Geopolitical developments have underscored the fragility of global supply chains, reminding businesses in constantly evolving sectors such as consumer goods and fashion that the strength of supplier relationships is one of the few persistent sources of resilience. Maintaining such relationships through responsible purchasing (based on environmental and social considerations, not just cost and quality) is not only ethical, but strategically necessary.
The fashion industry is one of many that is feeling the weight of tariffs — disruptions that come at a time when it is struggling to make progress toward previously stated climate and sustainability goals.
According to a benchmarking survey this year by the US Fashion Industry Association, 100 percent of 25 leading apparel brands and retailers identified the current administration’s protectionist stance and volatile trade relationships as a top challenge, and more than half flagged policy uncertainty, especially retaliatory tariffs, as their primary concern.
Rather than respond with short-term cost-cutting, major consumer-goods companies are strategically investing to build resilience. For example, retailers such as Walmart and Target have front-loaded inventory to absorb tariff shocks ahead of the holiday season; and Apple chartered cargo flights to transport 1.5 million iPhones from India, an option made possible by increasing production with a key supplier.
These are not just logistical moves; they are evidence of why trust-based, responsive supply-chain relationships matter. Responsible purchasing practices are the glue that holds supply chains together in uncertain times. Gartner reports that nearly half of large enterprises have renegotiated supplier contracts or shifted sourcing strategies to manage risks associated with the tariffs.
Tools like supply-chain finance are increasingly being used not just for liquidity, but as buffers against volatility. Such trends reflect a growing consensus: Resilient, transparent and values-aligned supply chains are key to avoiding major disruptions and maintaining competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the fashion sector is a laggard in this regard, scoring just 66 out of 100 in Cascale’s Better Buying 2025 Garment Industry Scorecard, with year-on-year declines in key areas of responsible purchasing, including cost negotiation, payment terms, and product development. That is concerning, given that upstream effects can spread when tariffs or other external shocks hit. Production costs often need to be renegotiated, and without strong supplier relationships, shifts in production can increase delays, labor risks and reputational exposure.
The trend is also concerning for its climate implications. The fashion industry, with its complex global supply chains, is particularly vulnerable to such ripple effects. The US tariffs that went into effect on Aug. 7 directly affect sourcing hubs with an outsize influence on the industry’s carbon footprint.
Cascale found that just 1,800 factories in nine countries account for more than 80 percent of measured carbon emissions from the apparel, textile and footwear industries. Of them, six countries — China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Turkey and Pakistan — have been directly affected by the new tariffs.
Shifting sourcing away from these hubs might avoid short-term tariff costs, but it could also disrupt ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from the major sources. That happened in 2018, when tariffs against China drove a production surge in Vietnam. Since it typically takes an average of 14 months for brands to add new suppliers, such rapid shifts cause a ripple effect: labor violations, longer lead times and quality issues. Without coordinated planning, they risk undermining climate goals and working conditions alike.
Although fashion is a US$3 trillion industry, it is expected to have only a minimal formal presence at this year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP30). As in previous years, travel budgets are being cut, and many teams are being downsized, as the industry slims down in the face of market volatility. Unlike climate-focused gatherings such as Climate Week NYC or London Climate Action Week, COP30 is to focus more on adaptation finance, carbon pricing and nature-based strategies than on redrawing trade or sourcing lines.
Nonetheless, those in the industry should pay close attention to get a sense of the global appetite for sustainable finance and investment. Brazil is using its COP30 presidency to promote major initiatives such as the US$125 billion Tropical Forests Forever Facility, a blended-finance tool designed to help close the US$1.3 trillion annual climate-finance gap by 2035. Moreover, the discussions about carbon pricing could have a greater impact on international trade and value chains than any industry-specific trade reform.
In short, COP30 will not offer any direct relief on tariffs, but it could shape the long-term rules of the game, linking sustainability targets, sourcing practices and competitiveness factors through policy levers that lie beyond the fashion industry’s immediate control.
As trade-related costs persist, industry leaders must shift their mindset. Their businesses’ resilience would not come from diplomacy or a presidential handshake, but from trust-based relationships, fair purchasing practices and innovations to drive sustainability. Brands and retailers should view tariffs not only as cost burdens, but as stress tests for their supplier partnerships. Companies that default to price-driven strategies risk eroding their ability to deliver quality, speed and innovation to today’s conscientious consumer.
By contrast, companies that lean into transparency and collaboration — sharing forecasts to ensure continuity, smoothing demand through level loading and offering fairer payment terms — are more likely to avoid spikes in labor violations and preserve the market signals needed to sustain decarbonization investments.
As tariffs and climate-related shifts can alter sourcing strategies overnight, resilient partnerships are more than operational tools. They are strategic differentiators, signaling accountability, stability and ethical leadership to a growing list of stakeholders who are thinking about the long term.
Joleen Ong is senior director of brand and retailer membership at Cascale.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
RSS