Abstract

Is the U.S. textile and apparel industry on the road to recovery? This paper examines recent trends to determine whether data on trade, production, employment, and investment reflect the narrative surrounding revitalization of the industry. For the textiles sector, such data show mixed evidence of an industry in recovery. Nevertheless, numerous accounts indicate that U.S. or foreign-owned textile firms may be investing in the United States either to increase existing domestic capacity or to add new manufacturing operations. In the apparel sector, evidence suggests that in recent years reshoring has taken place, albeit on a modest scale. This information comes from accounts from U.S. apparel brands and retailers and, to some extent, from data on capital expenditures and shipments. The paper discusses the driving forces behind investment in the domestic industry, as well as strategies that industry players are prioritizing in order to stimulate the industry and remain competitive.

Office of IndustriesU.S. International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436 USA

www.usitc.gov

Office of Industries U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)September 2018

The authors are staff with the Office of Industries and Office of Economics of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Office of Industries working papers are the result of the ongoing professional research of USITC staff and solely represent the opinions and professional research of individual authors. These papers do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. International Trade Commission or any of its individual Commissioners. Working papers are circulated to promote the active exchange of ideas between USITC staff and recognized experts outside the USITC, and to promote professional development of office staff by encouraging outside professional critique of staff research.

This paper represents solely the views of the authors and is not meant to represent the views of the U.S. International Trade Commission or any of its commissioners. Please direct all correspondence to Kimberlie Freund, Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone: 202-708-5402, email: kimberlie.freund@usitc.gov.

September 2018No. ID-18055

Kimberlie Freund,kimberlie.freund@usitc.gov

Mary Roop,mary.roop@usitc.gov

Heidi Colby-Oizumi,heidi.colby-oizumi@usitc.gov

Trina Chambers, Gwenetta Duvall, and Monica Sanders

Judy Edelhoff and Peg Hausman

The authors would like to thank Pamela Davis for her assistance on this paper.

As manufacturing has become increasingly global, companies have numerous options for where to locate production. At one time, the United States boasted a large and robust textile and apparel industry. As with many U.S. manufacturing sectors, increased globalization and offshoring contributed to domestic production and employment declines. In particular, the phaseout of global textile and apparel quotas from 1995 to 2005 challenged U.S. apparel firms. The firms faced increased competition from lower-cost producers, which contributed to the longer-term consolidation of the industry. With sharply increased apparel imports, the U.S. textile sector’s downstream domestic apparel markets virtually disappeared. The progressive shift away from domestic production in the textiles and apparel sectors resulted in U.S. factory closures, an exodus of manufacturing jobs, severe contraction in the industry among both producers and suppliers, and increased reliance on imports to fulfill growing U.S. demand.

Recently, however, anecdotal information suggests an increase in new or expanded domestic manufacturing operations. Apparel manufacturers are seeing orders return to the United States, and there is some evidence of new investment in the sector. For textiles, there has been investment by U.S. firms—in order to increase existing domestic capacity or to start new manufacturing operations—as well as by foreign-owned textile firms. This paper first examines trends in the U.S. textile and apparel sectors to determine whether data on trade, production, employment, and investment reflect the narrative surrounding each sector’s revitalization. Second, it discusses the driving forces behind new investment and expansion of existing facilities, and provides highlights of some of the new investments. Finally, it points to certain strategies that firms and organizations are using to revitalize the textile and apparel sectors.

This discussion focuses first on the textile sector, followed by a discussion of the apparel sector. The textile sector, composed of fibers, yarns, and fabrics, is a key part of the apparel supply chain. Nonetheless, the domestic textile sector has increasingly focused on non-apparel markets, with end uses in construction, healthcare, logistics, manufacturing, automotive, and numerous other sectors. The apparel manufacturing sector (not to be confused with the broader apparel retail sector) manufactures garments through the cutting and sewing of pre-made fabric, as well as by knitting garment parts (or the entire garment) and assembling the parts into a finished garment.

Stories of revitalization in the textile sector abound. However, data on investment, shipments, trade, and employment provide only mixed evidence of an industry in recovery. Total capital expenditures in plants and equipment for the textile and textile product sectors increased by 36 percent in the 2013–16 period, rising from $1.6 billion in 2013 to $2.1 billion in 2016, the latest year for which data are available (figure 1 and annex A, table A1). The 2016 level was also well above the pre-recessionary level in 2008 ($1.4 billion), suggesting that these sectors are seeing a resurgence. Anecdotal evidence points to significant investment in the textiles sector. We reviewed reports of new or planned investments (those announced from January 2014 through December 2017), which showed 59 publicly announced new or planned investments in the U.S. textiles sector (a full list of the firms are shown in annex B). 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, to name a few. The domestic industry has also announced investments to expand capacity, as well as to open new plants.

Total capital expenditures for structures and equipment for textile mills and textile product mills (NAICS 313 and 314), 2013–16

The U.S. market for textiles is supplied primarily by domestic shipments, accounting for 58–60 percent of the domestic market during the 2013–16 period. Despite evidence of new investment in the textiles sector, data on U.S. shipments show mixed results. After four years of moderate decline, U.S. textile shipments increased in 2017 to $39.6 billion, but remained 3 percent below the 2013 level (figure 2 and annex A, table A2). At $10.6 billion, U.S. textile exports in 2017 were also below the five-year high of $12.1 billion in 2014. 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. However, along with new investments, there have been closures and restructuring in some segments of the industry. For example, in late 2017, Cone Denim, an iconic domestic producer of denim, announced the closure of its U.S. denim plant.

Textiles: U.S. imports for consumption, domestic exports, and domestic shipments, 2013–17

Any growth in investment or shipments is not reflected in employment data. Employment in the textiles sector declined by 4 percent from 131,000 in 2013 to an estimated 126,000 in 2017. Although statements by industry experts suggest the industry has invested in technology to increase labor productivity, official data on labor productivity for yarns and fabrics—which accounts for most of the employment in the textiles sector—show steady declines during 2013–16.

Although a resurgence in the domestic textile sector may not be manifest in the data, many domestic and foreign firms have commented on the attractiveness of producing domestically, and solid reasons companies might take a second look at the United States as a manufacturing base (see box 1 and annex B for additional information on specific examples). Advantages to producing in the United States include local and state incentives for investment, and the benefits afforded by free trade agreement (FTA) preferences that encourage the use of U.S.-produced inputs in downstream production in FTA partner countries. Other key factors are reportedly making a major difference with respect to textiles production, particularly in the yarn subsector; these include access to reliable and competitively priced energy in the United States compared to that of other major producing countries, and access to high-quality, competitively priced cotton.

Energy costs are an important consideration in deciding where to locate energy-intensive textile production. Low U.S. energy costs are considered a competitive advantage for the domestic industry, particularly in the Southeast, where industrial rates in some states are lower than the national average. According to the International Textile Machinery Federation (ITMF), on average, the cost of electric power to manufacture one kilogram of rotor yarn in the United States in 2016 was $0.08, compared with $0.17, $0.14, and $0.13 in China, South Korea, and India, respectively. As a result, despite significantly higher labor costs in the United States (see “Automation for Greater Efficiency” below), the total cost to spin one kilogram of cotton yarn in the United States was lower than that for China, India, and South Korea. Keer America Corp., a Chinese textile producer that has invested in cotton yarn production in the United States, stated that electricity prices are as much as 40 percent lower in Lancaster County, South Carolina, than in Hangzhou, China, and thus were a contributing factor in its decision to invest in the United States.

The availability and reliability of high-quality cotton is also a factor influencing investment in the cotton yarn sector in the United States. For example, the Chinese firm Shandong Ruyi is investing in a new cotton yarn production facility in Arkansas that is expected to use 200,000 tons of locally grown cotton annually. In 2017, the United States was the third-largest producer of cotton after China and India. Cotton grown in the United States is known for its consistent quality and reliability thanks in large measure to the USDA’s cotton grading system. Moreover, U.S. farmers and distributors have established reputations for honoring their cotton contracts, which reportedly has been a challenge in the past with countries such as China.

State and other local government incentives are another important factor in attracting new investment in textiles, especially by foreign firms. South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas, in particular, have provided substantial financial incentives including tax credits, training assistance, and help with infrastructure development, among other incentives. For example, the state of Georgia’s Department of Economic Development offers tax credits to encourage positive economic business practices such as the creation of high-paying jobs and the increase of trade through Georgia’s ports. The state also offers tax exemptions, small business incentives, and financial assistance to new investors, as well as workforce initiatives, such as Quick Start, offered through the Technical College System of Georgia.

North Carolina, too, offers numerous incentives. One example is the $3 million Job Development Investment Grant (JDIG) awarded to Everest Textile, a Taiwanese textile company, as part of its investment in the construction of a new textiles factory that will weave, dye, and finish nonwoven fabrics for high-performance sportswear. The grant is contingent upon the company’s ability to meet job creation and investment goals over a 12-year period. Similarly, Shri Govindaraja Textiles, an Indian textile manufacturer with a facility in Eden, North Carolina, reported touring nine different U.S. states before choosing North Carolina. That state awarded the company a $750,000 Community Development Block Grant to assist with initial building maintenance costs.

The state governments of Arkansas and South Carolina offer similar incentives. For example, Shandong Ruyi Technology Group, a textile manufacturer with the potential to create 800 new jobs, received up to $4 million in grants (contingent upon job creation), cash rebates equal to 5 percent of the total payroll associated with new jobs for 10 years, and sales tax refunds on building materials associated with the investment. In South Carolina, to encourage China-based Suzhou Glacier Import & Export Company’s $24 million investment in a manufacturing facility in the state, the state Coordinating Council for Economic Development approved job development credits that allowed the company to obtain a refund to use for approved business expenditures.

Another factor influencing production decisions and reshoring that is important to the textiles sector is free trade agreements (FTAs), specifically the rules of origin of such agreements. The United States currently has bilateral or multilateral FTAs in place with Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore. Duty-free access for apparel items under these agreements is spelled out in the rules of origin of the agreement.

In most cases duty-free access to the U.S. market for apparel items is tied to the origin of the yarns and fabrics used in production. Most U.S. FTAs include a “yarn forward” rule of origin, which dictates that all yarn and fabric used to produce apparel in an FTA partner country must come from either the United States or the partner country. Such conditions are designed to encourage production of yarns and fabrics in the United States or the partner country; therefore, they are an inducement in the maintenance and/or expansion of U.S. textile manufacturing. The impact of the “yarn forward” rule of origin is especially apparent in U.S. exports to Western Hemisphere FTA partners, which accounted for 74 percent of the total value of U.S. textile exports in 2017.

Aside from the external factors discussed above, U.S. textile producers are making internal changes to maintain and build their competitiveness, enhancing the attractiveness of the United States as a manufacturing location. The industry is investing in new technology to improve efficiencies in order to supply the latest innovations that will maintain and grow domestic and global market share. As stated by one U.S. specialty yarn producer, “We must innovate to survive”; and according to this producer, the domestic industry’s knowledge and expertise is its “biggest advantage over textile companies from other parts of the world.”

Innovation is an important part of the textile sector’s competitiveness strategy: the sector must both develop new products to stay ahead of the competition and diversify in order to enter new markets. Research and development occurs in all stages of the supply chain, from the manufacturing of fibers and yarns to woven and knit fabrics, nonwovens, and finished goods. Innovation in the industry feeds into every downstream market, including the traditional apparel, military, medical, infrastructure, landscaping, transportation, and industrial markets. Patents and trademarks are important for this industry, and innovation, coupled with branding, is one of the ways the industry tries to differentiate itself from overseas competitors. For example, Milliken & Company states it has one of the largest textile research facilities in the world and boasts over 2,200 U.S. patents. The importance of branding can be seen with the Sunbrella line of fabrics made by Glen Raven and the Polartec line of fabrics made by Polartec, both of which are now household names.

Many specific examples illustrate the pursuit of innovation in the domestic textile sector. American & Efird, a global industrial and consumer thread company is collaborating with Applied DNA Sciences to develop a new anti-counterfeiting sewing thread. Other examples of textiles that go beyond the traditional markets include Milliken’s ResQTM fabric for the military and fire and rescue services sectors, which self-extinguishes when removed from a flame, and Glen Raven’s GlenFlow, a water-filtration fabric that removes salt from seawater. These and other U.S. firms use their research and manufacturing capabilities to work closely with end users to develop new products. For example, Highland Industries has worked with the military and the National Air and Space Administration (NASA) to design heat shields for rockets, as well as with the global food industry to develop lightweight, readily sterilized, and flexible “bladders” to transport liquids.

Targeted innovation in the textile sector occurs across disciplines and organizations. The Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) initiative is a notable example of a collaborative effort between government, industry, academia, and nonprofit organizations. AFFOA’s purpose is to integrate technologies—from fibers and yarns to integrated circuits, solar cells, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and other capabilities—in order to create textiles that can “see, hear, sense, communicate, store energy, regulate temperature, monitor health, change color, and more.” For example, one team formed under the auspices of AFFOA created “sensing fabrics” that can monitor strain or detect cracks in the integrity of infrastructure when applied to buildings, roadways, bridges, dams, and pipelines.

Diversification is another strategy that textile producers are using to remain competitive. Many firms have diversified production into different products and/or markets in order to expand their market opportunities or transition into new businesses. The president of Champion Thread, a domestic producer of industrial sewing thread, stated that several capital investment projects in 2018 will “further enhance our ability . . . to diversify our product mix into new markets.” Similarly, National Spinning Company, a domestic yarn producer since 1921, has diversified into nonwoven fabrics production for the automotive, home appliance, construction, bedding, and other markets. In 2016, it opened a new nonwoven fabric plant in South Carolina. Polartec (formerly Malden Mills) invented the first synthetic fleece that was used by an outdoor apparel company, Patagonia, in 1981. Since then, Polartec has expanded its product line to include insulating, protective, and flame-resistant textiles for the active, work, military, and athleisure markets.

Some firms in the industry have also diversified by manufacturing downstream products to provide a full service product to their customers. Kentwool Manufacturing, for example, a domestic producer of wool yarn, has expanded its product offerings to include wool golf socks and men’s briefs and loungewear. The company partners with other domestic firms, such as Wigwam, to have socks made under the “Kentwool” name.

Automation plays a critical role in the competitiveness of the textile industry. The industry’s continued efforts to maintain a competitive advantage using automation are particularly evident in in its investment in new machinery for open-end spinning. According to the International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF), nearly one-half of all open-end rotors installed in the United States in 2015 were less than nine years old, compared with 27 percent in 2013. In comparison, while this figure was only 28 percent for India in 2015, in China it was 79 percent. The large share of open-end rotors installed in China in the last nine years shows why other factors, in addition to investment in new machinery, such as innovation, service and quality, are so important to the competitiveness of the U.S. textile industry.

In addition to investing in machinery that operates more efficiently, the U.S. textile industry has worked to minimize labor costs. Wages are significantly higher in the United States than in many textile-producing countries, although automation in the industry has helped level the playing field. In 2016, the average hourly wages for skilled and unskilled personnel in U.S. cotton yarn spinning were $18.10 and $12.05, respectively; in China, they were $2.45 and $1.83, respectively. Although these labor cost differences are considerable, U.S. firms have been able to reduce costs by incorporating automation into traditionally labor-intensive tasks such as quality control, especially in fabric inspection, and other non-value-added areas, including basic packaging, material handling, and inventory tracking. In addition, integrating digital connectivity at the manufacturing level allows for greater transparency and control of the production process. For example, digital technologies applied to textile machinery can detect flaws in textile production and notify an operator to correct the defect before its incorporation into the final product.

There is some evidence to suggest that reshoring has taken place in recent years in the apparel sector, although on a modest scale. This impression is supported not only by accounts from U.S. apparel brands and retailers, but also to some extent by data on capital expenditures and shipments. For the 2013–16 period, capital expenditures were up 5 percent to $301 million (figure 3, annex A, table A1). Recent reports on new investment also suggest capital investment in the apparel sector may be increasing, as the industry begins to adopt more labor-saving technologies. Although domestic shipments of apparel reached a record low of $11.5 billion in 2014 and remained at that low level in 2015, they showed modest increases the following two years, reaching $12.0 billion in 2016 and $12.5 billion in 2017 (figure 4, annex A, table A3)—the first positive trend since 1998. The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) estimates that the domestic industry produced 603.8 million garments in 2016, representing 2.8 percent of total apparel consumed in the United States in 2016. This total was up from an all-time low of 2.0 percent in 2010.

Any evidence of an uptick in the apparel sector, however, is not reflected in employment data. 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.

Source: USITC DataWeb/USDOC (accessed February 20, 2018); U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturer’s Shipments, Inventories, and Orders, http://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata (accessed February 16, 2018).

Industry survey data suggest that U.S. fashion companies will continue to source apparel from the United States, although increases in new domestic sourcing may be slowing and the amount sourced domestically on average is relatively small. A 2017 United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA) benchmarking study revealed that 61 percent of survey respondents indicated that they sourced at least some goods from the United States, with most sourcing 10 percent or less of their total volume/value in the United States. The benchmarking study also indicated that 21 percent of respondents would increase sourcing from the United States in the next two years, compared with 10 percent of respondents who indicated they might reduce sourcing in the United States.

However, the 2017 survey results were less promising for U.S. industry than the results in 2014, when 82 percent of retailers and 55 percent of U.S. importers/wholesalers indicated they would increase sourcing from the United States in the next two years. This drop suggests that any major increases in domestic sourcing may have already taken place and further increases may be smaller. A 2017 survey conducted by McKinsey and Company indicated a slightly more optimistic view on reshoring in the apparel sector: more than one-third of chief purchasing officers in the apparel industry predicted a greater use of reshoring by their companies.

Most reshoring by the apparel sector does not appear to reflect a large-scale movement of production from one country back to the United States. Instead, reshoring has been part of a strategic realignment of many firms’ overall supply chains. Domestic production can be part of a firm’s strategy to reduce supply chain risk. According to a 2014 USFIA benchmarking study, companies that source from a diverse group of countries were “more likely to commit to sourcing in the United States as part of their overall strategy to diversify sourcing,” rather than cutting back on imports.

China is still the largest source of all apparel sold in the U.S. market, accounting for 41.9 percent of the quantity of U.S. apparel imports in 2017. Nevertheless, rising costs in China have led many firms to reassess their global sourcing strategies. While the cost of U.S. production is still significantly higher than that of China, when combined with other factors, sourcing domestically may be competitive for some products. This applies particularly to products that require customization, have shorter lead times, are luxury items, and/or are capable of being produced using high levels of automation. New and developing technology that allows for more automation of the apparel production process will also make production in the United States more cost-competitive with offshore production. For example, the “Sewbot” technology developed by Softwear Automation Inc. allows machines to replace much of the labor-intensive sewing process (see “Role of Technology” below).

Numerous reports indicate that brands are increasing their U.S. sourcing and that manufacturing firms are reshoring or starting new production in the United States (box 2). Among the reasons given for producing in the United States are improved lead times, better quality control, and more flexible production. For products with frequent, short selling seasons, it makes sense to produce closer to market, including within the United States. The number of retail apparel sales seasons has increased from a traditional 2 main seasons, to 6–12 seasons (or up to 26 seasons for some fast-fashion brands). Such frequent change—and within shortened time periods—means that quick service and turnaround times are important for brands and manufacturers. In addition, the role of e-commerce and a more demanding consumer is pushing fashion into both increased customization and faster turnaround times. As stated by the president of the , “As the need for speed continues to become more important, nearshoring and onshoring is going to be become more relevant.”

Shorter lead times are also important because retailers and apparel brands prefer to finalize purchase orders later in the development process to improve forecasting and reduce errors that lead to markdowns or shortages. An official from Under Armour said the gap between projected and actual demand is often too wide to safely place orders six months in advance. Boathouse Sports, a designer and manufacturer of performance apparel, reshored production from China largely to shorten lead times; orders from China required at least six months lead time, whereas U.S. factory orders required less than one month from order to ship date.

Along with more frequent orders, as discussed above, order sizes are often smaller as well and U.S. production can fill a gap by handling orders that are too small for overseas production. Small orders may be used to test the market, with the option to reorder or adjust the product as needed. Start-ups and firms that have more customized business may also have smaller orders. Boathouse Sports, for example, stated that it has an average order of just 17 garments. Ziel, Inc., which caters to firms that custom-order activewear apparel in the United States, requires no minimum order size at all.

Many domestically made products use “Made in USA” branding to capitalize on the buy-American trend and the appeal of “Made in USA.” Some reasons for purchasing domestically produced apparel include perception of quality, contribution to job creation and the overall U.S. economy, supply-chain transparency, environmental stewardship, and workplace conditions. The variety of clothing brands that use “Made in USA” labeling as part of their brand identity range from producers of work clothes and uniforms to denim and contemporary fashion. Online vendors and independent organizations make it easier for consumers to find clothing made in the United States through websites such as “Still Made in the USA” and “American Made Clothing Directory.”

Despite the modest uptick in U.S. production, there are still obstacles to manufacturing apparel in the United States. Labor costs and availability are major concerns for those looking to manufacture in or source from the United States. As a result, automation is important throughout all stages of manufacturing—including designing, cutting, sewing, and moving the product during production process—to help improve production efficiency, minimize labor requirements, and reduce costs. Automation can take the place of many individual processes required in the completion of a garment, such as an “autonomous pocket setter” in which a pocket is sewn onto a piece of a garment without being touched by human hands. The technology not only helps reduce the cost, but it also helps reduce the need for skilled sewing operators, for which there is a shortage in the United States.

Automation can also play a much larger role in the manufacturing process. As highlighted earlier, one notable example is Tianyuan Garments Company, which plans to open a $20 million garment factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, by the end of 2018. Its factory will use 330 machines from Georgia-based Softwear Automation, which combine fabric visualization technology and robotics (“Sewbots”) to control fabric during the sewing process. The factory will be capable of making 23 million T-shirts per year at a cost of about 33 cents per shirt.

Automated sewing has not been widely adopted, however, because fabric is difficult to control during the sewing process. Seattle-based Sewbo is addressing that challenge by adding a water-soluble stiffener to the fabric, improving the ability to control fabric as it is moved through the stages of the automated sewing process. A garment that is stiffened in this way can be sewn by standard machines and handled like “sheet metal.” The stiffener can be rinsed from the hardened fabric, rendering the garment soft and ready-to-wear, while the stiffener itself can be reused. Although there are challenges to translating the technology to more complex apparel, Softwear Automation reportedly would like to apply the technology to make jeans, uniforms, and dress shirts.

Technology is also helping domestic firms meet the need for on-demand and customized orders. Nimbly and On Point Manufacturing (OPM) are two domestic apparel firms that use technology to allow them to produce customized orders in the United States on a quick-turnaround basis. Nimbly uses a 3-D whole-garment knitting process to produce custom-knit garments in 30 minutes or less. According to OPM, it “automates and integrates almost every piece of the process from order entry to delivery yet keeps the fine skills of the seamstresses.” It states it can produce any number of garments and any size, with a goal to ship directly to the customer in 72 hours. Taylar Leigh Apparel, an online women’s apparel brand that has contracted with OPM to makes its clothing, highlights its custom-made apparel that is produced to order. A key aspect of OPM is its software system, developed by partner firm, “Purchase Activated Apparel Technologies (PAAT), which is developing a “global technology network” to “connect apparel software development programs, manufacturing systems, and related value-added applications.” Separately, Amazon has recently received a patent for an on-demand apparel manufacturing system, which, if implemented, automates most of the production process. A customer order is automatically translated to a cutting pattern on fabric or other material, which is then cut and transferred to a sewing station, inspected, and packaged for delivery. The sewing is either automated or done by an attendant.

The industry is also adopting technology to accelerate the process of product development and to improve the fit of the final product. Li & Fung, for example, is using 3-D virtual sampling and fitting to speed up the product development process from four to six weeks to four to six days. The use of 3-D virtual prototyping helps to speed up the product development process by eliminating the need to produce as many samples and to improve the fit of the garment. As online sales grow, the importance of correct fit becomes increasingly important because consumers do not have the opportunity to try garments on before buying them.

Increased demand for customization and shorter lead times has made digitization and connectivity a critical tool to help speed the design, planning, production, and delivery of products. Digitization and connectivity can improve the efficiencies within and between each stage of the product design and manufacturing process. For example, one U.S. company developed a software that documents broken needles in cut-and-sew apparel machinery. Over time, this program identifies machines that have systematic problems allowing operators to preemptively resolve malfunctions. Industry representatives state that efficiencies created by improved communication technologies are essential to the future of the industry’s competitiveness. Nevertheless, even with the shortage of skilled labor, the domestic apparel industry is lagging behind other sewn product industries in manufacturing automation, in large part because it is not always cost effective due to intense competition from imported products.

In addition to actions taken by firms to improve their competiveness, a number of local groups are helping to promote fashion design and clothing production in United States. Industry groups can help smaller businesses to connect with the necessary resources for all parts of the production process; in addition, they help them attract clients, improve business processes, and develop talent to prepare local workforces with the skills required by the industry. They can also serve as a venue for sharing best practices and developing innovative ideas.

There are a number of examples of local initiatives to support apparel manufacturing in the United States. In New York, the Brooklyn Fashion + Design Accelerator (BF + DA), established in 2013, gives designers access to mentoring, small-run apparel production, knitting services, digital fabrication services, showroom space, and retail sites. In another example, the Manufacturing Solutions Center is a not-for-profit center that is part of the North Carolina University System and helps businesses in a large variety of ways, including start up help for entrepreneurs, helping with product development, prototyping, testing, training, and consulting to help improve factory efficiencies. Its goal is to promote jobs in the United States. It is also a member of the Carolina Textile District, which is a network of companies with designers, patternmakers, printers, fabric suppliers and manufacturers, tag and label providers, and cut-and-sew facilities. The Carolina Textile District offers a number of services to help startup companies, existing companies getting ready to launch a new product, and firms looking to manufacture domestically. Other examples include local initiatives in Saint Louis and Detroit. Saint Louis Fashion Fund was established to grow the fashion industry through the creation of new companies in downtown St. Louis. Among other things, the fund supports a fashion incubator and internships. Detroit, too, offers some initiatives to assist and develop the garment industry (box 3).

“Made in America is back, and it’s likely to stay” according to a 2016 article by the National Council of Textile Organizations. The industry is still optimistic in 2018, stating “Thanks to productivity, flexibility, and innovation, the U.S. textile industry has cemented its position in the global market.” There are reasons for optimism in the apparel industry, too. According to the Reshoring Initiative, apparel ranks sixth among industries that have reshored jobs since 2010. After years of decline, the domestic apparel sector has seen recent growth in both new investment and shipments.

It is true that the vast majority of the U.S. apparel market is still supplied by imports, a trend that is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. In the textile sector, official data on shipments and investment show mixed results—shipments were up in 2017, but remained below 2013 levels. Nevertheless, investment levels in the United States were up, and numerous accounts speak of new investment in the sector by both U.S. and foreign firms. Both the textiles and apparel sectors point to innovation as a key part of their strategies for success. Innovation is vital for the development of new products, as well as for upgrading existing products, reducing costs, and improving flexibility in manufacturing operations.

Based on this research, there are a number of areas that might warrant further exploration. As much of the new investment in the industry is not yet operational, the authors believe it would be useful to revisit data on trade and production in the next three years, to see if the trends show further growth in the industry. It might also be useful to look at other downstream sectors, such as home furnishings and footwear, to see if they show similar trends. Finally, opportunities for future research may include a more in-depth analysis of the role e-commerce plays in the textile-apparel value chain, particularly how it affects production in the United States, as well as “near-shoring” production of finished goods in the Western Hemisphere for the U.S. market.

American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). “ApparelStats 2017,” June 2017.

American Textile Co. “American Textile Opens New Pillow Plant, Doubles Size of Operation,” November 17, 2016. https://www.americantextile.com/american-textile-opens-new-pillow-plant-doubles-size-operation/.

. “Seven Must-Follow Trends in the Fashion Supply Chain for 2017,” November 30, 2016. https://apparelmag.com/seven-must-follow-trends-fashion-supply-chain-2017.

Arcieri, Katie. “India Textile Company to Create 84 Jobs, Invest $40M in Eden Operation.” (blog), May 1, 2014. https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/blog/2014/05/india-based-textile-company-to-add-84-jobs-invest.html.

. “China-Based Suzhou Glacier Import & Export Co. Invests $24 Million in Travelers Rest, South Carolina, Manufacturing Complex,” September 23, 2015. http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsitems/9-23-2015/suzhou-glacier-import--export-travelers-rest-south-carolina874356.shtml.

. “King Charles Industries Opens Manufacturing Plant in Anson County, North Carolina,” October 26, 2016. http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsItems/10-26-2016/king-charles-industries-manufacturing-anson-county-north-carolina.shtml.

. “Taiwan-Based Everest Textile USA Plans Manufacturing Facility in Forest City, North Carolina,” December 7, 2017. http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsItems/12-7-2016/everest-textile-rutherford-county-north-carolina.shtml.

Berg, Achim, Saskia Hedrich, Tim Lange, and Karl-Hendrik Magnus. . McKinsey & Company, September 2017. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/digitization-the-next-stop-for-the-apparel-sourcing-caravan.

Blackburn, Jacob. “A&E Collaborates with Applied DNA Sciences to Develop Anti-Counterfeiting Sewing Threads.” (blog), March 2, 2018. http://www.amefird.com/blog/2018/03/ae-collaborates-with-applied-dna-sciences-to-develop-anti-counterfeiting-sewing-threads/.

Borneman, James. “U.S. Textiles: Have No Fear, Automation Is Here.” , December 20, 2017. http://textileworldasia.com/textile-world-asia/2017/12/u-s-textiles-have-no-fear-automation-is-here/.

Brantley, Max. “Chinese Textile Maker to Invest in Forrest City; 800 Jobs Promised.” , May 10, 2017. https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/05/10/chinese-textile-maker-to-invest-in-forrest-city-800-jobs-promised.

Comerford, Tim, Dennis Meseroll, Tracey Hyatt Bosman, and Gao Yong. “A Comparison of U.S. and China Electricity Costs.” Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Company and Tractus Asia Limited news article, 2016. blsstrategies.com/docs/news/News_181.pdf.

Cotton Council. Cotton USA Sourcing Program. “U.S. Cotton Fiber Economics: U.S. Cotton; Classification Systems Insures Consistent Quality.” http://www.cottonsourcingusa.com/cotton_fiber_economics.php?pag=24 (accessed March 5, 2018).

Crawford, Caletha. “Consumers Are Telling You What They Want to Buy—Are You Listening?” , October 19, 2017. https://sourcingjournalonline.com/xcel-brands-robert-dloren-speed-to-market/.

Custom Synthetics Fibers. “Plastics Recycler to Open New Plant in Alabama,” June 3, 2016. http://csfibers.com/news/custom-synthetic-fibers-to-begin-operation-in-2016-td/.

. “Detroit Garment Group Expands Industrial Sewing Certificate Program,” September 3, 2015. http://www.dbusiness.com/September-October-2015/Detroit-Garment-Group-Expands-Industrial-Sewing-Certificate-Program/#.WnmuDfn4-6J.

Deadline Detroit. “NY Consultant Plans to Create Clothing Design and Production Hub in the Motor City,” September 15, 2017. http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/18352/ny_consultant_plans_to_create_clothing_design_and_production_hub_in_the_motor_city#.WnspiPmnFYg.

Donaldson, Tara. “How Big Will On-Demand Manufacturing Actually Be for Apparel Sourcing?” , November 6, 2017. https://sourcingjournalonline.com/on-demand-manufacturing-apparel-sourcing/.

Donaldson, Tara. “Publisher’s Predictions.” , February 8, 2018. https://sourcingjournalonline.com/apparel-sourcing-supply-chain-outlook-2018/.

Donaldson, Tara. “Sourcing Costs Climb: Wage Increases Set to Affect 2018.” , January 2, 2018. https://sourcingjournalonline.com/apparel-sourcing-costs-wage-increases-2017/.

Drexel University. “Drexel to Host Pennsylvania's Center for Advanced Fabric Manufacturing Innovation.” Drexel Now news article, November 14, 2017. http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2017/November/Fabric-Discovery-Center-at-Drexel/.

Elkins, Ken. “Taiwanese Textile Company to Bring 610 Jobs to Fabrics Plant in Forest City.” , December 6, 2017. https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/12/06/taiwanese-textile-company-to-bring-610-jobs-to.html.

Fashion Network. “Cotton Association of India, China Sign MoU to Promote Cotton Trading,” June 29, 2017. http://in.fashionnetwork.com/news/Cotton-Association-of-India-China-sign-MoU-to-promote-cotton-trading,844762.html#.WqFQ7f6Wzct.

Ferretti, Christine. “Fashion CEO Planning Hub for Detroit.” , September 14, 2017. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2017/09/14/jeffry-aronsson-fashion-hub-detroit/105597516/.

Fiber2Fashion. “Ruyi to Invest $410 Million in Former Sanyo Facility,” May 11, 2017. http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/announcement/ruyi-to-invest-410-million-in-former-sanyo-facility-205744-newsdetails.htm.

Financial Times. fDi Markets database. U.S. Inbound FDI in Textile Manufacturing Database, 2011–2016 (accessed June 2016 and October 2017) (fee required).

Frank, Erin. “What’s Being Done to Save the Domestic Industrial Sewing Work Force? IFAI’s Vision to Rebuild.” Inside Fashion Design, November 30, 2017. http://insidefashiondesign.net/the-looming-crisis-in-industrial-sewing/.

Friedman, Arthur. “Denim Made in America Takes a Big Hit, but It’s Not Dead Yet.” , December 18, 2017. http://www.sourcingjournalonline.com/denim-made-america-takes-big-hit-not-dead-yet/.

Friedman, Arthur. “Li & Fung on Why Speed is the New Currency.” , October 24, 2017. https://sourcingjournalonline.com/li-fungs-robert-sinclair-speed-new-currency/.

Gribbin, Ed. “How Technology & Process Modernization Are Lowering Costs and Shortening Lead Times.” Presenation at the Texprocess Americas Symposium, Atlanta, GA, May 13, 2014.

Gildan Activewear. “Gildan Announces Planned Major Investment in Further New U.S. Vertical Yarn-Spinning Facilities.” News release, September 23, 2017. http://www1.gildan.com/corporate/downloads/Release%20-%20New%20yarn-spinning%20facility%20-%20September%2023_2013_FINAL.pdf.

Glen Raven. “Filtration.” https://www.glenraven.com/en_us/solutions/filtration (accessed May 14, 2018).

Gunn, Billy. “Weary of Constantly Being Left at Economic Development Altar, Bunkie Is Hoping for Better Times Ahead.” , June 19, 2016. http://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/article_a0e37c27-ee3c-510b-b0b5-98efd74a00af.html.

Guizzo, Erico. “Your Next T-Shirt Will Be Made by a Robot.” , January 5, 2018. https://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/industrial-robots/your-next-tshirt-will-be-made-by-a-robot.

Hamlin, Keith. “China Snaps Up America’s Cheap Robot Labor.” , August 30, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/china-snaps-up-america-s-cheap-robot-labor.

Harris, Jon. “Home Run: Majestic’s Sale to Fanatics Will Keep MLB Uniform, Fanware Production in Palmer.” , April 4, 2017. http://www.mcall.com/business/manufacturing/mc-majestic-mlb-uniform-provider-bought-20170404-story.html.

Henderson, Frank. “Automation, Smart Machines and Robotics in Sewn Products Manufacturing.” Panel discussion at TexProcess Americas Symposium. May 22, 2018.

Hoover, Keith. “Re-shoring. Is It For Real or Still Just Talk.” Presentation at Texprocess Americas Symposium, Atlanta, GA, May 4, 2016.

. “Chinese Textile Co. to Build its First US Manufacturing Facility,” December 18, 2013. http://www.industryweek.com/expansion-management/chinese-textile-co-build-its-first-us-manufacturing-facility.

Innovation in Textiles. “Sensing Fabrics to Prevent Failures in Vital Infrastructure,” February 20, 2018. https://www.innovationintextiles.com/sensing-fabrics-to-prevent-failures-in-vital-infrastructure/.

International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF). , January 2017.

International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF). , Volume 39/2016, May 2017.

International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF). , Volume 37/2014, May 2015.

Keer America. “Keer Starts Hiring Process for Plant.” News release, August 2, 2015. http://www.keeramerica.com/keer-america-starts-hiring-process-for-plant/.

Kitz, Karl. “Automation, Smart Machines and Roboticsin Sewn Products Manufacturing.” Panel discussion at TexProcess Americas Symposium. May 22, 2018.

Lim, Lena. “Fit, Sizing, and Virtual Try-On Technologies.” Panel discussion at Texprocess Americas Symposium, May 22, 2018.

Livengood, Chad. “Ex-Donna Karan CEO Aronsson to Move Business to Detroit, Work on Fashion Hub.” , September 14, 2017. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20170914/news/639131/ex-donna-karan-ceo-aronsson-to-move-business-to-detroit-work-on-fashion.

Livingston, Amy. “Products Made in the USA—Reasons to Buy American-Made Goods.” Money Crashers, “Shopping.” http://www.moneycrashers.com/products-made-usa-american-made/ (accessed February 15, 2018).

Lu, Sheng. “2014 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study.” United States Fashion Industry Association, June 2014. https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study.

Lu, Sheng. “2015 U.S. Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study.” United States Fashion Industry Association, June 2015. https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study.

Lu, Sheng. “2017 Fashion Industry Benchmarking Study.” United States Fashion Industry Association, July 2017. https://www.usfashionindustry.com/resources/industry-benchmarking-study.

Made in America Movement (MAM). “Made in USA and Apparel Reshoring: Expert Round Up.” , March 16, 2016. http://www.themadeinamericamovement.com/reshoring/made-usa-apparel-reshoring-expert-round/ (accessed August 15, 2016).

Marsiglio, Cindi. “Walmart’s Investment in U.S. Manufacturing, Explained.” (blog), June 16, 2016. https://blog.walmart.com/us-manufacturing/20160616/walmarts-investment-in-us-manufacturing-explained.

Martynec, John. “Re-shoring. Is It For Real or Still Just Talk.” Presentation at Texprocess Americas Symposium, Atlanta, GA, May 4, 2016.

Matsumoto, Evan. "PEDS Legwear: Ribbon Cut for New Facility." (Morganton, NC), March 11, 2015. http://www.morganton.com/news/peds-legwear-hede-ribbon-cut-for-new-facility/article_ad3f7adc-c835-11e4-8448-db16a9755c34.html.

McCurry, John. “Kentwool’s New Performance Apparel Division Expands Its U.S.-Made Product Mix beyond Golf and Socks.” , August 13, 2015. https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2015/aug/13/kentwools-new-performance-apparel-division-expands/.

McGee, David. “Ex-Ball Plant 'Needle in Haystack' for New Owner American Merchant.” (Virginia), December 12, 2017. http://www.heraldcourier.com/news/ex-ball-plant-needle-in-haystack-for-new-owner-american/article_fe48708f-e11b-565a-b39b-9c053cf3a740.html.

McCrary, Bill. “2018 State of the US Textile Industry Address,” NCTO Annual Meeting, March 22, 2018, http://www.ncto.org/2018-state-of-the-u-s-textile-industry-address/.

Milliken Military. “ResQ.” http://millikenmilitary.milliken.com/en-us/products/flame-resistant-materials/Pages/resq.aspx (accessed May 14, 2018).

Monsen, Laura. “Cotton Woos Chinese Textile Giant to Arkansas.” U.S. Department of State. Bureau of International Information Programs., November 9, 2017. https://share.america.gov/cotton-woos-chinese-textile-plant-arkansas/.

Moser, Harry, and Sandy Montalbano. “Why Made-In-USA Fashion Is Turning Heads.” , January 18, 2018. http://www.industryweek.com/economy/why-made-usa-fashion-turning-heads.

National Cotton Council of America (NCC). “US Cotton Seeks Action on Contract Defaults.” News release, September 26, 2012. http://www.cotton.org/news/releases/2012/contract.cfm.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO). “Annual Capital Investment by U.S. Textile Mills Surge.” , 2017. http://www.ncto.org/news-events/press-releases/textures-magazine/.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO). “By the Numbers: Examining the Resurgence of the Textile Industry.” , 2016. http://www.ncto.org/news-events/press-releases/textures-magazine/.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO). “NCTO Roundtable: Challenges and Opportunities for the U.S. Textile Industry.” , 2018. http://www.ncto.org/news-events/press-releases/textures-magazine/.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO). “The Last Stitch.” , 2017. http://www.ncto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TexturesMagazine2017-The_Last_Stitch.pdf.

National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO). “What If? The Inspiration of U.S. Textile Innovation.” , 2018. http://www.ncto.org/news-events/press-releases/textures-magazine/.

Raj, Roop. “Coming Soon to Detroit—A Fashion Design Hub: The Garment District.” Fox 2 Detroit, December 12, 2017. http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/coming-soon-to-detroit-a-fashion-design-hub-the-garment-district.

Ramakrishnan, N. “The West-side Story for Cheap Manufacturing.” (India), October 28, 2014. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/The-West-side-story-for-cheap-manufacturing/article20897663.ece.

Rothfeder, Jeffrey. “Why Donald Trump Is Wrong About Manufacturing Jobs and China.” , March 14, 2016. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china.

Russell, Ron. “Tomorrow’s Advanced Technology Available Today.” Presentation at Texprocess Americas Symposium, May 23, 2018.

Sandler AG. “Sandler Nonwoven Corporation Formally Inaugurated.” News release, October 11, 2017. https://www.sandler.de/en/news/newsdetailseite/article/sandler-nonwoven-corporation-feierlich-eingeweiht/.

Sandler AG. “Sandler to Commence Production in the US.” News release, September 24, 2015. https://www.sandler.de/en/news/archiv/article/noch-naeher-am-kunden-sandler-ag-nimmt-produktion-in-den-usa-auf/.

State of Georgia. Georgia Department of Economic Development. “Shrivallabh Pittie Group to Create 250 Jobs in Screven County.” Office of Governor Deal press release, October 15, 2013. http://www.georgia.org/newsroom/press-releases/shrivallabh-pittie-group-create-250-jobs-screven-county/.

State of North Carolina. Economic Partnership Development of North Carolina. “Global Joint Venture to Build New Textile Plant in Anson County,” October 25, 2016. https://edpnc.com/global-joint-venture-build-new-textile-plant-anson-county/.

State of North Carolina. Economic Partnership Development of North Carolina. “Taiwan-based Sports Apparel Maker Building Plant, Creating 610 Jobs in Rutherford County,” December 6, 2016. https://edpnc.com/taiwan-based-sports-apparel-maker-building-plant-creating-610-jobs-rutherford-county/.

State of North Carolina. Governor Roy Cooper. “Governor Cooper Announces 145 New Jobs in Randolph County with Fibertex Personal Care’s First U.S. Manufacturing Facility,” August 14, 2017. https://governor.nc.gov/news/governor-cooper-announces-145-new-jobs-randolph-county-fibertex-personal-care-first-us.

State of South Carolina. Department of Commerce. “State Discretionary Incentives: Job Development Credit.” https://www.sccommerce.com/incentives/south-carolina-discretionary-incentives (accessed March 23, 2018).

Steele, Devin. “Many Industry Leaders Optimistic about Prospects as 2018 Kicks Off.” eTextile Communications, January 17, 2018. http://www.etextilecommunications.com/011718forecast-2018.

Steele, Devin. “Parkdale Celebrates Innovation, $145 Million Investment in Tenn.” eTextile Communications, October 11, 2017. http://www.etextilecommunications.com/101117parkdalemtn-city-celebration.

Talk Business and Politics (Arkansas). “The Supply Side: Peds New $16 Million Plant Part of Wal-Mart Onshoring Effort,” March 12, 2015. https://talkbusiness.net/2015/03/the-supply-side-peds-new-16-million-plant-part-of-wal-mart-onshoring-effort/.

. “DNA Textile Group Announces the Closing of Its Denim Business Unit,” November 28, 2017. http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/knitting-apparel/2017/11/dna-textile-group-announces-the-closing-of-their-denim-business-unit/.

. “Gildan Set to Begin Construction on Mocksville Spinning Plant,” May 27, 2014. http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/knitting-apparel/2014/05/gildan-set-to-begin-construction-on-mocksville-spinning-plant/.

. “The Cotton the World Trusts,” November 28, 2017. http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/features/2017/11/the-cotton-the-world-trusts/.

. “Uniquetex to Bring 150 Jobs to Cleveland County,” March 10, 2016. http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/2016/03/uniquetex-to-bring-150-jobs-to-cleveland-county-non-woven-textile-manufacturer-selects-nc-for-new-u-s-operations/.

Good Trade, The. “15 American-Made Clothing Brands You Can Wear With Pride.” http://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/american-made-clothing-brands (accessed March 14, 2018).

Trentmann, Nina. “For More Chinese Firms, It Pays to Make It in the U.S.A.” , February 26, 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-more-chinese-firms-it-pays-to-make-it-in-the-u-s-a-1488127931.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) Online database. http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ (accessed various dates).

U.S. Census Bureau. "Capital Expenditures for Structures and Equipment for Companies with Employees by Industry." , 2008–2016. http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/aces/data/tables.html (accessed May 25, 2017).

U.S. Census Bureau. “Manufacturer’s Shipments, Inventories, and Orders.” https://www.census.gov/econ/currentdata/dbsearch?program=M3&startYear=1992&endYear=2018&categories=MTM&dataType=VS&geoLevel=US&adjusted=1&notAdjusted=0&errorData=0 (accessed various dates).

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). “Major Shippers Report: U.S. General Imports by Country,” February 6, 2018. http://otexa.trade.gov/msrcty/a5700.htm (accessed February 14, 2017).

U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD). “DoD Announces Award of New Revolutionary Fibers and Textiles Manufacturing Innovation Hub Lead in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” News release NR-115-16, April 1, 2016. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/710462/dod-announces-award-of-new-revolutionary-fibers-and-textiles-manufacturing-inno/.

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Employment, Hours, and Earnings.” https://www.bls.gov/data/#employment (accessed February 21, 2018).

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Annual Index of Labor Productivity." http://www.bls.gov/data/#productivity (accessed February 21, 2018).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). “Table 2.10: Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-use Sector, by State, 2016 and 2015.” , 2016. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_02_10.html.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (DataWeb)/U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). https://dataweb.usitc.gov/ (accessed various dates).

Wang, Janice. “Small Runs, Big Gains: Reshoring U.S. Apparel Manufacturing.” , January 13, 2015. http://apparel.edgl.com/news/Small-Runs,-Big-Gains---Reshoring-U-S--Apparel-Manufacturing97649.

Wingfield, Nick. “Amid Brick-and-Mortar Travails, a Tipping Point for Amazon in Apparel.” , April 30, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/technology/tipping-point-for-amazon-in-apparel.html.

Wolfson, Sarah. “Year of Ours: Athleisure as the New American Sportswear.” , October 13, 2016. https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2016/oct/13/year-ours-athleisure-new-american-sportswear/.

Wong, Steve. “Mogul Holds Grand Opening for Spunlace Facility in S.C.” eTextile Communications, March 29, 2017. http://www.etextilecommunications.com/032917mogul-grand-opening.

Yoon, Eunice. “‘Made in China’ Could Soon Be Made in the US.” CNBC, May 30, 2017. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/made-in-china-could-soon-be-made-in-the-us.html.

Table A3. Apparel: U.S. imports for consumption, domestic exports, and domestic shipments, 2012–16 (billions of dollars)

Annex B. Examples of Investment in the Production of Textiles and Textile Articles in the United States