of the delays.”

China producers/exporters: 1) “Customers involved in China-European trade now face additional costs and a delay of seven to 10 days in such cases” 2) “Some Chinese exporters are shifting to China-Europe Railway Express services to ensure timely delivery of their goods and avoid staggering operational costs if they navigate around the Cape of Good Hope. However, “Some rail freight platform companies have proposed price increases for their railway services to Europe.”

India producers/exporters: 1) “Exports to the US west coast are intact, shipments to Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East have been affected. India exports goods worth $110 billion to the three regions.” 2) “The cost of freight and insurance has risen due to ships being compelled to avoid the region and take a longer route around the Cape of Good Hope. 3) Shipments are being held back by exporters, because they are feeling a pinch of additional freight cost. “Containers could face delays of 12-14 days in their turnaround time, although there is no shortage of containers.”

Bangladesh producers/exporters: 1) “over 70 percent of Bangladesh’s export-laden containers, which are destined for the EU, US East Coast and Canada, cross the Red Sea.” “Meanwhile,  “8 to 10 percent of the country’s imports come through the route.” 2)Bangladeshi exporters and importers are having to pay higher freight charges to the US and Europe.” According to the Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA), the freight charge has already increased by $700 to $800 per container in case of import-laden vessels. The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) expects Bangladesh’s domestic garment suppliers “will have to ultimately bear the freight cost.”

Pakistan producers and exporters: Textile and apparel shipments are facing stress. On the one hand, Pakistani textile and apparel producers are “highly reliant on timely raw materials and machinery imports. Any disturbances in shipping schedules could lead to production slowdowns and increased costs for manufacturers.” Meanwhile, “There have been “delays in fulfilling orders due to higher lead times and freight charges.” “Exporters have been incurring losses as they were honoring orders when they had assumed freight charges of $750.” However, as of mid-January, “shipping companies have jacked up freight charges to around $1,800, a massive 140% hike.”

(Note: This blog post will be updated as new information becomes available. Industry professionals are welcome to leave comments and share insights.)

Exploring US Apparel Brands and Retailers’ Evolving Sourcing Strategies (December 2023)

The full article is here (Just-Style access required). Below are the key findings:

Based on a content analysis of the annual reports of about 30 largest US fashion brands and retailers from 2018 to 2023, this study aims to identify these companies’ most critical evolving sourcing practices, including their sourcing destination adjustment, primary sourcing factors, and emerging sourcing-related “hot topics.” The findings provide critical market intelligence, informing US fashion companies about their peers’ emerging sourcing trends and popular practices. The results show that:

First, maintaining a relatively diverse sourcing base remains common among US fashion companies. Results show that large-size companies today typically source from more than 20 countries. One critical factor behind fashion companies’ sourcing diversification strategies is that no single supplying country is “perfect,” given the increasingly complex sourcing factors. Sourcing diversification allows fashion companies to balance various sourcing factors. For example, according to company #19, “the (sourcing diversification) approach provides us with the greatest flexibility in identifying the appropriate manufacturers while considering quality, cost, timing of product delivery and other criteria.” On the other hand, sourcing diversification enables companies to adapt quickly to market uncertainties and enjoy supply chain flexibility and resilience.

Second, while US fashion companies are not necessarily leaving any particular countries they source from, many have substantially reduced the number of vendors they work with over the past few years. Specifically, out of the 30 fashion companies the study examined, over 60% explicitly mentioned they consolidated their sourcing base at the vendor level from 2017/2018 to 2022/2023, although the degree varied. For example:

  • Company #4, a leading sportswear brand, cut its contracted factories from 363 to 291 (or down 19.8%)
  • Company #6, which owns several jeans and sportswear brands, reduced its contracted factories from 1,000 to around 340 (or down 66%)
  • Company #9, a well-known specialty clothing store, cut its vendors from 800 to 250 (or down 68.8%)
  • Company #26, a specialty clothing store targeting the youth, cut its vendors from 150 to around 119 (or down 20.7%)
  • Company #28, a discount department store, cut its vendors from 3,100 to around 2,800 (or down 9.7%)

Associated with the trend of “country diversification and vendor consolidation,” US fashion companies are increasingly interested in working with “super vendors,” e.g., those with multiple country presence or vertical manufacturing capability. The use of “super vendor” can also be observed in fashion companies’ willingness to give more sourcing orders to their top suppliers. For example, Company #18, a casual and outdoor wear retailer, reduced its vendors from 200 in 2017/2018 to 110 in 2022/2023, but increased the cap of sourcing orders for its top 10 vendors from 40% to 47% over the same period.

Third, regarding the sourcing base, many US fashion companies have intentionally reduced their apparel sourcing from China, given the US-China tariff war, deteriorating bilateral relations, and the forced labor concerns with China’s Xinjiang region (XUAR). Specifically, more than one-third of the examined companies explicitly mentioned their strategy to reduce finished garments sourcing from China. Furthermore, several US fashion companies indicated their “reducing China exposure” strategy would continue, implying China’s market share in the US apparel import market could decrease further.

Nevertheless, even though fewer finished garments are coming from China, US fashion companies admit that China will continue to play a critical role as a textile raw material supplier as no immediate practical alternative is available. For example, Company #20, a specialty clothing chain focusing on trendy and fashionable items, says, “During fiscal 2022, we sourced most of our finished products with partners and suppliers outside the US and we continued to design and purchase fabrics globally, with most coming from China.”

Fourth, in line with trade statistics, US fashion companies consider other Asian suppliers, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Indonesia, as their top choices as China’s alternatives. In comparison, few fashion companies explicitly mentioned moving their sourcing orders from China to Western Hemisphere countries or other regions.

Additionally, regarding emerging “hot topics” related to sourcing:

  • Geopolitics: the deteriorating US-China relations, escalated trade tensions expanded from tariffs to forced labor, and the potential trade disruptions have concerned US fashion companies significantly. Notably, US fashion companies regard sourcing from China as increasingly risky, with the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in June 2022. For example, according to Company 2, “The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and other similar legislation may lead to greater supply chain compliance costs and delays to us and to our vendors.”
  • Near-shoring: due to the decoupling and de-risking from the China movement, US fashion companies have begun actively exploring near-shoring sourcing opportunities in the Western Hemisphere, particularly from members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). For example, Company #1, the North American manufacturer, disclosed that “(our) Company relies on a number of preferential trade programs (…) including the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR (…) Collectively, these agreements strengthen US economic relations and expand trade with Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti.”
  • Sustainability and social responsibility: It is noteworthy that aside from climate change and forced labor, which are typically addressed as risk factors, US fashion companies generally hold an optimistic and forward-looking perspective for sustainability, such as new technologies and endeavors toward more sustainable production and sourcing. Terms such as using preferred or recycled materials, supply chain transparency and traceability, and emerging sustainability technologies have been more frequently mentioned in companies’ annual or ESG reports. For example, Company #17 says, “Increase the usage of environmentally preferred materials to comprise 32.6% of the brand’s global materials footprint.” Company #2 adds, “Our goal is to use preferred materials in 100 percent of our products by 2030.” Company #9 states, “We collaborate with suppliers to increase the supply of preferred raw materials.”
  • Supply chain transparency: US fashion companies attach great importance to improving supply chain transparency and traceability. Compared to the past, fashion companies are more willing to invest in new technologies and digital tools, allowing them to map supply chains and achieve sustainability goals more effectively. Related to this, US fashion companies have actively engaged with industry associations and other industry communities outside the company to stay informed about sustainability trends and learn best practices.

By Emily Delaye and Sheng Lu

Note: Welcome to the webinar hosted by the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) on Friday, December 15, 2023 at 2:00pm EST, to hear Emily Delaye discuss the study in detail.

Understand the Evolving Production and Trade Patterns of Textiles and Apparel “Made in Asia”: Discussion Questions from Students in FASH455

Students in FASH455 have proposed the following discussion questions based on the videos about the state of textile and apparel in Asia. Everyone is welcome to join the online discussion. For FASH455 students, please address at least two questions and mention the question number (#) in your reply.

#1 We have seen all the improvements and “upgrading” Vietnam has made toward the fashion industry. What can the garment industry in other countries take away from Vietnam’s experiences?

#2 Is Asia’s highly integrated apparel supply chain unique to the region? Can the Western Hemisphere “copy” Asia’s model?

#3 How can Asia’s textile and apparel industry balance the growing demand for sustainability and the need to remain cost-competitive? What innovative strategies can be adopted to achieve this balance?

#4 As Asian textiles and apparel factories continue to improve their efficiency and expand product offers, will it be beneficial for the US to reach a trade agreement with Asian countries? Or do you believe such an agreement might contradict the goals we try to achieve from CAFTA-DR?

#5 Will Vietnam eventually become the next China, or could its labor shortages be a significant barrier preventing its textile and apparel industry from advancing to the next level?

#6 Should textile and garment factories in Asia make more efforts to appeal to the younger generation (e.g., Gen Z)? Or is automation the solution?

#7 To what extent do you think Asian apparel exporting countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia) will reduce their dependence on textile raw materials supply from China due to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)? Or, instead, do you think Asian apparel-exporting countries other than China benefit from UFLPA?

#8 The video shows that Asian countries have begun to invest heavily in new production capacities for textile recycling. Do you believe the region will continue to dominate textile and apparel production in the era of fashion circularity? Or will the emergence of textile recycling shift the world textile and apparel trade patterns in the long run?

Primark’s Global Sourcing for Apparel (Updated September 2023)

Primark’s sourcing strategies

According to Primark, it does not own any factories but sources all apparel products from contracted factories. Any contracted factory that manufactures products for Primark must meet internationally recognized standards before receiving the first sourcing order.

As of October 2022, Primark sourced from 883 contracted factories in 26 countries (note: it was a slight decline from 928 contracted factories in 28 countries as of May 2021). Of these factories, 85.5 percent were Asia-based because of the region’s massive production capacity and a balanced offer of various sourcing factors, from cost, speed to market, and flexibility to compliance risks.

Like many other EU-based fashion companies, near-shoring from within the EU was another critical feature of Primark’s sourcing strategies. About 14 percent of Primark’s contracted garment factories were EU-based (including Turkey).

Measured by the number of workers, Primark’s Asian factories were larger than their counterparts in other parts of the world. For example, while Primark’s factories in Pakistan and Bangladesh typically have more than 2,500+ workers, its factories in Western EU countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and France, on average, only have 64-200 workers. This pattern suggests that Primark mainly uses Asian factories to fulfill volume sourcing orders, and its EU factories mainly produce replenishment or more time-sensitive fashionable items.

Meanwhile, similar to the case of other retailers like PVH, Primark’s contracted garment factories in China were smaller than their peers in the rest of Asia. For instance, while over 90% of Primark’s garment factories in Bangladesh employ more than 1,000 workers, around 43% of their contracted factories in China have fewer than 100 workers. This pattern suggests Primark could use China as an apparel sourcing base primarily for orders requiring greater flexibility and agility and those involving a wider variety of products but in smaller quantities.

Further, reflecting the unique role of the garment industry in creating economic opportunities for women, females account for more than half of the workforce in most garment factories that make apparel for Primark. The percentage was exceptionally high in developing countries like Tunisia (94%), Morocco (91%), Pakistan (69%), Sri Lanka (69%), Myanmar (64%), India (62%), and Vietnam (59%).

According to Primark (as of September 2023), its Ethical Trade and Environmental Sustainability team comprises over 120 specialists based in key sourcing countries. The team conducts around 3,000 supplier audits a year to monitor compliance (i.e., fair pay, safety, and healthy working conditions.) Additionally, Primark says its factories were in line with the company’s environmental code of conduct, and the company “donated any unsold merchandise to the Newlife Foundation in Europe and KIDS/Fashion Delivers in the US.

by Sheng Lu

Discussion questions:

What are the unique aspects of Primark’s apparel sourcing strategies? What role does sourcing play in supporting Primark’s business success? Any questions or suggestions for Primark regarding its sourcing practices?

Inside Garment Factories in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka (updated April 2023)

Garment factories in Vietnam
Garment factories in Cambodia
Garment factories in Sri Lanka

Discussion questions (proposed by students in FASH455, spring 2023)

  • Based on the videos, does the flying geese concept still work today? Why?
  • Do you think Western fashion brands and retailers’ increasing emphasis on sustainability and social responsibility in apparel sourcing reduces Asian suppliers’ competitive disadvantage? Why or why not?
  • With Asian countries increasingly leveraging their labor advantages alongside advanced technologies, is the prospect of expanding nearshoring even less likely? What is your assessment?
  • What is your vision for the recycled clothing supply chain? Why or why not do you think Asian countries will continue to dominate?

US Apparel Import and Sourcing Trends: Asia vs. Near-shoring from the Western Hemisphere (Updated February 2023)

Trend 1: US fashion companies continue to diversify their sourcing base in 2022

Numerous studies suggest that US fashion companies leverage sourcing diversification and sourcing from countries with large-scale production capacity in response to the shifting business environment. For example, according to the 2022 fashion industry benchmarking study from the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), more than half of surveyed US fashion brands and retailers (53%) reported sourcing apparel from over ten countries in 2022, compared with only 37% in 2021. Nearly 40% of respondents plan to source from even more countries and work with more suppliers over the next two years, up from only 17% in 2021.

Trade data confirms the trend. For example, the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), a commonly-used measurement of market concentration, went down from 0.110 in 2021 to 0.105 in 2022, suggesting that US apparel imports came from even more diverse sources.

Trend 2: Asia as a whole will remain the dominant source of imports

Measured in value, about 73.5% of US apparel imports came from Asia in 2022, up from 72.8% in 2021. Likewise, the CR5 index, measuring the total market shares of the top five suppliers—all Asia-based, i.e., China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India, went up from 60.6% in 2021 to 61.1% in 2022. Notably, the CR5 index without China (i.e., the total market shares of Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, and Cambodia) enjoyed even faster growth, from 40.7% in 2021 to 43.7% in 2022.

Additionally, facing growing market uncertainties and weakened consumer demand amid high inflation pressure, US fashion companies may continue to prioritize costs and flexibility in their vendor selection. Studies consistently show that Asia countries still enjoy notable advantages in both areas thanks to their highly integrated regional supply chain, production scale, and efficiency. Thus, US fashion companies are unlikely to reduce their exposure to Asia in the short to medium term despite some worries about the rising geopolitical risks.

Trend 3: US fashion companies’ China sourcing strategy continues to evolve

Several factors affected US apparel sourcing from China negatively in 2022:

  • One was China’s stringent zero-COVID policy, which led to severe supply chain disruptions, particularly during the fall. As a result, China’s market shares from September to November 2022 declined by 7-9 percentage points compared to the previous year over the same period.
  • The second factor was the implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in June 2022, which discouraged US fashion companies from sourcing cotton products from China. For example, only about 10% of US cotton apparel came from China in the fourth quarter of 2022, down from 17% at the beginning of the year and much lower than nearly 27% back in 2018.
  • The third contributing factor was the US-China trade tensions, including the continuation of Section 301 punitive tariffs. Industry sources indicate that US fashion companies increasingly source from China for relatively higher-value-added items targeting the premium or luxury market segments to offset the additional sourcing costs.

Further, three trends are worth watching regarding China’s future as an apparel sourcing base for US fashion companies:

  • One is the emergence of the “Made in China for China” strategy, particularly for those companies that view China as a lucrative sales market. Recent studies show that many US fashion companies aim to tailor their product offerings further to meet Chinese consumers’ needs and preferences.
  • Second is Chinese textile and apparel companies’ growing efforts to invest and build factories overseas. As a result, more and more clothing labeled “Made in Bangladesh” and “Made in Vietnam” could be produced by factories owned by Chinese investors.
  • Third, China could accelerate its transition from exporting apparel to providing more textile raw materials to other apparel-exporting countries in Asia. Notably, over the past decade, most Asian apparel-exporting countries have become increasingly dependent on China’s textile raw material supply, from yarns and fabrics to various accessories. Moreover, recent regional trade agreements, particularly the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), provide new opportunities for supply chain integration in Asia.

Trend 4: US fashion companies demonstrate a new interest in expanding sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, but key bottlenecks need to be solved

Trade data suggests a mixed picture of near-shoring in 2022. For example, members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) accounted for a declining share of US apparel imports in 2022, measured in quantity and value. While CAFTA-DR and USMCA members showed an increase in their market share of US apparel imports in the fourth quarter of 2022, reaching 10.7% and 3.1%, respectively, this growth was not accompanied by an increase in trade volume. Instead, US apparel imports from these countries decreased by 11% and 15%, respectively, compared to the previous year. CAFTA-DR and USMCA members’ gain in market share was mainly due to a sharper decline in US apparel imports from the rest of the world (i.e., decreased by over 25% in the fourth quarter of 2022).

Trade data also suggests two other bottlenecks preventing more US apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR and USMCA members. One is the lack of product diversity. For example, the product diversification index consistently shows that US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR members and Mexico concentrated on only a limited category of products, and the problem worsened in 2022. The result explained why US fashion companies often couldn’t move souring orders from Asia to CAFTA-DR and USMCA members.

Another problem is the underutilization of the trade agreement. For example, CAFTA-DR’s utilization rate for US apparel imports consistently went down from its peak of 87% in 2011 to only 74% in 2021. The utilization rate fell to 66.6% in 2022, the lowest since CAFTA-DR fully came into force in 2007. This means that as much as one-third of US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR did NOT claim the agreement’s preferential duty benefits. Thus, regarding how to practically grow US fashion companies’ near-shoring, we could expect more public discussions and debates in the new year.

by Sheng Lu

Further reading: Lu, Sheng (2023). Key trends to watch as US apparel imports hit record high in 2022 but slow in 2023. Just-Style.

Video Discussion: The Changing Face of Textiles and Apparel “Made in Asia” (Updated December 2022)

Video 1: China’s textile industry going global

Video 2: Smart tech at E China clothing factory

Video 3: Vietnam’s textile and apparel industry amid the pandemic

Video 4: How H&M’s Recycling Machines Make New Clothes From Used Apparel in Hong Kong

Discussion questions:

  1. How are textiles and apparel “Made in Asia” changing their face? What are the driving forces of these changes?
  2. Based on the video, why or why not do you think the “flying geese model” is still valid today?
  3. How to understand COVID-19’s impact on Asia’s textile and apparel industry? What strategies have been adopted by garment factories in Asia to survive the pandemic? What challenges do they still face?
  4. What is your evaluation of Asia’s competitiveness as a textile and apparel production and sourcing hub over the next five years? Why? What factors could be relevant?  
  5. Anything else you find interesting/intriguing/thought-provoking/debatable in the video? Why?

Note: Everyone is welcome to join our online discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two questions. Please mention the question number # (no need to repeat the question) in your comment.

Patterns of US Apparel Imports in the First Half of 2022 and Key Sourcing Trends

First, US apparel imports enjoyed a decent growth but started to face softening demand.

  • Thanks to consumers’ spending, in the first half of 2022, US apparel imports went up 40% in value and 24% in quantity from a year ago.
  • However, due to US consumers’ weakening demand amid the economic downturn, the speed of import expansion is slowing down quickly. As an alert, the US consumer confidence index (CCI) fell to 54.8 in June 2022 (January 2019=100), the lowest since the pandemic. This result suggests that US consumers were increasingly worried about their household’s financial outlook and would hold back their discretionary clothing spending.
  • The month-over-month growth of US apparel imports dropped to only 2.6% in value and nearly zero in quantity in June 2022 from over 10% at the beginning of the year.
  • As the trajectory of the US economy remains highly uncertain in the medium term, we could expect many US fashion companies to turn more conservative about placing new sourcing orders in the second half of 2022 to control inventory and avoid overstock.

Second, fashion companies struggled with hiking apparel sourcing costs driven by multiple factors.

  • The price index of US apparel imports reached 103.9 in June 2022 (January 2019=100), a 3.1% increase from a year ago and the highest since 2019. USITC data further shows that, of the over 200 types of apparel items (HS Chapters 61 and 62) at the six-digit code level, nearly 70% had a price increase in the first half of 2022 from a year ago, including almost 40% experiencing a price increase exceeding 10 percent.
  • According to the 2022 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study recently released by the US Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), 100 percent of respondents expect their sourcing costs to increase in 2022, including nearly 40 percent expecting a substantial cost increase from a year ago. Further, respondents say that almost everything has become more expensive this year, from textile raw materials, shipping, and labor to the costs associated with compliance with trade regulations.
  • To make the situation even worse, the more expensive “cost of goods” resulted in heavier burdens of ad valorem import duties for US fashion companies. USITC data shows that in the first five months of 2022, US companies paid $6,117 million in tariffs for apparel imports (HS Chapters 61 and 62), a significant increase of 42.9% from a year ago. Of these import duties paid by US companies, about 30% (or $1,804 million) resulted from the controversial US Section 301 action against Chinese imports. Because of the Section 301 tariff action, the average applied US tariff rate for apparel imports also increased from 17.2% in 2018 to 18.7% in the first half of 2022.
  • Even though the US retail price index for clothing reached 102.7 in June 2022 (January 2019=100), the price increase was behind the import cost surge over the same period. In other words, given the intense market competition and weaker demand, US fashion companies couldn’t pass the sourcing cost increase to consumers entirely.

Third, US fashion companies continued to diversify their sourcing base in 2022, which benefited large-scale suppliers in Asia.

  • The Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), a commonly-used measurement of market concentration, went down from 0.11 in 2021 to 0.10 in the first half of 2022, suggesting that US apparel imports came from even more diverse sources. Similarly, the CS3 index, measuring the total market shares of the top three suppliers (i.e., China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh), fell below 50% in the first half of 2022, the lowest since 2018.
  • The Asia region remains the dominant source of apparel for US fashion companies: about 74.4% of US apparel imports came from Asian countries in the first half of 2022 (by value), which has stayed stable for over a decade.
  • One critical factor behind the apparent “contradictory” phenomenon is US fashion companies’ intention to reduce their “China exposure” further. Notably, considering all primary sourcing factors, from cost, speed to market, production flexibility, agility, and compliance risks, relatively large-scale Asian suppliers are the most likely alternatives to “Made in China.” Thus, the CR5 index excluding China (i.e., the market shares of Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, and Cambodia) increased from 40.7% in 2021 to 45.5% in the first half of 2022.

Fourth, US fashion companies’ evolving China sourcing strategy is far more subtle and complicated than simply “moving out of China.”

  • US fashion companies doubled their efforts to reduce sourcing from China in 2022, particularly in response to the newly implemented Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and the growing geopolitical risks. For example, measured in value, only 13.2% of US cotton apparel imports (OTEXA code 31) came from China in the first half of 2022, which fell from 14.4% a year ago and much lower than nearly 30% back in 2017.
  • Industry sources indicate that US fashion companies are “upgrading” what they source from China, possibly to offset the Section 301 punitive tariffs. The structural change includes importing less basic apparel items (e.g., tops and bottoms) and more sophisticated and higher-valued categories (e.g., dresses). Also, US fashion companies increasingly source from China for apparel items sold in the high-end market. For example, measured by the number of Stock Keeping Units (SKU), about 94% of apparel labeled “Made in China” sold in the US retail market targeted the value segment in 2018. However, of those apparel “Made in China” newly launched to the US retail market between January and July 2022, less than 2% were in the value segment. Instead, items targeting the higher-priced premium and mass market segments surged from 5% to 64%. Another 33% of “Made in China” were luxury apparel items. In other words, US fashion companies no longer see China as a sourcing base for cheap low-end products. Their sourcing decisions regarding China would give more consideration to non-price factors.
  • Further, some US fashion companies still see China as a promising sales market with growth potential. Localizing the supply chain (i.e., made in China for China) could be an increasingly popular practice for these companies. Thus, fashion companies’ vision for China could increasingly differ between those that only import products from China and those that see China as an emerging sales market.

Fifth, US apparel imports from the free trade agreements and trade preference programs partners stayed relatively stable in 2022 but lacked growth.

  • Despite the growing enthusiasm among US fashion companies for expanding near sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, the trade volume stayed stagnant. For example, in the first half of 2022, members of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) accounted for 8.8% of US apparel imports in quantity and 9.9% in value, lower than a year ago (i.e., 9.9% in quantity and 11.1% in value). Likewise, Mexico also reported lower market shares in the US apparel import market in 2022. The results remind us that encouraging more US apparel sourcing from free trade agreements and preference program partners should go beyond offering preferential duty treatment.
  • Product diversification is a critical area that needs improvement, particularly regarding Western Hemisphere sourcing. For example, results show that US apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR and Mexico generally concentrated on basic items such as tops and bottoms. In comparison, Asian countries, such as China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, could offer much more diverse categories of products. This explains why US fashion companies treat large-scale Asian countries as their preferred alternatives to “Made in China” rather than moving sourcing orders to CAFTA-DR or Mexico.
  • Even though the ultimate goal is to expand US apparel sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, we need to make more efforts to practically and creatively solve the bottleneck of textile raw material supply facing garment producers in the region.

by Sheng Lu

Suggested citation: Lu, S. (2022). Patterns of US Apparel Imports in the First Half of 2022 and Key Sourcing Trends. FASH455 global apparel and textile trade and sourcing. https://shenglufashion.com/2022/08/08/patterns-of-us-apparel-imports-in-the-first-half-of-2022-and-key-sourcing-trends/

Unlocking RCEP for Business: Opportunities for Garment and Textile Industry [Webinar]

The event is hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat.

About the webinar: This webinar seeks to understand the opportunities offered by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement for the garment and textile industry in the region. Considering that the garment and textile industry involves a large number of MSMEs in its supply chain, it would be important to understand how MSMEs can utilise the RCEP Agreement to grow their business and further integrate themselves into the global supply chain, noting that RCEP members are critical apparel-sourcing country for many big global players in the industry.

The first part of the event includes three presentations. 1) textile and apparel trade patterns in the RCEP region and how to read RCEP’s detailed tariff phaseout schedule. 2) RCEP rules of origin for textiles and apparel; and 3) customs procedure

In the second half, three companies from Cambodia, Thailand, and Indonesia shared their perspectives about the potential impact of RCEP on their businesses.

Speakers:

  • Dr. Sheng Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, University of Delaware (presentation starts at 17m41s)
  • Mr. Chy Sotharith, Chief of Non-Tariff Measures and Export-Import Policy Bureau, Department of Export-Import, General Department of Trade Support Services, Ministry of Commerce, Cambodia
  • Ms. Suchaya Chinwongse, Former Expert of Rules of Origin, the Customs Department of Thailand
  • Mr. Prama Yudha Amdan, Head of Corporate Communications and PR, Assistant President Director Asia Pacific Fibers
  • Mr. Kaing Monika Deputy Secretary General of Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (GMAC)
  • Mr. Jumnong Nawasmittawong, Executive Advisory Board to Textile Industry Club, The Federation of Thai Industries.

Japanese Fashion Companies Continue to Diversify Apparel Sourcing Base

Japan has one of the world’s largest apparel consumption markets, with retail sales totaling USD$100bn in 2021, only after the United States (USD$476bn) and China (USD$411bn). Meanwhile, like many other developed economies, most apparel consumed in Japan are imported, making the country a considerable sourcing and market access opportunity for fashion companies and sourcing agents around the globe.

Japanese fashion companies primarily source apparel from Asia. Data shows that Japanese fashion brands and retailers consistently imported more than 90% of clothing from the Asia region, much higher than their peers in the US (about 75%), the EU (50%), and the UK (about 60%). This pattern reflects Japan’s deep involvement in the Asia-based textile and apparel supply chain.

Notably, Japan’s apparel imports from Asia often contain textile raw materials “made in Japan.” Data shows that in 2021, about 65% of Japan’s yarn exports, 75% of woven fabric exports, and 90% of knit fabric exports went to the Asia region, particularly China and ASEAN members. Understandably, in Japan’s apparel retail stores, it is not rare to find clothing labeled “made in China” or “Made in Vietnam” but include phrases like “high-quality luster unique to Japanese fabrics” and “with Japanese yarns” in the product description.

The Global value chain analysis further shows that of Japan’s $5.32 billion gross textile exports in 2017, around 34% (or $1.79 billion) contributed to export production in other economies, mainly China ($496 million), Vietnam ($288 million), South Korea ($98 million), and Taiwan ($92 million).

China remains Japan’s top apparel supplier at the country level. However, Japanese fashion brands and retailers have been diversifying their sourcing base. Since the elimination of the quota system in 2005, China, for a long time, was the single largest apparel supplier for Japan, with an unparalleled market share of more than 80% measured by value. However, as “Made in China” became more expensive, among other factors, China’s market share dropped to 56.4% in 2021. Japanese fashion brands and retailers actively seek China’s alternatives like their US and EU counterparts. Notably, Japan’s apparel imports from Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have grown particularly fast, even though their production capacity and market shares are still far behind China’s.

As Japanese fashion companies source from more places, the total market shares of the top 5 apparel suppliers, not surprisingly, had dropped from over 94% back in 2010 to only 82.3% in 2021, measured by value. Similarly, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), commonly used to calculate market concentration, dropped from 0.64 in 2011 to 0.35 in 2021 for Japan’s apparel imports. In other words, Japanese fashion companies’ apparel sourcing bases became ever more diverse.

Fast Retailing Group’s apparel sourcing base (Data source: Open Apparel Registry)

We can observe the same pattern at the company level. For example, the Fast Retailing Group, the largest Japanese apparel retailer which owns Uniqlo, used to source nearly 100% of its products from China. However, as of 2021, the Fast Retailing Group sourced finished apparel from over 550 factories in more than 20 countries. While about half of these factories were in China, the Fast Retailing Group had strategically developed production capacity in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India. On the other hand, in April 2021, the Fast Retailing Group opened a 3D-knit factory in Shinonome, allowing the company to re-shoring some production back to Japan.

Additionally, Japan is a member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s most economically influential free trade agreement. Notably, Japan commits to reducing its apparel import tariffs to zero for RCEP members following a 21-year phaseout schedule. However, as Table 8 shows, Japan’s tariff cut for apparel products is more generous toward ASEAN members and less for China and South Korea due to competition concerns. For example, by 2026, Japan’s average tariff rate will be reduced from 9.1% today to only 1.9% for apparel imports from ASEAN members but will remain above 6% for imports from China. Given the tariff difference, it can be highly expected that ASEAN members such as Vietnam could become more attractive sourcing destinations for Japanese fashion companies.

by Sheng Lu

Further reading: Lu, Sheng (2022). Japan’s apparel market has strong sourcing potential. Just-Style.

COVID-19 and US Apparel Imports: Key Trends (Updated: January 2022)

First, US apparel imports continue to rebound in November 2021 as companies build the inventory for the holiday season. Thanks to US consumers’ strong demand and the upcoming holidays, the value of US apparel imports went up by 15.7% in November 2021 from a month ago (seasonally adjusted) and increased by as much as 39.7% from 2020. However, before the pandemic, the value of US apparel imports always peaked in October and then gradually slipped in November and December. The unusual surge of imports in November 2021 could be the combined effects of price inflation and the late arrival of goods due to the shipping crisis.

Meanwhile, US apparel imports so far in 2021 have been far more volatile than in the past few years because of uncertainties and disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the shipping crisis. For example, the year-over-year (YoY) growth rate ranged from 131% in May to 17.6% in July, causing fashion companies additional inventory planning and supply chain management challenges. Unfortunately, the new omicron variant could worsen the market uncertainty and volatility.

Second, Asian countries remain the dominant sourcing base for US fashion companies as the production capacity elsewhere is limited. Asian countries’ market shares fell from 74.2% in 2020 to 71.3% in July 2021, primarily because of the COVID lockdowns in Vietnam and Bangladesh. US apparel imports came from Asian countries rebounded to 74.8% and 72.5% in October and November 2021, respectively. This result suggests a lack of alternative sourcing destinations outside Asia, especially for large volume items. Meanwhile, the worsening shipping crisis affecting the route from Asia to North America could explain why Asian suppliers’ market shares in November were somewhat lower than a month ago.

Third, US companies continue to treat China as one of their essential sourcing bases in the current business environment. However, companies are NOT reversing their long-term strategy of reducing “China exposure.”  China stays the largest supplier for the US market in November 2021, accounting for 41.5% of total US apparel imports in quantity and 25.8% in value. Due to the seasonal factor, China’s market shares typically peak from June to September and then drop from October until March-April.

Both industry sources and the export product diversification index also consistently show that China supplied the most variety of products to the US market with no near competitors. In comparison, US apparel imports from Bangladesh, Mexico, and CAFTA-DR members concentrate more on specific product categories.

Nevertheless, the HHI index and market concentration ratios (CR3 and CR5) calculated based on the latest data suggest that US fashion companies continue to move their apparel sourcing orders from China to other Asian countries overall. For example, only around 15% of US cotton apparel comes from China, compared with about 27% in 2018. My latest studies also indicate that it has become ever more common to see a fashion company places only around 10% of its total sourcing value or volume from China compared to over 30% in the past. Furthermore, with the growing tensions of the US-China relations and the newly enacted Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, fashion companies could take another look at their China sourcing strategy to avoid potential high-impact disruptions.

Fourth, near sourcing from the Western Hemisphere, especially CAFTA-DR members, continue to gain popularity. Specifically, 17.3% of US apparel imports came from the Western Hemisphere year-to-date (YTD) in 2021 (January-November), higher than 16.1% in 2020. Notably, CAFTA-DR members’ market shares increased to 10.6% in 2021 (January to November) from 9.6% in 2020. The value of US apparel imports from CAFTA-DR also enjoyed a 41.7% growth in 2021 (January—November) from a year ago, one of the highest among all sourcing destinations. The imports from El Salvador (up 42.6%), Honduras (up 47.1%), and Guatemala (36.6%) had grown particularly fast so far in 2021. However, the political instability in some Central American countries could make fashion companies feel hesitant to permanently switch their sourcing orders to the region or make long-term investments.

Additionally, the latest trade data suggests a notable increase in the price of US apparel imports. Notably, the unit price of US apparel imports from almost all leading sources went up by more than 10% from January 2021 to November 2021. As worldwide inflation continues, the rising sourcing cost pressure won’t ease anytime soon.

by Sheng Lu

[The comment is closed]

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Textiles and Apparel (Updated November 2021)

What is RCEP?

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a free trade agreement between ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)* and five other large economies in the Asia-Pacific region (China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia). RCEP was reached on November 15, 2020, after nearly eight years of tough negotiation. (Note: ASEAN members include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. India was an original RCEP member but decided to quit in late 2019 due to concerns about competing with Chinese products, including textiles and apparel.)

So far, RCEP is the world’s largest trading bloc. As of 2019, RCEP members accounted for nearly 26.2% of world GDP, 29.5% of world merchandise exports, and 25.9% of world merchandise imports.

As of November 1, 2021, Lao, Burnei, Cambodia, Singapore and Thailand (ASEAN members), as well as China, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have ratified the agreement. This has met the minimum criteria for RCEP to enter into force (i.e., six members, including at least three ASEAN members and three non-ASEAN members).

As announced by Australia on November 2, 2021, RCEP will enter into force on January 1, 2022

Why RCEP matters to the textile and apparel industry?

RCEP matters significantly for the textile and apparel (T&A) sector. According to statistics from the United Nations, in 2019, the fifteen RCEP members altogether exported US$374 billion worth of T&A (or 50% of the world share) and imported US$139 billion (or 20% of the world share).

In particular, RCEP members serve as critical apparel-sourcing bases for many US and EU fashion brands. For example, in 2019, close to 60% of US apparel imports came from RCEP members, up from 45% in 2005. Likewise, in 2019, 32% of EU apparel imports also came from RCEP members, up from 28.1% in 2005.

Notably, RCEP members have been developing and forming a regional textile and apparel supply chain. More economically advanced RCEP members (such as Japan, South Korea, and China) supply textile raw materials to the less economically developed countries in the region within this regional supply chain. Based on relatively lower wages, the less developed countries typically undertake the most labor-intensive processes of apparel manufacturing and then export finished apparel to major consumption markets worldwide.

As a reflection of an ever more integrated regional supply chain, in 2019, as much as 72.8% of RCEP members’ textile imports came from other RCEP members, a substantial increase from only 57.6% in 2005. Nearly 40% of RCEP members’ textile exports also went to other RCEP members in 2019, up from 31.9% in 2005.

What are the key provisions in RCEP related to textiles and apparel?

First, RCEP members have committed to reducing the tariff rates to zero for most textile and apparel traded between RCEP members on day one after the agreement enters into force. That being said, the detailed tariff phaseout schedule for textile and apparel products under RCEP is very complicated. Each RCEP member sets their own tariff phaseout schedule, which can last more than 20 years (for example, 34 years for South Korea and 21 years for Japan.) Also, different from U.S. or EU-based free trade agreements, the RCEP phaseout schedule is country-specific. For example, South Korea sets different tariff phaseout schedules for textile and apparel products from ASEAN, China, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Japan’s tariff cut for apparel products is more generous toward ASEAN members and less so for China and South Korea (see the graph above). Companies interested in taking advantage of the duty-free benefits under RCEP need to study the “rules of the game” in detail.

Second, in general, RCEP adopts very liberal rules of origin for apparel products. It only requires that all non-originating materials used in the production of the good have undergone a tariff shift at the 2-digit HS code level (say a change from any chapters from chapters 50-60 to chapter 61). In other words, RCEP members are allowed to source yarns and fabrics from anywhere in the world, and the finished garments will still qualify for duty-free benefits.  Most garment factories in RCEP member countries can immediately enjoy the RCEP benefits without adjusting their current supply chains.

What are the potential economic impacts of RCEP on the textile and apparel sector?

On the one hand, the implementation of RCEP is likely to further strengthen the regional textile and apparel supply chain among RCEP members. Particularly, RCEP will likely strengthen Japan, South Korea, and China as the primary textile suppliers for the regional T&A supply chain. Meanwhile, RCEP will also enlarge the role of ASEAN as the leading apparel producer in the region.

On the other hand, as a trading bloc, RCEP could make it even harder for non-RCEP members to get involved in the regional textile and apparel supply chain formed by RCEP members. Because an entire regional textile and apparel supply chain already exists among RCEP members, plus the factor of speed to market, few incentives are out there for RCEP members to partner with suppliers from outside the region in textile and apparel production. The tariff elimination under the RCEP will put textile and apparel producers that are not members of the agreement at a more significant disadvantage in the competition. Not surprisingly, according to a recent study, measured by value, only around 21.5% of RCEP members’ textile imports will come from outside the area after the implementation of the agreement, down from the base-year level of 29.9% in 2015.

Further, the reaching of RCEP could accelerate the negotiation of other trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the China-South Korea-Japan Free Trade Agreement. We might also see growing pressures on the Biden administration to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to strengthen the US economic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The economic competition between the United States and China in the area could also intensify as the combined effects of RCEP and CPTPP begin to shape new supply chains and test the impacts of the two countries on the regional trade patterns.

By Sheng Lu

Further reading

2021 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

The 2022 USFIA Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study is now available

The full report is available HERE

Key findings of this year’s report:

#1 COVID-19 continues to substantially affect U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing and business operations in 2021

  • Recovery is happening: Most respondents expect their business to grow in 2021. Around 76 percent foresee their sourcing value or volume to increase from 2020. Around 60 percent of respondents expect a full recovery of their sourcing value or volume to the pre-COVID level by 2022.
  • Uncertainties remain: Still, 27 percent find it hard to tell when a full recovery will happen. About 20 percent of respondents still expect 2021 to be a very challenging year financially.
  • U.S. fashion companies’ worries about COVID still concentrate on the supply side, including driving up production and sourcing costs and causing shipping delays and supply chain disruptions. U.S. fashion companies’ COVID response strategies include strengthening relationships with key vendors, emphasizing sourcing agility and flexibility, and leveraging digital technologies. In comparison, few respondents canceled sourcing orders this year.

#2 The surging sourcing costs are a significant concern to U.S. fashion companies in 2021.

  • As many as 97 percent of respondents anticipate the sourcing cost to increase further this year, including 37 percent expect a “substantial increase” from 2020.
  • Respondents say almost EVERYTHING becomes more expensive in 2021. Notably, more than 70 percent of respondents expect the “shipping and logistics cost,” “cost of textile raw material (e.g., yarns and fabrics),” “cost of sourcing as a result of currency value and exchange rate changes,” and “labor cost” to go up.

#3 U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing strategies continue to envovle in response to the shifting business environment.

  • Asia’s position as the dominant apparel sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies remains unshakeable.
  • “China plus Vietnam plus Many” remains the most popular sourcing model among respondents. However, the two countries combined now typically account for 20-40 percent of a U.S. fashion company’s total sourcing value or volume, down from 40-60 percent in the past few years.
  • Asia is U.S. fashion companies’ dominant sourcing base for textile intermediaries. “China plus at least 1-2 additional Asian countries” is the most popular textile raw material sourcing practice among respondents.
  • As U.S. fashion companies prioritize strengthening their relationship with key vendors during the pandemic, respondents report an overall less diversified sourcing base than in the past few years.

#4 U.S. fashion companies continue to reduce their China exposure. However, the debate on China’s future as a textile and apparel sourcing base heats up.

  • Most U.S. fashion companies still plan to source from China in short to medium terms. While 63 percent of respondents plan to decrease sourcing from China further over the next two years, it is a notable decrease from 70 percent in 2020 and 83 percent in 2019.
  • Most respondents still see China as a competitive and balanced sourcing base from a business perspective. Few other sourcing countries can match China’s flexibility and agility, production capacity, speed to market, and sourcing cost. As China’s role in the textile and apparel supply chain goes far beyond garment production and continues to expand, it becomes ever more challenging to find China’s alternatives.
  • Non-economic factors, particularly the allegations of forced labor in China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR), significantly hurt China’s long-term prospect as a preferred sourcing base by U.S. fashion companies. China also suffered the most significant drop in its labor and compliance rating this year.

#5 With an improved industry look and the continued interest in reducing “China exposure,” U.S. fashion companies actively explore new sourcing opportunities.

  • Vietnam remains a hot sourcing destination. However, respondents turn more conservative this year about Vietnam’s growth potential due to rising cost concerns and trade uncertainties caused by the Section 301 investigation.
  • U.S. fashion companies are interested in sourcing more from Bangladesh over the next two years. Respondents say apparel “Made in Bangladesh” enjoys a prominent price advantage over many other Asian suppliers. However, the competition among Bangladeshi suppliers could intensify as U.S. fashion companies plan to “work with fewer vendors in the country.”
  • Respondents are also interested in sourcing more from Sub-Saharan Africa by leveraging the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Respondents also demonstrate a growing interest in investing more in AGOA members directly. “Replace AGOA with a permanent free trade agreement that requires reciprocal tariff cuts and continues to allow the “third-country fabric provision” is respondents’ most preferred policy option after AGOA expires in 2025.

#6 Sourcing from the Western Hemisphere is gaining new momentum

  • Overall, U.S. fashion companies’ growing interest in the Western Hemisphere is more about diversifying sourcing away from China and Asia than moving the production back to the region (i.e., reshoring or near-shoring).
  • Respondents say CAFTA-DR’s “short supply” and “cumulation” mechanisms provide critical flexibility that allow U.S. fashion companies to continue to source from its members. However, despite the “yarn-forward” rules of origin, only 15 percent of respondents sourcing apparel from CAFTA-DR members say they “purposefully use U.S.-made fabrics” to enjoy the agreement’s duty-free benefits.
  • Respondents suggest that encouraging more apparel sourcing from the Western Hemisphere requires three significant improvements: 1) make the products more price competitive; 2) strengthen the region’s fabric and textile raw material production capacity; 3) make rules of origin less restrictive in relevant U.S. trade agreements.

This year’s benchmarking study was based on a survey of executives at 31 leading U.S. fashion companies from April to June 2021. The study incorporates a balanced mix of respondents representing various types of businesses in the U.S. fashion industry. Approximately 54 percent of respondents are self-identified retailers, 46 percent self-identified brands, 69 percent self-identified importers/wholesalers. Around 65 percent of respondents report having more than 1,000 employees. Another 27 percent of respondents represent medium-sized companies with 101-999 employees.

COVID-19 and U.S. Apparel Imports: Key Trends (Updated: June 2021)

First, thanks to consumers’ resumed demand and a more optimistic outlook for the U.S. economy, U.S. apparel imports continue to rebound. However, uncertainties remain. On the one hand, mirroring retail sales patterns, the value of U.S. apparel imports in April 2021 went up by 66% from a year ago, a new record high since the pandemic. The absolute value of U.S. apparel imports so far in 2021 (January –April) also recovered to around 88% of the pre-Covid level (i.e., January to April 2019). However, the value of U.S. apparel imports in April 2021 was 11.2% lower than in March 2021 (seasonally adjusted), suggesting that the market environment is far from stable yet as the COVID situation in the U.S. and other parts of the world continue to evolve.

Second, data indicates that Asia as a whole remains the single largest sourcing base for U.S. fashion companies, stably accounting for around 72-75% of the import value. Studies show that two factors, in particular, contribute to Asia’s competitiveness as a preferred apparel sourcing base—price and flexibility & agility.  Asia’s highly integrated regional supply chains and its vast production capacity shape its competitiveness in these two aspects.

However, the recent surge of COVID cases in India and its neighboring Southeast Asian countries has raised new worries about the potential sourcing risks and supply chain disruptions for U.S. fashion companies currently sourcing from there.  

Third, as the direction of the US-China relations becomes ever more concerning, U.S. fashion companies seem to accelerate diversifying sourcing from China. Even China remains the top apparel supplier for the U.S. market, from January to April 2021, China’s market shares fell to 32.1% in quantity (was 36.6% in 2020) and 20.2% in value (was 23.7% in 2020).  Also, the HHI index and market concentration ratios (CR3 and CR5) suggest that US fashion companies are increasingly moving their apparel sourcing orders from China to other Asian countries. For example, according to a leading U.S. fashion corporation in its latest annual report, “in response to the recent tariffs imposed by the current US administration, the Company has reduced the amount of goods being produced in China.”

Further, the latest data suggests that the concerns about the alleged forced labor in Xinjiang hurt China’s prospect as an apparel sourcing destination, BOTH for cotton and non-cotton items. Measured by value, only 11.9% of U.S. cotton apparel came from China in April 2021, a new record low since implementing the CBP WROs, which impose a regional ban on any cotton and cotton apparel made in the Xinjiang region. The latest data also suggests that China is quickly losing market shares for non-cotton textile and apparel items.

Fourth, U.S. apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members gains new momentum, reflecting the strong interest in sourcing more from the region from the business community and policymakers. For example, 17.5% of U.S. apparel imports came from the Western Hemisphere in 2021 (Jan-Apr), higher than 16.1% in 2020 and 17.1% before the pandemic. Notably, CAFTA-DR members’ market shares increased to 10.8% in 2021 (Jan-Apr) from 9.6% in 2020. The value of U.S. apparel imports from CAFTA-DR also enjoyed a 25.8% growth in 2021 (Jan-Apr) from a year ago, one of the highest among all sourcing destinations. The imports from El Salvador (up 29.2%), Honduras (up 28.0%), and Guatemala (27.0%) had grown particularly fast in 2021.

Meanwhile, U.S. apparel imports from USMCA members stayed stable overall. CAFTA-DR and USMCA members currently account for around 60% and 25% of U.S. apparel imports from the Western Hemisphere. They are also the single largest export market for U.S. textile products (around 70%). The Biden administration has signaled its strong interest in strengthening the western hemisphere textile and apparel supply chain by leveraging CAFTA-DR along with other trade policy tools.

by Sheng Lu

The Future of Asia as a Textile and Apparel Sourcing Base—Discussion Questions from Students in FASH455

Garment factories in Vietnam adopt RFID; Video credit: Li &Fung

#1: How to explain the phenomenon that US fashion companies are diversifying apparel sourcing from China, but not so much from the Asia region? For example, as of 2020, still, around 75% of US apparel imports came from Asian countries.

#2: From the readings and your observation, to which extent will automation challenge the conclusions of the “flying geese model” and the evolution pattern of Asian countries’ textile and apparel industry over the past decades?

#3: It could be a crazy idea, but given the current business environment, what would the textile and apparel supply chain in Asia look like without “Made in China”? What would be the implications for US fashion companies sourcing strategies?

#4: RCEP members are with a diverse competitiveness in textile and apparel production and exports. Several leading Asian apparel-exporting countries are not RCEP members (such as Bangladesh). Is it unavoidable that RCEP will create BOTH winners and losers for textile and apparel trade? How so?

#5: Is the growth model and development path of Asian countries’ textile and apparel industry an exception—meaning it is challenging to apply it to the rest of the world, such as the Western Hemisphere and Africa? What is your view?

#6: What is your outlook of Asia as a textile and apparel-sourcing base in the post-Covid world? Why?

(Welcome to our online discussion. For students in FASH455, please address at least two questions and mention the question number (#) in your reply)

Regional Supply Chain Remains a Key Feature of World Textile and Apparel Trade

While textile and apparel is well-known as a global sector, the latest statistics show that world textile and apparel trade patterns remain largely regional-based. Three particular regional textile and apparel trade flows are critical to watch:

First, Asian countries are increasingly sourcing textile raw material from within the region. As much as 85% of Asian countries’ textile imports came from other Asian countries in 2019, a substantial increase from only 70% in the 2000s. This result reflects the formation of an ever more integrated regional textile and apparel supply chain in Asia. However, as Asian countries become more economically integrated, textile and apparel producers in other parts of the world could find it more challenging to get involved in the region. With the recent reaching of several mega free trade agreements among countries in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the pattern of “Made in Asia for Asia” is likely to strengthen further.

Second, the EU intra-region trade pattern for textile and apparel stays relatively strong and stable. Intra-region trade refers to trade flows between EU members. Statistics show that 54.6% of EU(27) members’ textile imports and 37.4% of their apparel imports came from within the EU(27) region in 2019. This pattern only slightly changed over the past decade. In other words, despite the reported increasing competition from Asian suppliers, many of which even enjoy duty-free market access to the EU market (such as through the EU Everything But Arms program), a substantial share of apparel sold in the EU markets are still locally made.

EU consumers’ preferences for “slow fashion” (i.e., purchasing less but for more durable products with higher quality) may contribute to the stable EU intra-region trade pattern. Many EU consumers also see textile and apparel as cultural products and do NOT shop simply for the price. This explains why Western EU countries such as Italy, Germany, and France rank the top apparel producers and exporters in the EU region despite their high wage and production costs.

Third, the Western Hemisphere (WH) supply chain faces significant challenges despite the seemingly growing popularity of “near-sourcing.” On the one hand, textile and apparel exporters in the Western-Hemisphere still rely heavily on the regional market. In 2019, respectively, as much as 79% of textiles and 86% of apparel exports from countries in the Western Hemisphere went to the same region. 

However, on the other hand, the Western-Hemisphere supply chain is facing increasing competition from Asian suppliers. For example, in 2019, only 22% of North, South, and Central American countries’ textile imports and 15% of their apparel imports came from within the Western Hemisphere, a new record low in ten years. Similarly, in the first eleven months of 2020, only 15.7% of US apparel imports came from the Western Hemisphere, down from 17.1% in 2019 before the pandemic. The limited local textile production capacity and the high production cost are the two notable factors that discourage US fashion brands and retailers from committing to more “near-sourcing” from the Western Hemisphere.

In comparison, Asian countries supplied a new record high of 62.2% of textiles and 75% apparel to countries in the Western Hemisphere in 2019, up from 49.1% and 71.1% ten years ago. This trend suggests that as the competitiveness of “Factory Asia” continues to improve, even regional trade agreements (such as USMCA and CAFTA-DR) and their restrictive “yarn-forward” rules of origin have limits to protect the Western Hemisphere supply chain.

In comparison, Asian countries supplied a new record high of 62.2% of textiles and 75% apparel to countries in the Western Hemisphere in 2019, up from 49.1% and 71.1% ten years ago. This trend suggests that as the competitiveness of “Factory Asia” continues to improve, even regional trade agreements (such as USMCA and CAFTA-DR) and their restrictive “yarn-forward” rules of origin have limits to protect the Western Hemisphere supply chain.

Additionally, many say that the reaching of RCEP creates new pressure for the new Biden administration to consider joining the CPTPP and strengthening economic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Notably, several USMCA and CAFTA-DR members, such as Mexico, also have RCEP or CPTPP membership. Apparel producers in these Western Hemisphere countries may find it more rewarding to access the cheaper textile raw material from Asia through CPTPP or RCEP rather than claiming the duty-saving benefits for finished garments under USMCA or CAFTA-DR. Like it or not, the Biden administration’s inaction will also have consequences. 

by Sheng Lu

Further reading: Lu, Sheng. (2021). Regional supply chains still shape textile and apparel trade. Just-Style