The report can be downloaded from HERE
Key Findings of the study:
I. Business environment and outlook in the U.S. Fashion Industry
- Overall, respondents remain optimistic about the five-year outlook for the U.S. fashion industry. “Market competition in the United States” is ranked the top business challenge this year, which, for the first time since 2014, exceeds the concerns about “increasing production or sourcing cost.”
II. Sourcing practices in the U.S. fashion industry
- U.S. fashion companies are more actively seeking alternatives to “Made in China” in 2016, but China’s position as the No.1 sourcing destination seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Meanwhile, sourcing from Vietnam and Bangladesh may continue to grow over the next two years, but at a slower pace.
- U.S. fashion companies continue to expand their global reach and maintain truly global supply chains. Respondents’ sourcing bases continue to expand, and more countries are considered potential sourcing destinations. However, some companies plan to consolidate their sourcing bases in the next two years to strengthen key supplier relationships and improve efficiency.
- Today, ethical sourcing and sustainability are given more weight in U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing decisions. Respondents also see unmet compliance (factory, social and/or environmental) standards as the top supply chain risk.
III. Trade policy and the U.S. fashion industry
- Overall, U.S. fashion companies are very excited about the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and they look forward to exploring the benefits after TPP’s implementation.
- Thanks to the 10-year extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), U.S. fashion companies have shown more interest in sourcing from the region. In particular, most respondents see the “third-country fabric” provision a critical necessity for their company to source in the AGOA region.
- Free trade agreements (FTAs) and trade preference programs remain underutilized in 2016 and several FTAs, including NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, are utilized even less than in previous years. U.S. fashion companies also call for further removal of trade barriers, including restrictive rules of origin and remaining high tariffs.
The benchmarking study was conducted between March 2016 and April 2016 based on a survey of 30 executives from leading U.S. fashion and apparel brands, retailers, importers, and wholesalers. In terms of business size, 92 percent of respondents report having more than 500 employees in their companies, while 84 percent of respondents report having more than 1,000 employees, suggesting that the findings well reflect the views of the most influential players in the U.S. fashion industry.
For the benchmarking studies in 2014 and 2015, please visit: https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study
(picture source: Euratex)
According to the European Apparel and Textile Federation (Euratex), Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), if reached and implemented, will bring substantial commercial benefits to the EU textile and apparel (T&A) industry. Euratex sees T-TIP has the great potential to help EU T&A expand exports to the U.S. market, particularly in two areas:
One is high-end apparel. The United States is EU’s third largest apparel export market only after Switzerland and Russia. In 2014, apparel exports from EU(28) to the United States exceed €2.5 billion and most products were much higher priced than those exported from elsewhere in the world. Euratex expects that when the high tariff facing EU apparel products in the U.S. market is removed—such as 28% tariff rate for women’s jacket, and customs red tape is cut, many small and medium (SME) sized EU T&A companies will be able to gain more access to the 300 million people U.S. apparel market.
The other is technical textiles: Euratex highlighted that “technical textiles, like high functionality fabrics used for firefighters’ uniforms or airbags, represent half of our textiles exports to the US. European home textiles are of great success in the US: more than €92million of bedlinen were sold in 2014. Nonwoven textile products for hygiene and medical purposes (cleansing tissues, surgical bedsheets, gauze, bandages, etc.) are a growing part of our exports to the U.S.. High-tech textiles products cover a wide range of applications – transport, construction, agriculture, defense, personal protection and much more.”
Moreover, it seems that the EU technical textile industry is very interested in getting access to the U.S. market currently protected by the Berry Amendment. Euratex sees “Opening business opportunities in public sector for technical textiles is a must in T-TIP. “Europe is a recognized leader in production of smart technical textiles due to advanced manufacturing technologies and constant innovation of materials and their application. The production of technical textiles in Europe significantly increased over the past ten years. With TTIP, the US public services will be able to benefit from the innovative products manufactured in Europe.” Euratex says.
Background: the state of EU-US textile and apparel trade
In an April 13 press briefing, the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) which represents the U.S. textile industry, insists the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) shall adopt the so called “yarn-forward” Rules of origin (RoO). Yarn-forward (or “triple transformation”) in T-TIP means, in order to receive preferential duty treatment provided under the trade agreement, yarns used in textile production in general need to be sourced either from the US or EU. All 14 existing free trade agreements (FTA) in the United States adopt the yarn-forward RoO.
In comparison, in its position paper released in June 2015, the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (Euratex), which represents the EU textile and apparel industry, favors a so called “fabric forward” RoO in T-TIP instead of “yarn-forward”. Fabric-forward (or “double transformation”) in T-TIP means in order to receive preferential duty treatment provided under the trade agreement, fabrics used in apparel production in general need to be sourced either from the US or EU, but yarns used in textile production can be sourced from anywhere in the world.
Exploring data at the 4-digit NAICS code level can find that the United States remains a leading yarn producer. Value of U.S. yarn production (NAICS 3131) even exceeded fabric production (NAICS 3132) in 2014. This means: 1) U.S. has sufficient capacity of yarn production; 2) it will be in the financial interests of the U.S. textile industry to encourage more use of U.S.-made yarns in textile production in the T-TIP region (i.e. pushing the “yarn-forward” RoO).
However, data at the 4-digit NACE R.2 code level suggests that EU(28) was short of €5,643 million local supply of yarns (NACE C1310) for its manufacturing of fabrics (NACE C1320) in 2013 (latest statistics available). This figure well matched with the value of €4,514 million yarns that EU (28) imported from outside the region that year. Among these yarn imports (SITC 651), over half came from China (22%), Turkey (19%) and India (13%), whereas only 5% came from the United States. Should the “yarn-forward” RoO is adopted in T-TIP, EU textile and apparel manufacturers may face a shortage of yarn supply or see an increase of their sourcing & production cost at least in the short run.
According to statistics released by the European Apparel and Textile Confederation (Euratex), extra-EU trade for textile and apparel (T&A) achieved record high in 2015, suggesting a positive economic state of the industry.
Specifically, extra-EU T&A exports went up by 3.6 percent in 2015. Among the key export markets: thanks to the appreciation of U.S. dollar against Euro last year, EU’s textile and apparel exports to the United States respectively increased by 16 percent and 21 percent. Despite China’s slowed economic growth, EU’s export to China was also robust: 6 percent growth for textile and 19 percent growth for apparel. However, EU’s T&A exports to Russia (down 27 percent for textile and down 29 percent for apparel) and Ukraine (down 26 percent for apparel) sharped dropped, reflecting the substantial impact of political instability on trade.
In terms of the import side, extra-EU T&A imports rose 9.6% in 2015. China remained the top external T&A supplier to the EU, however, other Asian countries with lower-production cost are quickly catching up. This is particularly the case for apparel: while EU’s apparel imports from China went up 6 percent in 2015, imports from Bangladesh (up 24 percent), Cambodia (up 33 percent), Vietnam (up 26 percent), Pakistan (up 25 percent) and Myanmar (up 79 percent) grew much faster, suggesting a relative decline of China’s market share in the EU market.
An interesting BBC article describes the global journey of a Marks and Spencer (M&S) wool suit:
- The suit was designed by M&S in-house team in UK
- Wool that makes up the suit came from Australia
- Raw wool was shipped from Australia to China for topping.
- Wool top was shipped from China to Italy for dying
- Dyed wool was shipped from Italy to Romania to be spun into yarn
- Yarn was shipped to Yorkshire, UK to be woven into cloth
- Cloth was shipped from Yorkshire, UK to Cambodia to be made into finished suit
- Finished suit was shipped back to UK to be sold at M&S retail stores
As noted by the article, such a global-based production model for M&S’s suit is increasingly typical in UK. What makes the issue controversial, however is that, the suit is labeled as “100% British cloth”. As “defined” by M&S, “British cloth means it is woven, dyed and finished in the UK”.
Similar debates also exist in the United States. In the past, even if a garment was cut and sewn in California but made of imported items, the tag still had to say, “Made in USA of imported fabric, zippers, buttons and thread.” But a new law which takes into effect on January 1, 2016 allows California manufacturers to attach the “Made in USA” label as long as no more than 5 percent of the wholesale value of the garment is made of imported materials.
- What are the driving forces behind apparel companies’ global-based production model?
- Is the clothing label “Made in ___” outdated in the 21st century?
- Do you support the new law which allows apparel labeled “Made in USA” to contain certain value of imported material? Why? Do we need such a regulation at all? Why or why not?
The presentation was delivered at the 2015 International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico on November 13, 2015. Welcome for any suggestions and feedback.
The U.S. Department of Commerce recently released its first-ever market report for technical textile and apparel, covering product categories including: non-wovens, specialty and industrial fabrics, medical textiles and protective apparel. According to the report:
- The U.S. exports of technical textiles totaled $8.5 billion or 46% of U.S. textile mill product exports in 2014.
- By size, the top 10 export markets for U.S. technical textiles from 2015 to 2016 include: Mexico, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Belgium, Brazil and Honduras.
- North America is the largest regional consumer of technical textiles due to the presence of the majority of end-use industries. Europe and Asia Pacific follow North America in terms of current consumption; however, development in emerging markets including India, China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan is expected to increase overall technical textile demand. Among the best prospect in the emerging markets for U.S. companies are Vietnam, India, Taiwan and Brazil.
- Major challenges facing U.S. technical textile exports include: 1) trade protection such as high tariffs and non-tariff barriers, such as import license requirements; 2) foreign competition and continual investment in research and development in many developing countries; and 3) lack of transparency by foreign customs agencies which could slow the flow of trade and lead to processing delays.
Eight country studies are provided by the report, including: Brazil, Canada, China, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and Vietnam.
The full report can be downloaded from HERE.