The aim behind former US President Trump’s hefty import tariffs on Chinese goods was to stimulate domestic manufacturing and job preservation. However, the intricate task of moving production back to US soil entails significant time, investment and strategic planning, elements that are in stark contrast to the rapid-paced nature of the fast-fashion domain. This sector, oriented towards adjusting within weeks instead of years, found it challenging to observe these changes. Numerous apparel manufacturing companies started shifting production bases away from China under Trump’s first term, when the inaugural tariffs specifically for China were rolled out.
These companies sought other countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia for relocation, hastened by the ensuing ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. Thus, instead of returning to domestic territories, most of these fashion brands focused on countries that promised the lowest costs after considering tariffs. The consequence was that the fast-fashion industry rapidly modified its supply chains, leading to potentially worsening cases of exploitation.
Web-based platforms like Shein and Temu capitalized on the market’s demand for fashionable garments at startlingly modest rates. A $5 dress or $3 top may seem like quite the deal, but the price tag masks an array of hidden implications. Much of Shein’s production originates from the so-called ‘Shein village’ located in Guangzhou, China. Here, workers face steep expectations, laboring under adverse conditions for 12 to 14 hours daily to meet the insatiable demand for new merchandise.
The intention behind the US curbing Chinese imports was to offer a competitive edge to American products. Measures towards this goal were taken, such as increasing tariffs on Chinese goods up to a whopping 145% (a move that has since been suspended), and making amendments to the ‘de minimis’ provision, earlier allowing goods under US$800 to be imported free of tariff. However, these measures failed to impede the momentum of ultra-fast fashion. Instead, production found new routes towards countries offering lower tariffs and inferior labor costs.
In this reshuffled landscape, the Philippines, possessing a comparatively modest 17% tariff rate, emerged as an unexpected choice. Despite its appeal, the country lacks the industrial scope and infrastructural prowess that China possesses. Most of the cheap fashion items destined for the US have begun inundating other markets, including Australia. The country retains regulations allowing low-value imports to enter tax-free and platforms like Shein and Temu have utilized this to their gain.
Australians rank among the top Shein and Temu customers per capita worldwide. With a mere 3% of apparel being domestically produced and most brands dependent on overseas manufacturing, Australia has become an especially lucrative market for ultra-fast fashion imports. The nation possesses high buying power, liberal import regulations, and a notable demand for budget-friendly fashion, a need amplified by the prevalent cost-of-living crisis.
The ecological consequences of fast fashion are growing increasingly apparent. However, amidst the disarray following Trump’s tariff announcements, fewer observations were made regarding how these policies, coupled with a withdrawal from climate commitments, might amplify environmental damage, specifically in relation to the fast-fashion sector. The irony lies in the fact that the very tariffs intended to safeguard American labor have, in some scenarios, resulted in deteriorating conditions for workers in other regions.
Meanwhile, Australian customers are experiencing benefits such as speedy delivery of even more affordable goods. This development comes as companies like Temu, Shein and others upgrade their shipping services to Australia. Annually, Australian consumers discard over 200,000 tonnes of clothing. Nevertheless, the crux of the issue lies in its structural roots, the business model itself is founded on exploitation and environmental degradation.
In the competitive struggle to remain profitable, numerous manufacturers resort to slashing wages and disregarding hazardous work conditions. The solution to these issues calls for an international reconsideration of the existing fashion industry. Regulatory roles must be enacted by governments to enforce labor standards and ensure supply-chain transparency. Brands must also accept accountability for the conditions within their factories, whether they’re directly owned or outsourced. Clarity of operations is crucial.
Certain alternatives to fast fashion are gradually solidifying their stance. Rental services for clothing demonstrate potential in setting up a more circular fashion economy. Second-hand clothing sourced from charity-run thrift shops has been a longstanding sustainable solution. An Australian initiative called the Seamless scheme is promoting the need for fashion brands to take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products. This scheme aims to facilitate sustainable buying, wearing, and recycling habits among consumers.
Customer behavior is an influential aspect too. If cost expectations for garments continue to remain ridiculously low, the pace of change will be slow. Acknowledging that a $5 t-shirt carries concealed costs, exacted on factory workers and our environment, forms part of the required paradigm shift. Selected ethical brands are already exhibiting a commendable path ahead, producing clothing under fair conditions and with eco-friendly materials.
These ethically produced clothes may not be as cheap or fast to market, but they certainly offer a more conscientious choice for consumers concerned about synthetic fibers, harmful chemicals, and environmental damage. Trump’s trade policies aspired to rebalance global trade in favor of American industry; however, they have led to more than US$34 billion in lost sales and increased costs for companies. Inevitably, these costs will be transferred to American consumers.
The ultra-fast fashion industry has revealed the inherent fragility and exploitative nature of its system in the wake of these trade policies. Yet, without addressing the systemic inequalities in fashion production and reconsidering the market incentives that fuel this sector, the real cost of inexpensive clothing will continually be borne by those least capable of bearing it.