Though Trump’s grand vision is “better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods”, mass reshoring appears an unlikely scenario. Fashion brands interviewed by Vogue Business have pointed to the fact that the US simply doesn’t have the breadth of raw materials needed.
Meanwhile, 61 per cent of respondents to a CNBC survey of 380 people working in or representing the supply chain (including members of the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, and the American Apparel and Footwear Association) said it would be more cost-effective to relocate supply chains to lower-tariffed countries — which include Cameroon, Malawi, the Philippines and Venezuela — as establishing domestic supply chains would at least double current costs.
Countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana (both tariffed at 10 per cent) are among the African countries brands have been cautiously moving elements of production to in recent years, and could now accelerate, says Dr Hakan Karaosman, associate professor at Cardiff University and co-founder of Fashion’s Responsible Supply Chain Hub (FReSCH).
As yet, brands have not made any indications as to where production could shift on a larger scale, but relocation is certainly rising up the agenda. “Brands are already doing the sums to consider whether the proposed tariffs tip the scales to make some supplier locations more cost-effective than others,” says Anna Bryher, UK policy lead at workers’ rights organisation Labour Behind the Label.
The risks of exiting established manufacturing hubs
Amey Padma, director of trade engagement at Sourcery, a digital trade platform for cotton and other agri-commodities, says there is precedent for tariff-led manufacturing shifts. In 2019, brands including Levi’s and Nike pivoted away from China when Trump increased import tariffs during his first presidency.
But exiting established manufacturing hubs in the name of cutting costs comes with significant drawbacks. “Brands will need to balance cost savings with their commitment to sustainability and social responsibility. In regions where supply chains are less developed, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions and sustainable practices might be harder to monitor and enforce, putting social and environmental goals at risk. It could compromise the standards that brands have worked hard to establish,” Padma says.
Though a reputational risk for brands, the true human risk is absorbed by the workers who are subject to potentially dangerous, abusive, and illegal working conditions that are enabled by opaque supply chains and weak social and environmental standards.
Without robust planning, training, and investment ahead of any major manufacturing shifts, fashion’s legacy of industrial harm will continue to grow. And what of those left in its wake? “If brands shift production elsewhere, factories will close, jobs will vanish, and communities will be left without pay,” says Bryher.
A just transition under threat?
The threat of tariffs is accelerating the redrawing of the sourcing map. This is bad news for those advocating for a just transition, which is reliant upon long-term investment and brand staying power to fund and catalyse progress in manufacturing regions. “Long-term relationships [with brands] are vital for us in supporting our beneficiaries. Everything is directly related,” says Augustine Jose, manager of Assisi.
