Tag: cost

How EU Fashion Companies Navigate Trump’s Tariffs (Updated November 2025)

This study aims to examine the impacts of the Trump administration’s escalating tariffs on the apparel sourcing and business practices of EU-headquartered fashion companies. Based on data availability, transcripts of the latest earnings call from about 10 leading publicly traded EU fashion companies were collected. These earnings calls, held between August and November 2025, covered company performance in the second quarter of 2025 or later. A thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted using MAXQDA.

First, reflecting the global nature of today’s fashion apparel industry, many EU-based fashion companies also see tariffs as one of their top business concerns in the second quarter of 2025. However, overall, luxury fashion companies reported less significant tariff effects than fast-fashion retailers and sportswear brands. The result reflected luxury fashion companies’ distinct cost structure, supply chain strategies, and competitive factors, making them less sensitive toward tariff-driven sourcing cost increases.

Second, EU-based fashion companies generally regarded the rising sourcing costs and the resulting pressure on profit margins as the most significant impacts of Trump’s tariffs. Companies also noted that the tariffs’ financial impacts would be more noticeable in the coming months as more newly launched products became subject to the higher import duties. For example:

  • Adidas: “We already had the double digit hit when it gets to cost of goods sold already in Q2 in the U. S…the impact of these duties, if they are the way we have calculated them here, an increase in cost of goods sold of about CHF 200,000,000 (about $250 million USD).”
  • H&M: “Against that, we have the impact of the tariffs that will then, based on the tariffs we pay during Q3, a lot of those garments will be sold during Q4, and that’s when they affect our profit and loss.”

Third, EU-based fashion companies commonly adopted a sourcing diversification strategy to mitigate the tariff impact. Companies also increasingly look for vendors that can deliver speed, flexibility, and agility.  Furthermore, some EU companies have been strategically leveraging regional supply chains to meet the sourcing needs. For example:

  • Adidas: “We work with our suppliers who are mostly multi country…”
  • Hugo Boss: “Since our last update in early May, we have taken concrete steps to mitigate tariff-related impacts. Our well-diversified global sourcing footprint has a clear advantage in this regard. It enables us to swiftly adapt to changing conditions and optimize sourcing decisions.”
  • H&M: “We are working on how to increase the speed and reaction time in our supply chain. That’s a wide work that includes both, as we mentioned before, how we move production closer to the customer with what we call nearshoring or proximity sourcing, but it’s also working with a set of suppliers that can be much quicker and where they can support with a larger part of the product development process.”
  • C&A: “In the last quarter, we developed our logistics strategy to sustain C&A’s growth curve till 2030…This strategy was designed so as to bring greater speed and flexibility to our operational model through a more regionalized network, that is a network that is closer to the stores and major consumption centers, allowing us to have greater capacity to respond to the demands of each store.”

Fourth, like their U.S. counterparts, some EU fashion companies reduced their “China exposure” to lessen the impact of tariffs. Others establish a “China for China” supply chain due to perceived market opportunities there. For example:

  • Puma: “Our China exposure got reduced further for the Spring/Summer 2026 collection…The vast majority of our U. S. Imports originate from Asia, with Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia accounting for the majority…”
  • Adidas: “China is almost irrelevant for us because we have reduced the amount of China imports into the U. S. to only 2%…What we did is that we transferred the Chinese capacities to be mostly China for China…We have a more verticalized supply chain in China.”
  • Hugo Boss: “In particular, we have increased our inventory coverages in the U. S. And successfully rerouted product flows from China to other regions.”

Additionally, despite tariff-driven cost pressures, many EU-based fashion companies were cautious about raising prices, worried about losing customers in an overall weak market. Meanwhile, luxury fashion brands seem more comfortable raising prices than non-luxury brands. For example:

  • Adidas: “What kind of price increases could we take depending on the different duties, but there’s no decision on that…We are not the price leader, but we’d, of course, follow, a, what the market is doing, our competitor is doing and also, of course, look very closely what the consumer is accepting because in the end, it’s to keep the balance between all these factors.”
  • H&M: “That we do in the U.S., as we do in all other markets, and that leads to both price decreases and price increases to stay competitive. That’s an ongoing work. We are cautious about looking at the Q4 development in the U.S., given that we know we have already paid tariffs that will impact the gross margins as we look into the fourth quarter.”
  • Inditex (Zara): “With regards to the tariffs in the U.S. specifically, we have a stable pricing policy that we’re always talking about. Of course, all pricing activity, be it in the U.S. or any other geography, is primarily driven by commercial decisions, not financial ones. What we try to do in every market is maintain our relative position.”
  • Burberry: “19% of our revenues are from the US…We spent much of last year looking at the supply chain, looking at price elasticity…We took quite a surgical approach to price increases in the US, and…we really definitely understood where we had price elasticity there.”
  • Hugo Boss: “we will introduce moderate price adjustments globally with the upcoming spring 2026 collections, which will begin delivery towards the 2025. These steps aim to safeguard our margin profile while remaining aligned with broader market dynamics.”

by Sheng Lu

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

NY times

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

cost

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

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

Apparel Industry is Not All about Labor Cost

While most discussions on improving corporate social responsibility practices in the apparel industry still focus on conventional solutions like higher labor standards and more effective monitoring programs, a recent Boston Consulting Group report suggests supply chain innovation also has its role to play.

One key argument of the report is: Although cost still matters in apparel sourcing, lower-cost can be achieved through means other than seeking cheap labor. For example:

1

Engendering end-to-end supply chain efficiency through managing raw materials. Apparel companies may work with their suppliers further down the supply chain to optimize fabric selection, which usually account for as much as 60-70 percent of the total cost of a finished garment (v.s. 30-40 percent of labor cost). Some apparel companies have started to use fewer yarns and weight classes so as to reduce fabric count and lower down sourcing cost. Some other companies are realizing significant cost reduction by timing orders so as to level the load over the course of the year. [Note: looks like Uniqlo’s model]

2

Building an integrated supply chain. As cited in the report, to balance sourcing cost and speed to market, one major apparel retailer builds 15 to 20 percent of the season’s styles and pre-positions about two-thirds of its raw material before the season (both in-house and from production partners). During the season, the company analyzes sales, staying in constant communication with its stores and with the design team. It resupplies items that are selling well through accelerated production and delivery, usually within three to four days. Designers then create new styles by adapting the best sellers using the pre-positioned material. [Note: looks like Zara’s model]

Innovating ways of production. The report suggests that bonding and gluing technologies (i.e. use bonded adhesive films and processes such as ultrasonic heating and high-frequency radiation to fuse together layers of fabric) can produce an entire small garment in 30 to 40 percent less time than conventional cut-and-sew. Digital technologies such as digital prototyping of textile designs can also significantly help apparel makers reduce waste and boost efficiency in pattern making. The potential application of 3D printing may further allow apparel makers to produce smaller batches, and possibly even allow for made-to-order production of individually designed and sized garments. This would not only allow companies to match the market’s growing need for speed, but also reduce the costs of retail inventory surpluses and associated price reductions.

Two additional thinking based on the report:

First, much attention has been given to the changing business environment of the apparel industry, such as rising labor cost in Asia, shifting market growth towards emerging economies and more sophisticated consumers’ demand in the era of omni-channel retailing. But what if the nature of the apparel industry is also changing: if one day labor cost is no longer a key factor in deciding where to produce and apparel production itself is no longer labor-intensive at all? Although automation of apparel production was not achieved in the 20st century, it may not be something totally impossible in the 21st century. We need to have bold thinking here.

Second, while the apparel industry is innovating its business model (i.e. the way to produce, the way to deliver products and the way to serve its customers), T&A educational programs also need to embrace innovative thinking. For example: are traditional course offerings sufficient enough (or still relevant) to prepare students’ job readiness in the 21st century? How to proactively respond to the changing nature of the apparel industry which has started to adopt more and more new technologies? What if we redefine the meaning of “T&A” majors and redesign the model of preparing the workforce for the apparel industry? (just like the question: for wearable technology, shall IT companies make apparel or apparel companies make IT products?)