Tag: made in USA

FASH455 Debate: Is the U.S. Textile Manufacturing Sector a Winner or Loser of Globalization and International Trade?

(note: the following comments are from students in FASH455 based on the video “Textile Manufacturing in America, post-globalisation”

Argument: The U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a winner of globalization

Comment #1: The video highlighted some of the few remaining textile plants and the cotton refinery’s in the U.S. and how they are taking risks daily to stay afloat with risks of inflation and climate change. However, for these American companies to stay afloat, they must participate in globalization themselves. The video mentioned how these factories were using Swiss and German dying machines to make production more efficient. For these onshore jobs to stay alive, they have to now utilize globalized information and technology to stay successful. 

Comment #2: Deeper down, the US textile sector seems to be winning in the long run. The squeeze that globalization has placed on them has allowed for innovation within the industry as they fight to stay relevant and compete with overseas goods. Operational slack such as high turnover jobs have been eliminated with automation, and US manufacturers gained a new branding niche that overseas companies do not: a US “personal touch.” Consumers may now be more willing to pay more for a garment just because it says it is made in the USA. USA-made clothing may now be perceived as higher quality and more scarce. The sentiment towards US-made goods and their quality could enact change to reduce overseas reliance, which is a win for US manufacturing in the long run. Additionally, globalization expands the export market for the US textile manufacturing sector.

Argument: the U.S. textile manufacturing industry has been a loser of globalization

Comment #3: According to the video, the U.S. textile manufacturing sector is a loser in globalization and international trade.  Robert Lighthizer, a former U.S. trade representative, believes the drive to globalization saw the United States effectively giving away its own prosperity and success.  He explains the effects of trade deals on jobs, illustrating how the U.S. would place most of its focus on service sector jobs and outsource its industrial base.  However, this resulted in the loss of roughly 6 million jobs and 60,000 factories, destroying many communities all across the country and causing a lack of diversity in the job economy. 

Comment #4: I think the US is a loser of globalization and international trade because they rely on other countries for their cheap goods and services. When I look at clothing tags, I rarely see them made in the US nowadays. Again, this is because the US being dependent on other countries due to unbeatable costs. I also think since we rely so heavily on other countries, it has contributed to job displacement.

Comment #5: The US textile manufacturing sector is a loser of globalization and international trade. Cotton production in the US is beneficial to the communities it exists in. However, these companies must fight against a strong dollar, competitors in China who do not always abide by the same regulations as US companies, and use cheap labor. When China entered the WTO, the US suffered greatly. Many textile factories in the US have closed, disrupting the entire community.

Comment #6: Overall, I believe that the U.S. textile manufacturing industry is a loser of globalization and international trade, mostly due to the competition from overseas. This competition includes more manufacturers from other countries, but also the competition of pricing since other oversea manufacturers are able to sell their cotton/textile materials at a lower price. Since the U.S. struggles to compete with these lower prices, they are forced to look for another way to have a competitive advantage in the textile manufacturing sector, such as lean manufacturing and technology improvements. At Carolina Cotton Works, Bryan Ashby shares how they have increased efficiency and use high-quality machines (note: imported) for their products. Although this sounds great, this also means that there are fewer workers.  

Comment #7: I think the US textile manufacturing sector was a loser of globalization and international trade because big companies were using other countries for their sourcing and manufacturing. This was because it was much cheaper compared to the United States. In doing this, it declined the need for textile manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Comment #8: Globalization creates a trade dependence on imports. It’s important we don’t depend on things for when things happen that we can’t predict like the pandemic where we can’t import anymore. Since there was a lack of local textile manufacturing and sourcing in the United States compared to what was being imported, there was less of a chance for technological advances and improvement in the United States textile manufacturing sector. Post Globalization however may be the chance for the United States to bring back the textile manufacturing sector momentum. I think this because the United States has seen the result of heavily relying on other countries for their cheap labor/sources and this could add extra motivation for companies to want to figure out better alternatives in manufacturing in their own country.

Comment #9: I think currently the US is a loser to globalization only because brands want to get the product for cheap. I think brands think that would create more profit that way. However, I do believe we could get to a future where more things would be created in the US and wouldn’t have to pay that much in tariffs and other external prices. I think it would help boost people to work more. I think people are worried about making things in our country because of the relations we have with other countries.

Comment #10: U.S. Businesses are now focusing on the cheapest way to do everything instead of thinking about creating good jobs for their working community with fair pay. The U.S. is losing jobs, factories, communities, etc. in efforts to help other countries build themselves up through globalization. It is time for the U.S. to make some changes and look out for our own country and people.

Discussion questions:

Do you agree or disagree with any particular argument above? Any follow-up comments on the impact of globalization on the US textile manufacturing sector? What should government do with trade given the debates? Please feel free to share any additional thoughts.

New Study: Explore U.S. Retailers’ Sourcing Strategies for Clothing Made from Recycled Textile Materials

Key findings:

This study was based on a statistical analysis of 3,307 randomly selected clothing items made from recycled textile materials for sale in the U.S. retail market between January 2019 and August 2022 (see the sample picture above). The results show that:

First, U.S. retailers sourced clothing made from recycled textile materials from diverse countries.

Specifically, the sampled clothing items came from as many as 36 countries, including developed and developing economies in Asia, America, the EU, and Africa.

However, reflecting the unique supply chain composition of clothing made from recycled textile materials, U.S. retailers’ sourcing patterns for such products turned out to be quite different from regular new clothing. For example, whereas the vast majority (i.e., over 90%) of U.S. regular new clothing came from developing countries as of 2022 (UNComtrade, 2022), as many as 43% of the sampled clothing items made from recycled textile materials (n=1,408) were sourced from developed countries. Likewise, U.S. retailers seemed to be less dependent on Asia when sourcing clothing made from recycled materials (41.9%, n=1,387) and instead used near-sourcing from America (30.1%, n=994) more often, particularly domestic sourcing from the United States (14.8%, n=490).

Second, U.S. retailers appeared to set differentiated assortments for products imported from developed and developing countries when sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials.

Among the sampled clothing items made from recycled textile materials, those imported from developing countries, on average, included a broader assortment than developed economies. Likewise, imports from developing countries also concentrated on products relatively more complex to make as opposed to developed countries. Developing countries’ more extensive clothing production capability, including the available production facilities and skilled labor force, than developed economies could have contributed to the pattern.

On the other hand, likely caused by developed countries’ overall higher production costs, the average retail price of sampled clothing items sourced from developed countries was notably higher than those from developing ones. However, NO clear evidence shows that U.S. retailers used developed countries primarily as the sourcing bases for luxury or premium items and used developing countries only for items targeting the mass or value market. 

Third, an exporting country’s geographic location was another statistically significant factor affecting U.S. retailers’ sourcing pattern for clothing made from recycled textile materials. Specifically,

  • Imports from Asia had the most diverse product assortment (e.g., sizing options) and focused on complex product categories (e.g., outwear) that targeted mass and value markets.
  • Imports from America (North, South, and Central America) concentrated on simple product categories (e.g., T-shirts and hosiery) with moderate assortment diversity and mainly targeted the mass and value market.
  • Imports from the EU were mainly higher-priced luxury items in medium-sophisticated or sophisticated product categories with diverse assortment.
  • Imports from Africa concentrated on relatively higher-priced premium or luxury items in simple product categories (i.e., swim shorts) with a limited assortment diversity. 

The study’s findings demystified the country of origin of clothing made from recycled textile materials hidden behind macro trade statistics. The findings also created critical new knowledge that contributed to our understanding of the supply chain of clothing made from recycled textile materials and U.S. retailers’ distinct sourcing patterns and affecting factors for such products. The findings have several other important implications:

First, the study’s findings revealed the broad supply base for clothing made from recycled textile materials and suggested promising sourcing opportunities for such products. Whereas existing studies illustrated consumers’ increasing interest in shopping for clothing made from recycled textile materials, the study’s results indicated that the “enthusiasm” also applied to the supply side, with many countries already engaged in making and exporting such products. Meanwhile, the results showed that U.S. retailers sourced clothing made from recycled textile materials in different product categories with a broad price range targeting various market segments to meet consumers’ varying demands. Moreover, as textile recycling techniques continue to advance, potentially enriching the product offer of clothing made from recycled textile materials, U.S. retailers’ sourcing needs and supply base for such products could expand further.

Second, the study’s findings suggest that sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials may help U.S. retailers achieve business benefits beyond the positive environmental impacts. For example, given the unique supply chain composition and production requirements, China appeared to play a less dominant role as a supplier of clothing made from recycled textile materials for U.S. retailers. Instead, a substantial portion of such products was “Made in the USA” or came from emerging sourcing destinations in America (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua) and Africa (e.g., Tunisia and Morocco). In other words, sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials could help U.S. retailers with several goals they have been trying to achieve, such as reducing dependence on sourcing from China, expanding near sourcing, and diversifying their sourcing base.

Additionally, the study’s findings call for strengthening U.S. domestic apparel manufacturing capability to better serve retailers’ sourcing needs for clothing made from recycled textile materials. On the one hand, the results demonstrated U.S. retailers’ strong interest in sourcing clothing made from recycled textile materials that were “Made in the USA.” Also, the United States may enjoy certain competitive advantages in making such products, ranging from the abundant supply of recycled textile waste and the affordability of expensive modern recycling machinery to the advanced research and product development capability. On the other hand, the results showed that U.S. retailers primarily sourced simple product categories (e.g., T-shirts and hosiery), targeting the value and mass markets from the U.S. and other American countries. This pattern somewhat mirrored the production and sourcing pattern for regular new clothing, for which apparel “Made in the USA” also lacked product variety and focused on basic fashion items compared with Asian and EU suppliers. Thus, strengthening the U.S. domestic apparel production capacity, especially for those complex product categories (e.g., outwear and suits), could encourage more sourcing of “Made in the USA” apparel using recycled textile materials and support production and job creation in the U.S. apparel manufacturing sector.

by Sheng Lu

Full paper: Lu, S. (2023). Explore U.S. retailers’ sourcing strategies for clothing made from recycled textile materials. Sustainability, 15(1), 38.

Video Discussion: Textile Manufacturing in America, post-globalisation

Discussion questions:

#1. What makes globalization and trade controversial and debatable? Please use 1-2 examples from the video to illustrate your point.

#2. Are classic trade theories (e.g., comparative advantage) still relevant or outdated in the 21st century? Why? Please share your thoughts based on the video and the figures.

#3. Based on the video and the figures above, is the US textile manufacturing sector a winner or loser of globalization and international trade? Why?

#4. Related to question #3, does the future prosperity of the US textile manufacturing sector need globalization or de-globalization? What’s your vision?

#5. Take the following poll (anonymous) and share your reflections.

#6. Should the government’s trade policy consider non-economic factors such as national security and geopolitics? What should be the line between promoting “fair trade” and “trade protectionism”? What’s your view?

#7. Is there anything else you find interesting/intriguing/thought-provoking in the video? Why?

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

State of U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing: Output, Employment, and Trade (Updated May 2022)

Textile and apparel manufacturing in the U.S. has significantly shrunk in size over the past decades due to multiple factors ranging from automation, import competition to the shifting U.S. comparative advantages for related products. However, U.S. textile manufacturing is gradually coming back. The output of U.S. textile manufacturing (measured by value added) totaled $16.59 billion in 2021, up 23.8% from 2009. In comparison, U.S. apparel manufacturing dropped to $9.5 billion in 2019, 4.4% lower than ten years ago (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2021).

Meanwhile, like many other sectors, U.S. textile and apparel production was hit hard by COVID-19 in the first half of 2020 but started to recover in the 3rd quarter. Notably, as of December 2021, U.S. textile production had returned to its pre-COVID level.

On the other hand, as the U.S. economy is turning more mature and sophisticated, the share of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropped to only 0.12% in 2020 from 0.57% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2021).

The U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing is changing in nature. For example, textile products had accounted for over 66% of the total output of the U.S. textile and apparel industry as of 2019, up from only 58% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2020). Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are growing particularly fast in some product categories that are high-tech driven, such as medical textiles, protective clothing, specialty and industrial fabrics, and non-woven. These products are also becoming the new growth engine of U.S. textile exports. Notably, “special fabrics and yarns” had accounted for more than 34% of U.S. textile exports in 2019, up from only 20% in 2010 (Data source: UNComtrade, 2021).

Compatible with the production patterns, employment in the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313 and 314) and apparel industry (NAICS 315) fell to the bottom in April-May 2020 due to COVID-19 but started to recover steadily since June 2020. From January 2021 to December 2021, the total employment in the two sectors increased by 4.5% and 4.2%, respectively (Seasonally adjusted). However, the employment level remains much lower than the pre-COVID level (benchmark: December 2019).

To be noted, as production turns more automated and thanks to improved productivity (i.e., the value of output per worker), U.S. textile and apparel factories have been hiring fewer workers even before the pandemic. The downward trend in employment is not changing for the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector.  Related, how to attract the new generation of workforce to the factory floor remains a crucial challenge facing the future of textile and apparel “Made in the USA.”

International trade supports textiles and apparel “Made in the USA.” Notably, nearly 42% of textiles “Made in the USA” (NAICS 313 and 314) were sold overseas in 2019, up from only 15% in 2000. A recent study further shows that product category and the size of the firm were both statistically significant factors that affected the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturer’s likelihood of engaged in exports.

from Nordstrom Rack

It is not rare to find clothing labeled “made in the USA with imported fabric” or “made in the USA with imported material” in the stores. Statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between the value of U.S. apparel output and U.S. yarn and fabric imports from 1998 to 2019.

Like many other developed economies whose textile and apparel industries had reached the stage of post-maturity, the United States today is a net textile exporter and net apparel importer. COVID-19 has affected U.S. textile and apparel trade in several ways:

  • Trade volume fell and yet fully recovered: Both affected by the shrinkage of import demand and supply chain disruptions, the value of U.S. textile and apparel imports dropped by as much as 19.3% in 2020 from a year ago, particularly apparel items (down 23.5%). Likewise, the value of U.S. textile and apparel exports in 2020 decreased by 15.6%, including an unprecedented 26% decrease in yarn exports. Further, thanks to consumers’ robust demand, the value of US apparel imports enjoyed a remarkable 27.4% growth in 2021 from a year ago and but was still 2.5% short of the level in 2019.
  • Trade balance shifted: Before the pandemic, U.S. was a net exporter of fabrics. However, as the import demand for non-woven fabrics (for making PPE purposes) surged during the pandemic, U.S. ran a trade deficit of $502 million for fabrics in 2020; the trade deficit expanded to $975 million in 2021. Meanwhile, as retail sales slowed and imports dropped during the pandemic, the U.S. trade deficit in apparel shrank by 19% in 2020 compared with 2019. However, the shrinkage of the trade deficit did not necessarily boost clothing “Made in the USA” in 2020, reminding us that the trade balance often is not an adequate indicator to measure the economic impact of trade.
  • No change in export market: More than 70% of U.S. textile and apparel export went to the Western Hemisphere in 2021, a pattern that has stayed stable over the past decades (OTEXA, 2022). More can be done to strengthen the Western Hemisphere supply chain and textile and apparel production in the region by leveraging regional trade agreements like CAFTA-DR and USMCA.

By Sheng Lu

Further reading:

Sourcing Apparel from the CAFTA-DR Region—The Modern Cotton Story Podcast

Discussion questions:

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of CAFTA-DR as an apparel-sourcing base for US fashion companies?
  • What are the key bottlenecks that prevent more apparel sourcing from CAFTA-DR members?
  • Do you support liberalizing the rules of origin or keeping the strict “yarn-forward” rules of origin in CAFTA-DR, and why?

Which Apparel Products are Out of Stock in the US Retail Market?

US fashion brands and apparel retailers face the challenge of running out of inventory amid the holiday season and the ongoing shipping crisis. Based on consultation with industry insiders and resources, we take a detailed look at which apparel products are more likely to be out of stock in the US retail market. Several patterns are noteworthy:

First, clothing products targeting the premium and mass market face more significant shortages than luxury or value apparel items in the US. Take clothing items in the premium market, for example. Of those apparel products newly launched to the US retail market from August 1 to November 1, 2021, nearly half of them were already out of stock as of November 10, 2021 (note: measured by SKUs).  The increased demand from middle-class US consumers could be among the primary contributing factors.

Second, seasonal products and stable fashion items are more likely to be out of stock. For example, as we are already in the winter season, it is not surprising to see many swimwear products run out of stock. Meanwhile, it is interesting to see stable fashion products like hosiery and underwear also report a relatively high percentage of inventory shortage. The result could be the combined effects of consumers’ robust demand and the shipping delay.

Third, apparel products locally sourced from the US seem to have the lowest out-of-stock rate. Reflecting the shipping crisis, clothing items sourced from Bangladesh and India report a much higher out-of-stock rate. However, a substantial percentage of “made in the USA” apparel was in the category of “T-shirt”, implying switching to domestic sourcing often is not a viable option for US fashion brands and retailers.

Additionally, fast fashion retailers overall report a much lower out-of-stock rate than department stores and specialty clothing stores.  This result showcases fast fashion retailers’ competitive advantages in supply chain management, which payoffs in the current challenging business environment.

On the other hand, 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 September 2021.

by Sheng Lu

[comment for this post is closed]

US Textile and Apparel Manufacturing and Sourcing During COVID-19: Discussion Questions from FASH455

#1:  As of June 2021, US textile production had resumed about 98.8% of its production capacity at the pre-COVID level. Based on the readings, why or why not do you think the industry is already “out of the woods”? How to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the international competitiveness of US textile production?

#2: To which extent do you think the state of the US textile and apparel industry and its performance during the pandemic challenge the conclusions of the classic trade and economic development theories we learned in the class (e.g., comparative advantage, factor proportion, the international division of labor, and stage of development theories)? Do you find any trade or production patterns that existing theories cannot fully explain?

#3 Many US fashion companies’ strategies to “consolidate existing sourcing base and strengthen the relationship with key vendors” during the pandemic. What is your evaluation of this strategy—is it a short-term reaction toward COVID-19 or a long-term trend likely to stay? What does this strategy mean for vendors in the apparel supplying countries?

#4: What are the notable changes in fashion companies’ sourcing criteria during the pandemic? How to explain such changes? Who are the winners and losers? Why?

#5: It is of concern that sustainability and social responsibility become a lower priority for the apparel industry during the pandemic, given the unprecedented operational and financial challenges companies face. What is your assessment based on the readings?

#6: What is your vision for the US textile and apparel industry in the post-COVID world? What are the key issues/questions/development trends we shall watch?

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

California Garment Worker Protection Act (Senate Bill 62) Passed, and Debates Continue

About Senate Bill 62

  • The new law bans the long-standing piece-rate system — 5 cents to sew a side seam, for instance, or 10 cents to sew a neck — that often adds up to less than $6 an hour (source: LA times). From now on, garment workers in California will get a minimum wage of $14 per hour for employers with 26 or more employees.
  • The new law’s “brand guarantor” provision would extend the liability for wage theft from the factories themselves to the brands and retailers that sell the clothes, as well as any subcontractors in between. In other words, the bill creates new liabilities across California’s clothing supply chain from factory subcontractors to retailers. (source:  San Francisco Examiner)

Concerns about Senate Bill 62

According to the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), the California Garment Worker Protection Act “does not recognize that brands or buyers may have little to no control over how a particular garment factory employer manages their payroll or enterprise finances.” AAFA explains why this new law in actuality could punish good actors:

“Brand Good contracts with Manufacturer Y to manufacture their clothes, paying a good price, more than enough to pay required wages to Manufacturer Y’s employees. However, in an effort to generate more business, Manufacturer Y also takes a low-bid contract from Brand Bad, so low that both Manufacturer Y and Brand Bad know Manufacturer Y will not be able to pay required wages to its employees. Under this bill, Brand Good would be liable for any wage claims resulting from Manufacturer Y’s acceptance of a low-bid contract completely unrelated to its operations.

The legislation would make responsible brands like Brand Good legally liable to pay for wage claims resulting from Manufacturer Y’s and Brand Bad’s unlawful or irresponsible activity. SB 62 will not deter bad actors like Brand Bad from operating in California’s garment manufacturing industry. Instead, it will penalize responsible companies like Brand Good, even though Brand Good did the right thing. As a result, Brand Good, and other responsible brands, will no longer allow their branded garments to be manufactured in California out of fear that they will acquire additional liabilities over activities they don’t control.”

More than 60% of garment factories in the US are based in California.

Further reading:

Discussion question:Based on the video and the readings, what is your view on the California Garment Worker Protection Act? What changes could it bring to the fashion apparel industry and why?

(Disclaimer: All posts on this site are for FASH455 educational and academic research purposes only, and they are nonpolitical and nonpartisan. No blog post intends to either favor or oppose any particular political party/public policy, nor shall be interpreted that way)

Can We Leverage Micro Factories for Apparel Sourcing?

Micro factories typically refer to small-to-medium scale, highly automated, and technologically advanced manufacturing setups with a wide range of process capabilities.

Related reading: Do Companies Know How to Use Micro Factories for Sourcing Product?

Supply Chain Resiliency and the Role of Small Manufacturers—U.S. Textile Industry’s Perspective

Witness: National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) President and CEO Kim Glas; The full testimony is available HERE

Note:

Berry Amendment: Under a provision of 1941 legislation known as the “Berry Amendment” , the Department of Defense (DOD) must buy clothing, fabrics, fibers, yarns, other made-up textiles, boots, and certain other items that are 100% US-made.  Notably, the Berry Amendment mandates a much higher level of domestic content than the Buy American Act of 1933, which, in general, only requires 50% of the costs of a product to be manufactured in the United States. DOD spent around $1.6 billion on clothing, textiles, and footwear in FY2020 under the Berry Amendment. The items covered by the Berry Amendment have varied over the years. In the FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328), Congress extended the Berry Amendment by requiring DOD to provide 100% U.S.-made running shoes for recruits entering basic training.

Biden’s “Buy America” policy:

  • On January 25, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers, as part of his “Build Back Better” economic recovery plan. The order created the role of a “director of Made-in-America” within the Office of Management and Budget and increased the threshold and price preferences for domestic goods.
  • Related, on February 24, 2021, President Biden released an executive order (EO) and announced to conduct a 100-day supply chains review on several key US industries, including semiconductors, batteries, strategic minerals, and pharmaceuticals. The review will also cover certain critical business sectors, such as national defense, public health, information and communication technology, energy, transportation, and agriculture. Further, the EO explicitly asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies, to submit a report identifying risks in the supply chain of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE includes textile products like facial masks, gowns and gloves. More comprehensive reform and supply chain strategies are likely to follow after the supply chain review requested by the EO.

State of the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: Output, Employment, and Trade (Updated October 2020)

The size of the U.S. textile and apparel industry has significantly shrunk over the past decades. However, U.S. textile manufacturing is gradually coming back. The output of U.S. textile manufacturing (measured by value added) totaled $18.79 billion in 2019, up 23.8% from 2009. In comparison, U.S. apparel manufacturing dropped to $9.5 billion in 2019, 4.4% lower than ten years ago (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2020).

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has hit U.S. textile and apparel production significantly. Notably, the value of U.S. textile and apparel output decreased by as much as 21.4% and 14.9% in the second quarter of 2020, respectively, compared with a year ago. This result was worse than a 15% decrease during the 2008-2009 world financial crisis.  Further, the decline in U.S. textile exports is an essential factor contributing to the significant drop in U.S. textile manufacturing. In the first seven months of 2020, the value of U.S. yarn and fabric exports went down by 31% and 19%, respectively, year over year (OTEXA, 2020). 

Additionally, as the U.S. economy is turning more mature and sophisticated, the share of U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dropped to only 0.13% in 2019 from 0.57% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2020).

The U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing is also changing in nature. For example, textile products had accounted for over 66% of the total output of the U.S. textile and apparel industry as of 2019, up from 58% in 1998 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2020). Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are growing particularly fast in some emerging markets that are high-tech driven, such as medical textiles, protective clothing, specialty and industrial fabrics, and non-woven.

As production turns more automated, the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector is NOT creating more jobs. Even before the pandemic, from January 2005 to January 2020, employment in the U.S. textile manufacturing (NAICS 313 and 314) and apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315) declined by 44.3% and 59.3%, respectively (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). However, improved productivity (i.e., the value of output per employee) could be a critical factor behind the net job losses.

Data further shows that COVID19 has resulted in more than 83,700 job losses in the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector between March-April 2020, of which around 80% have returned as of September 2020. Nevertheless, the downward trend in employment is not changing for the U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing sector.  

Consistent with the theoretical prediction, U.S. remains a net textile exporter and a net apparel importer. In 2019, the U.S. enjoyed a $1,633million trade surplus in textiles and suffered an $80,637 million trade deficit in apparel (USITC, 2020). Notably, nearly 40% of textiles “Made in the USA” (NAICS 313 and 314) were sold overseas in 2019, up from only 15% in 2000 (OTEXA, 2020). On the other hand, because of the regional supply chain, close to 70% of U.S. textile and apparel export go to the western hemisphere, a pattern that stays stable over the past decade.

by Sheng Lu

Discussion questions:

  • Why or why not do you think the U.S. textile industry (NAICS 313 +314) and the apparel industry (NAICS 315) are in good shape?
  • Based on the statistics, do you think textile and apparel “Made in the USA” have a future? Please explain.
  • What are the top challenges facing the U.S. textile industry and the apparel industry in today’s global economy and during the COVID19?

Production and Export Strategies of U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturers

Presenter: Kendall Keough (MS 2020, Fashion and Apparel Studies)

Textiles and apparel “Made in the USA” are gaining growing attention in recent years amid the escalating U.S.-China trade war, the rising cost of imports, and consumers’ increasing demand for “speed to market.” Statistics show that the value of U.S. textile and apparel (T&A) production totaled $US28.1bn in 2018, which was a record high since 2010. Meanwhile, different from the old days, more and more T&A “Made in the USA” are sold overseas today. According to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce, the value of U.S. T&A exports reached US$22.9bn in 2019, up nearly 20% from ten years ago.

Despite the strong performance in production and export, however, U.S. T&A manufacturers do not seem to be “visible” enough. Given the information gap, we recently analyzed the 122 U.S. T&A manufacturers included in the OTEXA “Made in the USA” database. Information in the database is self-reported by companies and then verified by OTEXA. Our analysis intends to gain more insights into the state of U.S. T&A mills, including their demographics, production and supply chain strategies, as well as their export behaviors.

Key findings:

First, U.S. T&A manufacturers display a relatively high concentration of geographic locations. Notably, as much as 61% of self-reported yarn manufacturers are from North Carolina (NC), followed by South Carolina (SC), which accounts for another 11%. The concentration of yarn manufacturing in the south, in particular, can be attributed to the abundant cotton supply in that region. Meanwhile, California (CA) has one of the most complete T&A supply chains in the country, with the presence of manufacturers across all T&A sub-sectors.

Second, large-size textile mills are gradually emerging in the United States, whereas U.S. apparel manufacturers are predominantly small and medium-sized. U.S. textile mills, in general, have a high concentration of factories with over 100 employees, particularly those engaged in producing yarns (53%), fabrics (37%), and technical textiles (38%). In the past decade, many relatively small-sized U.S. textile mills had merged into larger ones to take advantage of the economies of scale and reduce production cost. In comparison, over half of the apparel mills in the OTEXA database reported having less than 50 employees. Notably, because of the significant disadvantage in labor cost, U.S. apparel mills are not trying to replace imports, but instead focusing on their “niche market.” For example, designer-based micro-factories are popular these days in U.S. fashion centers such as New York City and California. These factories typically provide customized services, ranging from proto-typing to sample production.

Third, “fabric + apparel” and “fabric + technical textiles” are the two most popular types of vertical integration among U.S. T&A mills. A relatively small proportion of T&A mills included in the OTEXA database had adopted the vertical integration business strategy. Notably, fabric mills seem to be most actively engaged in the vertical integration strategy–around one-third of them reported also making apparel, technical textiles, or home textiles. Additionally, 20% of technical textile manufacturers in the OTEXA database have incorporated an apparel component to their product portfolio. This is a significant trend to watch as more and more sportswear brands are developing technology-driven functional apparel. However, we find few U.S. T&A mills have created a vertical integration model that covers three or more different nature of products.

Fourth, U.S. T&A mills have shifted from only making products to also offering various value-added services. Notably, the majority of companies included in the OTEXA “Made in the USA” database reported having the in-house design capability, including apparel mills (86%), fabric mills (80%), yarn manufacturers (61%), home textiles manufacturers (71%) as well as those making technical textiles (91%). U.S. T&A mills also commonly describe themselves as “innovators” and “solutions providers” on their websites to highlight that the nature of their core business is to serve customers’ needs rather than just “making” physical products.

Fifth, exporting has become an important economic activity of U.S. T&A manufacturers today. Notably, of all the 122 U.S. T&A manufacturers in the OTEXA “Made in the USA” database, as many as 70.5% reported engaged in export, a trend which echoes the rising value of U.S. textile and apparel exports in recent years. Regarding the particular export behaviors of U.S. T&A mills, several patterns are interesting to note:

  • U.S. textile mills (76%) are more actively engaged in export than those that make apparel products only (37%).
  • Larger U.S. T&A mills overall had a higher percentage engaged in export than those manufacturers smaller in size.
  • The Western Hemisphere is the dominant export market for U.S. yarn, fabric, and home textile mills, whereas the export markets for U.S. apparel mills and technical textile producers are relatively more diverse.
  • Except for apparel producers, the export diversification strategy is commonly adopted by U.S. T&A mills. As many as 77% of yarn manufacturers included in the OTEXA database reported exporting to three or more different markets in the world. Likewise, around 40% of the fabric, home textiles, and technical textiles mills did the same.
  • Free trade agreements support U.S. T&A exports. A high percentage of U.S. T&A mills that reported exporting to the Western Hemisphere said they took advantage of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, two primary U.S. free trade agreements with the region. The utilization of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR is particularly high among U.S. yarn producers (83.3%).

Sixth, imports support textile and apparel “Made in the USA”.  Using imported inputs such as cut parts, fabrics, accessories and trims is a very common practice among U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers. Notably, more than 76% of companies which make apparel in the United States say they use imported inputs, followed by companies which make technical textiles (52%) and fabrics (46%). Moreover, the lack of sufficient supply of locally made fabrics is the top reason why U.S. textile and apparel companies use imports as alternatives. 

Additional reading: Kendall Keough and Sheng Lu. (2020). ‘Made in the USA’ textiles and apparel – Key production and export trends. Just-Style.

American Giant: $108 Hoodie Made in the USA

Untitled

Discussion questions:

  1. Is it still meaningful to promote apparel 100% “Made in the USA” in today’s global economy? Why or why not?
  2. From the video, what is your evaluation of the strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat of American Giant’s business?
  3. From the video and our class discussions, why or why not do you think the U.S.-China tariff war has benefited textiles and apparel “Made in the USA”?
  4. Will you be interested in working in a textile mill/garment factory as featured in the video after graduation? Why or why not?
  5. Any other thoughts/reflections from the video?

[For FASH455: 1) Please mention the question number in your comments; 2) Please address at least TWO questions in your comments]

Additional readings:

Demystify the “Made in the USA” Apparel Sourcing Strategy

While the majority of apparel consumed in the United States come from overseas, “Made in the USA” is growing in popularity. According to the 2018 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study released by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) in July 2018, around 46 percent of surveyed U.S. fashion brands and apparel retailers report currently sourcing “Made in the USA” products, even though local sourcing typically only account for less than 10 percent of these companies’ total sourcing value or volume.  Likewise, the State of Fashion 2019 report published by Business of Fashion (BOF) and McKinsey & Company in November also forecasts that over 20 percent of U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing volume could be from nearshore by 2025, thanks to automation technology and consumers’ increasing demand for speed to market.

However, the detailed practice of the “Made in the USA” apparel sourcing strategy–including who is sourcing, what products are sourced, and what the typical price range of these products remain largely unknown.

To answer these questions, we recently analyzed the pricing, product assortment and inventory information of over 90,000 fashion retailers and 300,000,000 fashion apparel products at the Stock-Keeping Unit (SKU) level based on EDITED, a big data and business analytics tool developed for the fashion industry. For the research purpose, we selected apparel products newly launched to the U.S. market in the past twelve months (i.e., between 1 December 2017 and 30 November 2018) with “Made in the USA” explicitly mentioned in the product description. Below are the key findings:

First, “Made in the USA” apparel overall are treated as a niche product in U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ sourcing portfolio.

During the 12 months we examined (1 December 2017-30 November 2018), 94 out of the total 348 retailers (or 27 percent) sold “Made in the USA” apparel in the U.S. market. The top 10 sellers list includes BOTH retailers that focus on the value market such as Walmart and relatively high-end department stores such as Bloomingdale and Saks Fifth Avenue. However, even for these top sellers, “Made in the USA” apparel accounted for less than 8 percent of their total product offers on average.

Second, U.S. fashion brands and retailers are most likely to source“Made in the USA” apparel for relatively fashion-oriented items, particularly bottoms (such as skirts, jeans, and trousers), dresses, all-in-ones (such as playsuits and dungarees), swimwear and suits-sets.

The competitive edge for these product categories in the retail market, in general, increasingly depends on unique designs, high product quality, and speed to market, which makes sourcing from the United States commercially beneficial. In comparison, imported products are more concentrated on basic fashion items often competing on price in the U.S. retail market, including tops (such as T-shirt and polo shirt), underwear, and nightwear.

It is also interesting to note that “Made in the USA” apparel were predominately women’s wear (92 percent), whereas imported clothing adopted a more balanced gender combination (63 percent women’s wear and 37 percent men’s wear). Because the fashion trends for women’s wear usually are shorter-lived and harder to predict, this result once again indicates that seeking quick response and shorter lead time for stylish and trendy items could be an important incentive for local sourcing by U.S. fashion brands and retailers.

Third, consistent with the common perception, “Made in the USA” apparel overall are pricier than imported ones in the U.S. retail market.

Taking the U.S. apparel retail market as a whole, close to 40 percent of “Made in the USA” offering in the past 12 months targeted the premium or luxury market, compared with only 20 percent of imported products.  In contrast, as few as 18 percent of “Made in the USA” offering were in the value market, which, however, accounted for approximately 60 percent of all imported apparel sold in the U.S. market. In totality, it seems U.S. fashion brands and retailers are purposefully targeting “Made in the USA” apparel for less price-sensitive segments of the market to balance the high domestic production cost.

On the other hand, when examining U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ pricing strategy at the product level, “Made in the USA” clothing was still priced much higher than imported ones for almost all major apparel categories, except hosiery. Notably, in the past 12 months, the average unit retail price of “Made in the USA” clothing was 99.2 percent higher than imported ones in the value and mass market and 36.0 percent higher in the premium and luxury market. This interesting phenomenon supports the arguments that U.S. consumers somehow are willing to pay a premium price for products with the “Made in the USA” label.  

Additionally, during the past 12 months, around 46.3 percent of “Made in the USA” apparel were sold at a discount compared with more than 54.6 percent of imported ones. The advantage of proximity to the market, which makes speedy replenishment for in-season items possible, is an important factor behind the more successful control of markdowns for “Made in the USA” products. For example, data shows that U.S. fashion brands and retailers replenished approximately 12.7 percent of their “Made in the USA” offering in the past 12 months but only 2.8 percent of imported clothing.

In conclusion, the findings of this study concur with the view that “Made in the USA” apparel are still relevant today. Meanwhile, it does not seem to be the case that “Made in the USA” apparel and imported ones are necessarily competing with each other in the U.S. retail market. With apparel sourcing increasingly requiring striking a balance among various factors ranging from cost, flexibility, compliance to speed to market, it is hopeful that “Made in the USA” apparel will continue to have its unique role to play in U.S. fashion brands and retailers’ merchandising and sourcing strategies.

By Sheng Lu

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

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Textile and Apparel “Made in the World”

NCTO-textile-final

garment_industry_inline_02

NorthCarolina4

$_3

m_58a7bf17680278972302d0a2

presentation1

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

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

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

bis

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

Below are the key findings of the study:

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

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

Competition landscape and factors

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

Trade and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

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

Berry Amendment and U.S. textile and apparel manufacturing

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

US Continues to Lose Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Jobs in 2017

textile

apparel

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

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

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

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

Related reading: Creating High-Quality Jobs in the U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry (UD Biden Institute)

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

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

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

tariff

US export to mexico

US export to canada

US import from Mexico

US import from Canada

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

by Sheng Lu

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

“Made in America”: A New Reality?

Panelists

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

Video Discussion Questions 

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

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.

New USCBC Study Suggests Overall Positive Impacts of China on the US economy

oe-cover_0

Although the trade relationship with China is often blamed for causing job losses in the United States, a new study prepared for the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) by Oxford Economics suggests overall positive impacts of China on the US economy. According to the study:

  • China has grown to become the third-largest destination for American goods and services, only after Mexico and Canada. China purchased $165 billion in goods and services from the United States in 2015, representing 7.3 percent of all US exports and about 1 percent of total US economic output. By 2030, US exports to China are projected to rise to more than $520 billion annually.
  • The US-China trade relationship supports roughly 2.6 million jobs in the United States. Specifically, US exports to China directly and indirectly supported 8 million new jobs in 2015.
  • The reported gross US trade deficit with China is overstated and somehow misleading. As China has become an integral part of the global manufacturing supply chain, much of its exports are comprised of foreign-produced components delivered for final assembly in China. If the value of these imported components is subtracted from China’s exports, the US trade deficit with China is reduced by half, to about 1 percent of GDP—about the same as the US trade deficit with the European Union.
  • Additionally, “Made in China” lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods. As estimated, US consumer prices are 1 percent – 1.5 percent lower because of Chinese imports–trade with China saved each American household up to $850 in 2015. Given the fact that hourly labor costs in the textile industry were $2.65 in China in 2014 compared with $17.71 in the United States, the report argues that replacing Chinese imports of textiles and clothing with US manufactured products would significantly raise US consumer prices.

uscbcjob2017.jpg

uscbcjob20172

In terms of the textile and apparel (T&A) sector, the report suggests that:

  • The rising U.S. import from China mostly represents China’s displacement of imports from other countries and regions: China has been squeezing out traditional apparel manufacturers such as Mexico, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
  • Meanwhile, textile and apparel manufacturing is one of the very few sectors that observe a paralleled pattern of rising imports from China and declining gross value added in the United States since 2000. In comparison, over the same period other sectors that experienced the most rapid growth in Chinese imports are also the sectors where US businesses have seen the strongest growth.

The report can be downloaded from HERE.

Apparel “Made in America” of Imported Fabrics

clinton

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently launched a new website “Made In America: A Buyer’s Guide for Donald Trump”, which highlighted hundreds of U.S. manufacturers for products ranging from men’s ties, suits to furniture. 

Joseph Abboud is one of the companies highlighted by the website for making “Made in America” suites and shirts. But does “Made in America” mean a Joseph Abboud branded suit or shirt is 100% made in the United States from yarns, fabrics to the cut-and-sew process? Not necessarily!

joseph abboud

According to information submitted by Joseph Abboud to the “Made in USA” database managed by the Office of Textiles and Apparel under the U.S. Department of Commerce, some of its products actually are “partially made in U.S.A. with imported fabrics”.

This is evidenced both by Joseph Abboud’s product label and information provided by some retailers which sell Joseph Abboud’s branded products (See pictures below).

joseph-abboud-brown-black-wool-made-in-usa-sport-coat-jacket-big-tall-44xl-fadae0181dabefde4a3e87afdb831478

men

Hamilton Shirts of Houston is another company highlighted by Clinton’s “Made in USA” website. But similar as the case of Joseph Abboud, a Hamilton branded shirt priced at $215-$245 is typically “Hand cut and sewn in the USA. 100% cotton Italian fabric.”

Untitled

Actually, Joseph Abboud is a brand owned by JA Holding, Inc., which was acquired by Tailored Brands for $94.9 million on August 6, 2013. As of June 2016, Tailored Brands also owns the Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank.

Like most other US apparel companies/fashion brands today, Tailored Brands commits to global sourcing. In fiscal year 2015, the company “sourced approximately 60% of direct sourced merchandise from Asia (36% from China) while 13% was sourced in the U.S., 12% in Mexico, and 15% was sourced in other regions.” (Source: Tailored Brands Annual Report, 2015)

Tailored Brands uses the factory in New Bedford, MA (the one highlighted by Clinton’s website) to make tailored clothing under the Joseph Abboud label, including designer suits, tuxedos, sport coats and slacks which they sell in Men’s Wearhouse stores as well as Joseph Abboud’s flagship store. Tailor Brands also sells Joseph Abboud branded products in Moores stores, which are made in Canada by a third party.

Related article: Clothing Label Reveals the Global Nature of the Textile and Apparel Industry 

Disclaimer: All blog posts on this site are for FASH455 educational purposes only and they are nonpolitical and nonpartisan in nature. No blog post has the intention to favor or oppose any particular presidential candidate, nor shall be interpreted in that way.

Global Apparel and Footwear Industry (Updated in June 2016)

1

2

The global apparel and footwear industry enjoys a 5 percent value growth in 2015. Asia Pacific remains the world’s largest apparel and footwear market, with market value increased by $30 billion USD in 2015.  In particular, the United States, China and India contributed more than half the absolute increased value.

Market growth in Western Europe remains stagnant in 2015. However, some countries performed better than others. For example, apparel and footwear sales continued to experience significant losses in Greece and Italy with 7 percent and 2 percent declines in 2015, respectively. France didn’t do very well either and size of the French market is expected to contract by $1.5 billion USD by 2020. In comparison, UK, Western Europe’s largest market, posted modest 1 percent growth in 2015. Performance in Germany remained overall stable.

US

The US market continues to perform well with healthy value growth of 4 percent in 2015. However, the performance of key players such as J Crew and Gap, both of which plan to close a significant number of physical stores and lay off employees, highlight the increasingly competitive trading environment. US consumers overall remain cautious and adopt a value- driven approach to buying clothes resulting in a continuous discounting cycle, negatively impacting profit margins and slowing growth for the industry as a whole. From 2013 to 2014, volume growth of apparel sales in the United States exceeded value, primarily due to discounting, the proliferation of fast fashion brands and greater availability of low prices online. However, value growth returned to a more robust position in 2015, as a strengthening economy, improvements in the labor market and rising wages support future growth.

3

Sportswear is maintaining its momentum, increased by 8 percent in market value from 2014 to 2015, faster than any other apparel product categories. Consumers no longer consider sport a task that needs to be checked off on a day-to-day basis but instead it has become a lifestyle. Athleisure remains a heavily prominent trend as more consumers adopt an active and healthy lifestyle, increasing the demand for athletic products that are technically advanced and fashionable. In response to the evolving athleisure trend, major sportswear brands have turned their attention to women’s sports apparel and footwear. With Skechers, Lululemon, Under Armour and Nike reporting growth of 33 percent, 20 percent, 19 percent and 12 percent, respectively, in 2015.

4

Currency weakness, political unrest and tough economic environments continue to result in slowing growth among the emerging markets. However, internet retailing & e-commerce is a spotlight. Apparel and footwear sales through internet retailing grew by 23 percent in 2015 globally and are expected to continue providing impressive growth for apparel brands to 2020. Global mobile internet retailing has grown at a rapid of 92 percent over 2011-2015, highlighting the increasingly vital role mobile is playing within the buying process. Notably, emerging markets are accounting for a significant proportion of growth and are expected to boast a higher market size than developed markets by 2018.

Data source: Euromonitor Passport

International Trade Supports Textile and Apparel “Made in USA”

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

imported input

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

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

us companies export

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

For more detailed data and analysis, please stay tuned…

Sheng Lu

Outsoucing and “Made in USA” An Ongoing Debate

Slide1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outsourcing v.s. “Made in USA”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Discussion is closed for this post].

Made in USA: A New Reality?

Video 1: Panel discussion on “Made in USA”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Discussion is closed for this post]

Top 10 Most Read FASH455 Blog Posts in 2015

top 10

 

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

2. 2014 World Textile Industry Labor Cost Comparison

3. Global Trade of Used Clothing (Updated: October 2015)

4. Market Size of the Global Textile and Apparel Industry: 2014 to 2018

5. When Will TPP Take Effect? Let’s look at the History

6. China to Become the World’s Largest Apparel Market in 2019

7. Are US Textile and Apparel Imports Using Free Trade Agreements?

8. 2015 US Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study Released

9. Exclusive Interview with Erin Ennis, Vice President, US-China Business Council

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

Is Wal-Mart’s $250 billion “Made in the USA” Program Another “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? (II)

walmart-is-committed-to-american-renewal-infographic-s-manufacting-infographic-400pxwide-01

In early 2014, Wal-Mart Store Inc. announced its commitment to buy $250 billion “Made in the USA” products (including textiles and apparel) over the next 10 years ($50 billion annually) with the hope to “help spark a revitalization of U.S.-based manufacturing” and “create jobs in America”.

So how is the program going so far, especially in the textile and apparel (T&A) area?

made-in-usa

21

From exploring the company’s website, it is interesting to find that around 30 kinds of “Made in USA” T&A currently are being sold at Wal-Mart. However, majority of these T&A products are basic socks priced less than $10/unit. Wal-Mart also sells two types of men’s jeans, priced at $24/pair and $22/pair respectively. Although such a price level is higher than most jeans sold at Wal-Mart (which range from $8 to $20 per unit on average), it is still at the low-end of the market (see the chart below adopted from a Just Style report on the global jeans market).

41

On the other hand, as part of the “Made in USA” program, Wal-Mart sponsors a U.S. Manufacturing Innovation Fund with the purpose of “making it both easier and more competitive to make household goods in the U.S.”. T&A is one area this fund is willing to support as long as the research projects could “reduce the cost of producing textiles and apparel in the U.S., including weaving, fabric dyeing, cut & sew.

So what’s your view on Wal-Mart’s “Made in USA” initiative in the 21st century? How is it different from the “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? Will it bring back manufacturing jobs in the US as its objective stated? Will Wal-Mart repeat its record in history again? Please feel free to share your view.

[Please do not leave comment until after our case study 4]

Additional reading: Is Wal-Mart’s $250 billion “Made in the USA” Program Another “Crafted with Pride Campaign”? (I)

 

%d bloggers like this: