RJTA Vol. 15 No.

4 2011

A Historical Review of Environmental Factors and Business Strategies

for U.S. Apparel Manufacturing Industry 1973-2005
Hyejune Park1* and Doris H. Kincade2
1
The State University of New York, Oneonta, New York, USA, parkh@oneonta.edu
2
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, kincade@vt.edu

ABSTRACT

The apparel manufacturers that service apparel products, also known as fashion products,
have been challenged by turbulent and volatile changes within the market over the past 30
years. Changes in the business environment in the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry and
the reactions of associated firms have continued to affect the profile of this industry. In this
research, we documented the historical changes in the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry,
from 1973 to 2005, and examined the impact of the business environment on strategies
during this time. A mixture of positivism and phenomenology techniques was used within
the scope of the historical review to achieve the study’s purposes. The conceptual framework
developed from theories about environmental determinism or adaptation provided support for
data collection and organization. The results present an in-depth exploration of three
environmental factors (i.e., globalization, technology, consumer) for the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry, a listing of the implemented business strategies for U.S. apparel
manufacturing firms, and the interrelation of the environmental factors to these resultant
strategies.

Keywords: Apparel manufacturing industry, Business Environment, Strategies, Historical

Analysis

1. Introduction workers vary from creative design to technical and

The fashion apparel market faces rapid change.
Fashion products, especially apparel items, are
often theorized to be a reflection of economic,
social, cultural and other environmental changes,
and the businesses that make and sell the products
would be equally vulnerable. The companies that
service this fashion market exist within the Fiber,
Textile, Apparel, and Retail (FTAR) complex, a
pipeline from the raw materials of fiber and fabric
to the finished products of apparel sold at retail
(Lawson, 2008; Moncarz, 1992).
The apparel manufacturing industry is one
segment within the FTAR complex. Each segment
within the FTAR complex consists of processes
and operations for design, production, and sales.
The segments vary from equipment-intensive
chemical production of fibers to labor-intensive
sewing of intricate fashion items. Skill sets of
financial calculations.
Success in this fast-paced market depends on how
the company responds to turbulent and volatile
market changes (Christopher & Lee, 2004; Pan &
Holland, 2006).
Since the 1970s, the increasing number of global
and regional trade agreements, differentials in
workers’ pay between high and low wage
countries, fluctuating demands from consumers,
and revolutions in computer technology have
heightened environmental challenges to U.S.
apparel manufacturers. Consequently, the U.S.
apparel manufacturing industry, once a major
employer for many southern U.S. states and at one
time was the largest employer of women for these
states (ATMI, 1985), employs less than 300,000
workers in the 21st century (Plunkett Research,
Ltd., 2006).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: (1) 607 436 2121; Fax: (1) 607 436 2051
E-mail address: parkh@oneonta.edu (H. Park)
102
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
Changes experienced during the last three decades
of the 20th century were dramatic and
unprecedented, and the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry continues to face a
turbulent market and unprecedented economic
challenges.
Although the environmental impact on this
industry is generally accepted as true in trade
literature, a review of academic literature revealed
a limited number of studies confirming the
relationship between business environments and
resultant business strategies, and no study was
identified that placed these issues within a
historical context. Therefore, a detailed
exploration about how U.S. apparel manufacturing
companies have formulated their business
strategies since the 1970s and an investigation of
whether these changes were in response to the
changing business environments is needed. A
study of this period is important both for its
historical documentation and for its usefulness in
future planning.
The purposes of this study are, therefore, to
document the historical changes in the U.S.
apparel manufacturing industry, from 1973 to
2005, and to examine the impact of business
environments on strategies during this time. This
time frame was determined based on 1973 as the
date for the peak employment in U.S. apparel
manufacturing and the subsequent beginning of an
extensive decline in employment and plant
numbers (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987),
and the ending point is selected as 2005 before the
global economic crisis in the first decade of the
21st century. Three research objectives were
established: (a) to explore the environmental
factors experienced by the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry from 1973 to 2005, (b) to
investigate the business strategies for the U.S.
apparel manufacturing industry from 1973 to 2005,
and (c) to verify the relationship between major
environmental factors of the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry and the resultant business
strategies of apparel firms.
2. Procedure
A mixture of positivism and phenomenology
techniques was used within the scope of the
historical review. For the first and second study
objectives, archival or published trade literature
103
and relevant academic research studies were
reviewed using content analysis or other
unobtrusive observation measures. For the third
objective, all concepts, cases, and phenomena
revealed in the data coding procedure were
analyzed, compared, and conceptualized using the
research framework.
A research framework or conceptual model,
considered vital to a qualitative research study
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), aided us as we identified,
classified, and analyzed the historical data. The
model was developed from the theories about
environmental determinism or adaptation
described by numerous researchers (e.g. Jemison,
1981; Ward & Duray, 2000) (see Figure 1).
Organizational adaptation theory has been used for
single point studies in various industries, and
posits that organizations operate within a broad
environment and must make adjustments to the
environment for adaptation, survival and
competitiveness. In adjusting to the environment,
the firms may in turn affect the environment. A
similar model used by Kincade (2002) examined
one point in time for the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry. Details for the conceptual
model were specified for the apparel
manufacturing industry through a preliminary
literature analysis, and three major environmental
factors in which U.S. apparel companies operated
from 1973 to 2005 were identified: (a)
globalization, (b) technology, and (c) consumer
(e.g. Kincade & Cassill, 1993; Office of
Technology Assessment, 1987; Shim, 1998;
Sridharan, Caines, & Patterson, 2005; Wong & Lai,
2008).
Fig. 1. Proposed Research Framework
2.1 Data Collection and Analysis
Data sources included documents from U.S.
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011

government agencies (e.g. U.S. Department of
Labor, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of
Textiles and Apparel) and from trade associations
(e.g. American Apparel & Footwear Association
[AAFA], formerly the American Apparel
Manufacturers Association [AAMA], American
Textile Manufacturers Institute [ATMI]). We
examined academic literature in related areas (e.g.
apparel manufacturing industry, general business
strategies) and articles from trade journals (e.g.
Bobbin, Textile Outlook International). We also
searched for data available through on-line
databases (e.g. Business & Company Resource
Center, Factiva, ProQuest,) and data in paper and
microfiche versions of historical documents,
including original trade literature from the 1980s
and 1990s. One researcher who had worked in the
industry also drew upon her experience in the
industry.
In analyzing data, content analysis, generally
accepted by researchers as appropriate for
studying human and social communication
(Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), was used. Using data
coding, we analyzed themes of selected
environmental factors and business strategies
based on the research framework and a
preliminary literature review (see Table 1). With
the listed operational definitions and examples for
each theme, we ensured that (a) the themes were
logical derivations of the theory (i.e. research
framework) and occurrence in practice and (b) the
relationships between the environmental themes
and strategies were logically consistent with the
theory and occurrence in practice (Mentzer, 2008).
Based on this process, definitions received
adjustments throughout the qualitative research
process.
2.2 Verification
To ensure verification of the study, several
procedures were taken. For explanatory purposes
to bridge conceptually both qualitative and
quantitative research, we divide those procedures
into the two most common research terms: validity
and reliability. To enhance validity, we used the
objectives, the research framework, and a code
book to direct data collection and analysis. With
these tools, we improved assurance that the study
was well-grounded and generated trustworthiness
that the data set demonstrated the situation of the
study. We acknowledge that the findings are
limited to the examined, written documents. For
this reason, content validity for the
communication tools (e.g. trade magazines,
industry reports) is an issue in this research. To
address these concerns, we selected trade
documents (e.g. Bobbin) that were most
commonly used in the industry during the period
of study. Multiple data sources, accepted theories,
and our personal experience in the industry were
used to triangulate the data.

Table 1. Code Book for Themes, Operational Definitions, and Examples

Themes Operational definitions Examples
Globalization Level of involvement with import (a) Foreign competition with quotas and tariffs, (b)
trade (ATMI, 1985; Georgia apparel trade regarding policies and agreements
Institute of Technology, 1980) among nations, (c) distribution of products from
international trade (Moncarz, 1992)
Technology New processes and new equipment (a) Use of automated sewing, (b) implementation
(Ko, Kincade, & Brown, 2000) of computers for planning, inventory control, and
pattern making (Ko et al., 2000)
Consumer A group of people with money and (a) Demographic change and population shifts, (b)
desire to purchase products (Office consumer movement, (c) consumer shopping
of Technology Assessment, 1987) behavior, (d) target markets (Georgia Institute of
Technology, 1980)
Business The overall plans and purposes (a) Purposes and policies defining a company and
Strategies dominating the company’s its business, (b) components of strategic choice
decision making processes and including opportunities and threats, a company’s
functions (Hamermesh, 1983) strengths and weaknesses and society’s
expectations, (c) a company resources
(Christensen, Andrews, & Andrews, 1978)

104
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
To have the quality associated with reliability or
potential replication, we observed several
considerations. First, we conducted internal
checks regarding systemic and comprehensive
analysis of data and equal opportunity for all
perspectives. Second, we took ample written notes
and kept written files about the research process as
recommended (e.g. Ritchie & Lewis, 2003).
Throughout the process, we monitored our work to
be sure that the research was conducted
systemically and comprehensively, that concepts
were confirmed by multiple assessment, that our
interpretations were founded by evidence, and that
multiple perspectives were identified. Concepts
were pursued until we found that the topics were
saturated. Our notes and processes were reviewed
by peer checkers, who verified our findings as
consistent with the data.
3. Historical Changes in the Business
Environments for U.S. Apparel
Manufacturers
Using the code book, we explored three major
environmental factors (i.e., globalization,
technology, consumers) in the business
environment surrounding U.S. apparel
manufacturers, from 1973 to 2005.
3.1 Globalization
Since the 1970s, the business environment for the
U.S. apparel manufacturing industry has
experienced increasing amounts of global
competition especially from countries with lower
wages (AAFA, 2004; Berdine et al., 2008; Georgia
Institute of Technology, 1980; Su, Gargeya, &
Richter, 2003). To respond to the problems
associated with this wage-based competition, a
variety of U.S. trade policies were developed and
implemented (see Table 2).
In the 1970s, U.S. textile and apparel trade
policies were formed as protectionist actions
against the rising number of imports (Gereffi,
1999). MFA (Multi Fiber Agreement) I and MFA
II quotas created a substantial decline in growth
rate for U.S. imports; however, in the early 1980s,
imports of textile and apparel again began to surge
105
into the United States. To improve protection of
U.S. manufacturing, including apparel, the U.S.
government in the 1980s and 1990s tried a second
tactic of forming regional pacts with countries
geographically close and offered free flow of
apparel products within these regions.
Regionalism continued to be the focus of U.S.
trade policies into the 21st century (Abernathy,
Volpe, & Weil, 2006; Rosen, 2002).
Regardless of the approaches taken, imports from
low-wage countries continued to pour into the
United States, and the U.S. apparel manufacturing
industry faced continuing global competition and
corresponding financial difficulties (Office of
Textiles and Apparel, 2008). In contrast to the
planned outcome, the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and other regional policies
increased imports, contributed to competitive
pressures on U.S. apparel manufacturers, and
compounded the problems of trade deficit and job
losses (Rosen, 2002).
3.2 Technology
In the 1970s, the technology implemented by
firms in the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry
was in automation of manufacturing processes
(AAMA, 1987; AAMA, 1991; Kurt Salmon
Associates [KSA], 1977).
Through automation, firms hoped to achieve
economies of scale in product production by
removing the expensive labor component.
Although automation was applicable to and
implemented in textile manufacturing, limited
automation procedures were introduced in apparel
manufacturing (Office of Technology Assessment,
1987). With fashion apparel products, the need for
rapid setups and changeovers and continual
introduction of new and varying raw materials
(e.g., fabrics) reduced applicability of automation
and exceeded margins in the sewing operations
(Moncarz, 1992).
Throughout the 1970s, apparel manufacturing
companies continued to depend on labor intensive
operations that were not cost competitive with
firms operating in low-wage countries.
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011

Table 2. Major Trade Policies on U.S. Textile and Apparel Products 1973-2005
Year of Countries
Trade policy Objectives of the policy
passage involved
1973 Multi Fiber United States, To reduce barriers of liberalization
Arrangement EEC, developing for world trade (multilateral
(MFA) countries agreement), to avoid market
disruption for importing and
exporting countries (bilateral
agreement)
1977-1981 MFA II United States, To permit more restrictive bilateral,
EEC, developing agreements on textile and apparel
countries imports, to provide framework for
textile import control, and to
develop new bilateral agreements
with Big Three countries
1981-1986 MFA III United States, EEC, To provide increased protection
developing countries
1986-1991 MFA IV United States, EEC, To provide more extensive and more
developing countries restrictive protection for fibers
1988 U.S./Canada Free United States, Canada To eliminate trade duties and quota
Trade Agreement
1991 Andean Trade United States, Bolivia, To eliminate the trade barriers in
Preference Act (ATPA) Colombia, Ecuador, Peru Andean countries
1994 North American Free U.S., Canada, Mexico To liberalize trade in North America
Trade Agreement (elimination on tariffs and quotas on
(NAFTA) textile and apparel products)
1995 Agreement on Textiles WTO nations To phase out the MFA (quota
and Clothing (ATC) system) and allow for free trade of
textile and apparel products across
multiple countries
2004 U.S.-Central America- United States, six Central To eliminate trade barriers and
Dominican Republic American countries facilitate movement of goods and
Free Trade Agreement services among the Central
(US-CAFTA) American nations and the United
States

In the 1980s, the introduction of the multi-function
computer moved the emphasis of technology from
production automation to preproduction (e.g.,
pattern making, marker making) and post
production processes (e.g. distribution) (AAMA,
1991). Equipment costs of Computer Aided
Design (CAD) and Computer Aided
Manufacturing (CAM) retarded implementation
within the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry
(Byrne, 1995; Ghadar, Davison, & Feigeroff,
1987; “Special report,” 1996).
From the mid-1980s through the 1990s,
implementation of technologies moved from
computerizing specific operations to improving
specific business strategies. Adoption of Quick
Response (QR), Supply Chain Management
(SCM), and other specific strategies (e.g.,
Just-In-Time (JIT) shipping) involved
implementation of numerous technologies
including CAD, bar coding, and computerized
sewing processes (Lee & Kincade, 2003).
Technologies for logistics and communications
between vendors and sellers were introduced in
the 1990s. These new technologies included
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), computers for
controlling inventory flow, information
technologies for customized garment design and
manufacture (e.g., CAD, CAM), Computer
Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), and Integrated
Service Digital Networks (ISDN) for fiber optic

106
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
and satellite communications (Byrne, 1995; Power,
2005).
From 2000 to 2005, technology implementation
focused on information technologies to manage
global supply chains, specifically on
communication with raw material suppliers,
production processes, and customers. Business to
business (B2B) communication includes
technologies for Product Data Management
(PDM), Product Lifecycle Management (PLM),
and Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID)
(Lawson, 2008; Power, 2005; “Supply-chain,”
2009). Business to consumer (B2C)
communication includes technologies for websites,
email, social networks (e.g., Facebook), and radio
frequency identification data (RFID) (Power,
2005; “Top 25,” 2005).
3.3 Consumer
Two major consumer changes were identified
from the 1970s to 2005: (a) increase in consumer
power and (b) increase in consumer diversity. The
increase in consumer purchasing power occurred
because the consumer has become a smarter
shopper (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008;
National Retail Federation, 2007). Imports in the
1970s with limited quality control and U.S.
apparel products with ineffective attempts at cost
savings, corresponding with a rise in consumerism,
resulted in consumers’ awareness of inferior
product quality (Office of Technology Assessment,
1987). In the 1980s, the maturing Baby Boomers,
an educated and affluent consumer placed more
pressure on U.S. apparel manufacturing firms for
more varied and better quality products. At the
same time, consumers also demanded value (i.e.,
quality goods at fair prices) (Lachman & Brett,
1994). The increasing consumer demands began to
influence not only the apparel manufacturing
industry but also retailing. New retail formats such
as Wal-Mart and off-price retailers gained power
in the market place. The emergence of specialty
stores and discount stores, which provided more
value-oriented products, began to shift the
decision making power from the manufacturer to
the retailer. The increasing consumer demand for
both value and variety in products was one of the
major forces that pressured apparel manufacturers
to shift their productions overseas. For the 1990s,
Moran and McCully (2001) summarized the
following reasons for consumer power: increasing
107
affluence, changing demographics, technological
innovations, and changing tastes and lifestyle. In
the 2000s, consumers have achieved great power
over companies because consumers’ demands
have become very volatile and unpredictable
(Christopher, Lowson, & Peck, 2004).
In addition to changes in consumer spending
power, the U.S. consumer market has become
more diverse and fragmented since the 1970s.
Changes in consumer demographics include
increasing numbers of elderly, growing diversity
in ethnicity, increased numbers of nontraditionally
structured families, and working mothers
(DesMarteau, Speer, & Haisley, 2004; National
Retail Federation, 2007).
The Baby Boomers who have had spending power
since the 1980s have continuously created new
demands for the apparel manufacturing industry,
from casual wear in the 1980s to clothing for
special needs into the 2000s (Behling, 1999).
Other generation segments (e.g. Generation Y,
Millennials) have brought even more diversity in
apparel market with their own unique demands,
such as tailored and stylish maternity wear for
working women (Moran & McCully, 2001).
Women, who do most of the apparel shopping in a
family, are often time-starved, cost-conscious, and
value-driven, and need faster, more efficient ways
to shop (”The Top 8,” 2004). Fragmented,
complex consumer demands resulted in the needs
for more diverse, personalized services and
products.
4. Historical Review of Business
Strategies for U.S. Apparel
Manufacturers
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the overall goal
of the U.S. apparel manufacturing industry was
improvement in productivity and product quality
(KSA, 1977; Office of Technology Assessment,
1987). To achieve this two-part goal, the strategy
of manufacturing automation was implemented.
Automation with the promise of lower costs from
economies of scale was a reaction to the growing
import level from low-wage countries. In the
1970s and early 1980s, many firms streamlined
the entire process from initial design through cut
and sew to final inspection to lower manufacturing
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
costs and to improve product quality (AAMA,
1991; Office of Technology Assessment, 1987).
Efforts to increase product quality were noted by
the number of total quality management programs
and the rise in statistical process control
procedures implemented by apparel manufacturers
and other FTAR companies during the 1970s and
1980s (Cooper, 1980-1981; Georgia Institute of
Technology, 1980).
Later in the 1980s, the Quick Response (QR)
effort was initiated as the importance of predicting
the right fashion and producing the right product
for the final consumers was raised with further
improvements in efficiency (AAMA, 1987;
Kincade & Cassill, 1993).
The QR strategy, a computerized flow of
information and merchandise, mainly focused on
the linkage between apparel manufacturers and
retailers. Ghadar et al. (1987) summarized apparel
business strategies of the 1980s as the following:
implementing automation, lowering indirect
overhead costs, achieving diversification,
outsourcing, and using computerized
communication. In the 1990s, QR was extended to
the Supply Chain Management (SCM) strategy, a
broader concept including final consumers and
raw material vendors. SCM with its multiple
functions provided companies with processes to
handle product variety, multiple vendors, and
diverse customers (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood,
2006; Lee & Kincade, 2003).
In the first decade of the 2000s, companies have
instituted programs for consumer responsiveness,
often called consumer-centric manufacturing, by
adapting more quickly to market changes and by
providing individualized responses to consumers
(Pan & Holland, 2006).
The consumer-to-company relationship, driven by
the consumer, has become a major change from
the plant-driven manufacturing strategy of the
1970s. As early as 1987, Weller (1987) noted in
his special report for Bobbin Magazine that the
importance of consumers was shifting from simple
recognition of customer service to “actual
discussion between suppliers and customers” (p.
65). Although the apparel manufacturing industry
has always needed to attract consumers,
companies in the industry have become more
concerned about and interactive with the consumer
108
at the turn of the 21st century (Kim & Kincade,
2006; Power, 2005). Many U.S. apparel
manufacturing firms now use micro-segmentation
based on shopping behaviors, ethnicity, and other
psychographics to fine tune their knowledge of
target markets and to drive product development
and sales activities (Behling, 1999; Shrestha,
2006).
5. Environmental Factors and U.S.
Apparel Manufacturers’ Business
Strategies
Our in-depth exploration of the environmental
factors and the specific business strategies of the
U.S. apparel manufacturing industry revealed that
environmental changes are correlated with U.S.
apparel manufacturers’ overall business plans and
major policies (i.e., results of strategies) from
1973 to 2005. This section discusses in detail how
each of three environmental factors has affected
business strategies.
5.1 Globalization and Strategies
Globalization had an increasing influence on the
U.S. apparel manufacturing industry. For example,
as imports of apparel products rose, U.S. domestic
manufacturing decreased. The layoffs and closings
in the 1970s and 1980s were attributed to both the
global competition and the increase efforts of
automation (Moncarz, 1992; Office of Technology
Assessment, 1987).
In the 1980s and 1990s, QR and SCM strategies,
adopted to increase competitive positioning for
U.S. firms, were easily copied by firms from
low-wage countries and were not viable enough
for U.S. apparel manufacturers to remain
competitive against globalization. Along with the
drop in employment, the industry, in the decades
of 1990 and 2000, realized a dramatic and
extensive reduction in the number of U.S. apparel
plants (Haisley, 2002; Office of Chief Economist,
1996).
Consumer demand for apparel products was met
primarily through the rising tides of imports from
low wage countries (AAFA, 2004). Ultimately,
many apparel companies have transformed their
businesses from manufacturers to marketers,
outsourcing production and specializing on
meeting consumer demand (Christopher & Lee,
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
2004; Lee & Kincade, 2003).
SCM and other channel management strategies are
used by companies such as Nike and Jones of New
York to meet consumers’ product needs (Sridharan
et al., 2005).
Globalization became international
interconnectedness through increasing economic
activity across the world’s countries for the U.S.
apparel manufacturing industry.
5.2 Technology and Strategies
Technology was also noted for its impact over the
past 30 years on U.S. apparel manufacturing. In
the 1970s, technology for the apparel industry was
primarily focused on manufacturing equipment,
which corresponded with strategies of productivity
and quality. Since the 1970s, technologies have
continuously evolved and become key elements to
facilitate various business strategies (e.g., QR,
SCM, mass customization) in the apparel
manufacturing industry (Georgia Institute of
Technology, 1980, Knapton, 1990; Moncarz, 1992).
Technologies such as CAD, POS (Point-Of-Sale),
and PLM allow companies to address niche
markets (e.g. QR) and manage their channels (e.g.
SCM). By first decade of the 21st century,
business strategies of mass customization and
other consumer-centric processes have become
dependent on technologies, which facilitate
flexible manufacturing processes and effective
communication. Technologies and business
strategies for U.S. apparel manufacturers have
become intricately integrated.
5.3 Consumer and Strategies
The consumer factor, which was hardly considered
as an influence in the 1970s (i.e., manufacturers
were product-oriented not consumer-oriented), has
gained increased influence in U.S. apparel
manufacturing. Since the late 1980s and 1990s,
the consumer influence has been a key driving
force of business strategies (e.g. SCM,
consumer-centricity) in the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry (Behling, 1999; Shim,
1998).
In the first decade of the 21st century, consumers
have become the most important environmental
109
force for many companies in the U.S. apparel
business (Kim & Kincade, 2006; Pan & Holland,
2006).
Meeting the needs of the consumer has affected
supply channels, impacting the growth or decline
of companies and creating new channel formats
(i.e., online shopping direct from manufacturers to
retailers) (National Retail Federation, 2007).
These channel changes have caused more
competition among companies and channels, and
allowed U.S. consumers to demand better quality
apparel products with lower prices.
6. Conclusions
This study presented, for the years from 1973 to
2005, (a) an in-depth exploration of three
environmental factors for the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry, (b) the U.S. apparel
manufacturing firms’ business strategies
implemented in correlation or response to these
major environmental factors, and (c) the
interrelation of these environmental factors to the
resultant strategies.
6.1 Environmental Themes in the Study
Three environmental factors or themes were
initially identified and reviewed in this study. As a
result of our data collection and analysis, the
themes were confirmed; however, changes in the
themes were noted during the three decades
represented in the study. These changes are
important factors in the history of the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry and are thus reflected in a
redefinition of these themes.
Originally we defined the first theme,
globalization, as representing the degree or level
of import activities for a company in the 1970s
(see Table 1). When documenting activities within
this theme through the three decades representing
the study, the evidence indicates an increased
scope of global activities among U.S. apparel
manufacturers. U.S. apparel manufacturers moved
from tracking imports from low-wage countries to
outsourcing from companies in these low-wage
countries. For this reason, globalization was
redefined to reflect the interconnections among
U.S. firms, producers in low-wage countries, and
consumers throughout the world (see Table 3).
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011

Table 3. Themes, Refined Definitions, and Historical Examples or the U.S. Apparel Manufacturing Industry
Themes Refined definitions Examples1
Globalization Growing international • Over capacity for apparel production
interconnectedness in • Increasing import from low-wage countries
terms of increasing • Multilateralism
economic activity across • Import surge due to the U.S. dollar appreciation and the
the world’s countries strong recovery of U.S. economy from recession
• Protectionism and regionalism
• Increasing imports
• NAFTA became effective
• Elimination of all quotas and tariffs
• Severe decline of economic and political conditions
Technology Equipment and technical • Tension-free spreading, electric knives, electric-eye edge
method for production of control, computer-assist marking system, programmable
apparel products; and the sewing
system for distribution • CAD/CAM, computers for automated patterning
and selling of finished • Automated sewing operation, bar coding, JIT, EDI,
apparel products robotics, ISDN
• CIM, PDM, PLM, body scanning, digital fabric printing
• Information technologies in B2B and B2C
Consumer A group of people who • Limited attention to the importance for consumers
have the money and the • More knowledgeable, sophisticated, and demanding
ability to affect both consumers
production and retail sale • Consumers with biggest bargaining power
of apparel products • Consumers more actively involved in apparel business
• More diverse and fragmented consumer demand
Business The overall plans and • Automation
strategies purposes dominating the • Product quality control
company’s decision • Quick Response
making processes and • Supply chain management
functions • Outsourcing
• Consumer-centricity
Note: 1. Examples are in chronological order for each of the four themes.

Technology in the U.S. apparel manufacturing
industry was also redefined as a result of the study.
The technology theme was limited initially to
equipment and processes (see Table 1). From the
historical evidence of technology implementation
and usage in the U.S. apparel manufacturing
industry, this definition was expanded to include
not only equipment and technical method for
production but also the system for distribution and
selling of finished apparel products (see Table 3).
U.S. apparel manufacturers that have transformed
themselves from domestic producers to global
marketers use technology throughout their
business processes.
Consumers, the third environmental theme,
originally defined as customers who bought
products (see Table 1), was also redefined. Our
study revealed that this theme also evolved from
110
1973 to 2005. Our research showed that
consumers have become more vocal and more
diverse, in the three decades covered by the study,
and have increasingly affected the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry including influencing the
formation of various apparel distribution channels.
We revised the definition of consumer to reflect
the consumers’ ability to affect both production
and retail sale of apparel products (see Table 3).
Although the strategies used by U.S. apparel
manufacturers changed through the period of study,
the definition for business strategies changed very
little from the original definition of a force used to
guide business decision making (see Tables 1 and
3). From the 1970s to 2005, companies continued
to follow the strategic process of reviewing the
strengths and weaknesses of their companies and
seeking opportunities to be competitive.
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
6.2 Business Strategies and their Relationship
with the Environment
From 1973 to 2005, the business strategies of the
U.S. apparel manufacturing industry varied from
an operational focus of automation and product
quality through the strategies of QR and SCM to a
consumer-centric strategy. In the 1970s,
companies tried to find ways to make products
faster and better to gain economies of scale for
lower costs and better products. With
improvements in processes and products, U.S.
apparel firms in the 1980s and 1990s were still
failing in their stride to be competitive. By the
2000s, U.S. apparel companies were searching for
strategies to produce the right products for the
right consumers to gain economies of scope.
Throughout this thirty-year period, the U.S.
apparel manufacturing industry has been in a
constant flux, continually implementing new
strategies to gain a competitive position relative to
environmental factors.
This evidence in our reviewed data supports our
proposed research framework (see Figure 1). The
research findings, as illustrated in Figure 2,
provide support for the research objectives: to
document historical detail about changes in
environmental factors and changes in U.S. apparel
manufacturing strategies and to confirm the
Fig. 2. Model of Environmental Factors, Business Strategies, and Examples for the U.S. Apparel
Manufacturing Industry 1973-2005
111
interrelationship among these environmental
factors and U.S. apparel companies’ overall plans
and major policies. Changes in business strategies
did occur in relationship to the changes in the
three environmental factors.
With the observed data, we were able to enhance
the proposed research framework by enumerating
business strategies (see center column in Figure 2)
and relating them directly to the environmental
themes (see left column in Figure 2). Our
historical review of the U.S. apparel
manufacturing industry indicated that many
companies developed and implemented new
business strategies in relation to changing business
environments and that this implementation was at
times reactive with the environment. This
reactive aspect of the model is diagramed with the
two reverse directional arrows in Figure 2.
Because the historical study covered a period of
three decades, we were able to not only confirm
Figure 1 but also were able to show that
environment and strategy changes occurred along
the time period examined. For this reason, the
dimension of time with historical examples for the
apparel manufacturing industry was added to the
model (see time line and right column in Figure
2).
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
7. Implications and Future Research
In theory, business strategies are selected by firms
to provide guidance when dealing with constant
changes and to manage uncertainty in the
environment (e.g. Jemison, 1981; Ward & Duray,
2000). In this study, this generalized theory was
confirmed for the U.S. apparel manufacturing
industry. The findings of this study indicate that
apparel manufacturing businesses did not operate
in a vacuum but were clearly affected by and
impacted upon the environmental forces that
surround their firms. These findings imply that
companies in the apparel manufacturing industry
and in other manufacturing industries could be
proactive to manage their environments. For
example, companies that plan to address
consumers’ changes should monitor the consumer
markets and make plans based on detailed
forecasts instead of waiting for consumer reactions.
In addition, managers in the apparel
manufacturing industry and perhaps in other
manufacturing industries should also realize that
strategies should not remain stagnant over time.
As part of strategic planning, managers and other
stakeholders should constantly monitor business
action plans for their effectiveness in reaching
company goals, and changes should be made to
meet predicted challenges and changes in the
environment.
The revised definitions for the themes, time line of
examples, and detailed model from this study can
be used by future researchers as they continue to
examine this dynamic and evolving industry as
well as other manufacturing industries–especially
those that are fashion-related or consumer-driven.
For example, case studies of specific companies
could provide a longitudinal confirmation of the
process. In addition, cross-sectional studies
examining multiple companies in one-time period
will be useful to confirm the reciprocal
relationship implied in the generalized industry
information. Additional environmental factors
could be investigated such as the actions of
competitive firms or the changes in currency
values, and evolutions or revolutions in political or
economic status within or across countries. In
addition, researchers could examine measures of
success (e.g. growth rate, return on investment) to
quantify the impact that these strategies have had
on the environment, on the apparel manufacturing
industry, and on specific companies.
112
REFERENCES
[1] Abernathy, F.H., Volpe, A. & Weil, D. 2006,
‘The future of the apparel and textile
industries: Prospects and choices for public
and private actors’, Environment and
Planning A, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2207-2232.
[2] American Apparel & Footwear Association
2004, An annual compilation of statistical
information in the U.S. apparel and footwear
industries: trends annual 2004, Available at:
www.apparelandfootwear.org/UserFiles/File/
Statistics/Trends2004Annual.pdf
[3] American Apparel Manufacturers Association
1987, Getting Started in Quick Response,
Author, Arlington, VA.
[4] American Apparel Manufacturers Association
1991, The Impact of Technology on Apparel:
Part One, Author, Arlington, VA.
[5] ATMI 1985, Textile and apparel imports: A
national concern. American Textile
Manufacturers Institute, Inc., Washington,
DC.
[6] Barnes, L. & Lea-Greenwood, G. 2006, ‘Fast
fashioning the supply chain: shaping the
research agenda’, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, vol. 10, no. 3,
pp. 259-271.
[7] Behling, D.U. 1999, ‘Aging boomers may
shift the apparel empire: Changing
expenditure pattern’, Bobbin, vol. 40, no. 5,
pp. 53-56.
[8] Berdine, M., Parrish, E., Cassill, N.L.,
Ozenham, W., & Jones, M.R. 2008, ‘Analysis
of supply chain strategies used by the Unites
States textile and apparel industries’,
Research Journal of Textile & Apparel, vol.
12, no. 3, pp. 1-17.
[9] Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008, Consumer
Expenditure, Office of Prices and Living
Conditions, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, DC.
[10] Byrne, C. 1995, ‘Impact of new technology in
the clothing industry: Outlook to 2000’,
Textiles Outlook International, no. March, pp.
111-140.
[11] Christensen C.R., Andrews, K.R., & Andrews,
J.L. 1978, Business Policy: Text and Cases, R.
D. Irwin, Homewood, Ill.
[12] Christopher, M. & Lee, H. 2004, ‘Mitigating
supply chain risk through improved
confidence’, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
Management, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 388-396.
[13] Christopher, M., Lowson, R. & Peck, H. 2004,
‘Creating agile supply chains in the fashion
industry’, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, vol. 32, no. 8, pp.
367-376.
[14] Cooper, M.S. 1980-1981, Overview of
industry quality needs for the 1980’s. Textile
and Needle Trades Division, American
Society for Quality Control Transactions,
ASQC, Milwaukee, WI
[15] DesMarteau, K., Speer, J.K. & Haisley, T.
2004, Top 20 strategies for success in 2004.
Apparel: The business & technology
authority, Available at: http://www.
apparelmag.com/bobbin/search/serach_displa
y.jsp?vnu_content_id=2061092
[16] Georgia Institute of Technology 1980,
Marketing strategies for U.S. apparel
producers to compete more effectively with
imports. Final Report: Project No. E-27-674
for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Kurt
Salmon Associates, New York.
[17] Gereffi, G. 1999, ‘International trade and
industrial upgrading in the apparel
commodity chain’, Journal of International
Economics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 37-70.
[18] Ghadar, F., Davidson, W.H. & Feigeroff, C.S.
1987, U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: The
Case of the Textile and Apparel Industries,
Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
[19] Haisley, T. 2002, Apparel industry
employment continues decline. Bobbin, vol.
44, no. 4, pp. 16.
[20] Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. 2003, ‘The future of
globalization’, in J Michie (ed.), The
Handbook of Globalization, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK.
[21] Jemison, D. B. 1981, ‘The importance of an
integrative approach to strategic management
research’, Academy Management Review, vol.
6, no. 4, pp. 601-608.
[22] Kim, S-K, & Kincade, D.H. 2006, ‘The
model for the evolution of retail institution
types in South Korea’, Journal of Textile and
Apparel, Technology and Management, vol. 5
no. 1, pp. 1-29.
[23] Kincade, D.H. 2002, ‘Contingencies for low
implementation levels of new manufacturing
practices’, Journal of Textile and Apparel,
Technology and Management, vol. 4, no. 4,
pp. 1-19.
[24] Kincade, D.H. & Cassill, N.L. 1993,
113
‘Company demographics as an influence on
adoption of Quick Response by North
Carolina apparel manufacturers’, Clothing
and Textile Research Journal, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 23-30.
[25] Knapton, J. 1990, ‘Exploding the traditions of
an old fashioned industry’, Apparel
Manufacturer, vol. 58, pp. 60-62, 64-65.
[26] Ko, E. & Kincade, D.H. 1997, ‘The impact of
quick response technologies on retail store
attributes’, International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 90-98.
[27] Ko, E., Kincade, D.H., & Brown, J.R. 2000,
‘Impact of business type upon the adoption of
quick response technologies: The apparel
industry experience’, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol.
20, no. 9, pp. 1093-1111.
[28] Kurt Salmon Associates 1977, ‘Research and
development in the apparel industry’, AAMA
Apparel Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
121-143.
[29] Lachman, M.L. & Brett, D.L. 1994, ‘Retail
trends: consumers, goods, and real estate’, A
Special Supplement to Shopping Center
World, Schroder Real Estate Associates, New
York, NY.
[30] Lawson 2008, From right brain to retail:
Cutting time-to-market, Lawson, St. Paul,
MN.
[31] Lee, S. & Chen, J.C. 1999, ‘Mass-
customization methodology for an apparel
industry with a future’, Journal of Industrial
Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-9.
[32] Lee, Y. & Kincade, D.H. 2003, ‘US apparel
manufacturers’ company characteristic
differences based on SCM activities’, Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 31-48.
[33] Mentzer, J.T. 2008, ‘Rigor versus relevance:
Why would we choose only one?’, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, vol. 44, no. 2, pp.
72-77.
[34] Moncarz, H.T. 1992, Information technology
vision for the U.S. fiber/textiles/apparel
industry, National Institute of Standards,
Washington, DC.
[35] Moran, L.R. & McCully, C.P. 2001, ‘Trends
in consumer spending, 1959-2000’, Survey of
Current Business, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 15-21.
[36] National Retail Federation 2007, Online
clothing sales surpass computers, according
RJTA Vol. 15 No. 4 2011
to shop.org/forrester research study,
Available at: www.nrf.com/modules.php?
name=news&op=viewlive&sp_id=292
[37] Office of Chief Economist 1996, The U.S.
textile industry: Scope and importance,
American Textile Manufacturers Institute,
Washington, DC.
[38] Office of Technology Assessment 1987, The
U.S. Textile and Apparel Industry: A
Revolution in Progress–Special Report, U.S.
Governmental Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
[39] Office of Textiles and Apparel 2008, U.S.
imports of textiles and apparel, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Available at:
www.otexa.ita.doc.gov/scripts/tqads1.exe/cat
page
[40] Pan, B. & Holland, R. 2006, ‘A mass
customized supply chain for the fashion
system at the design-production interface’,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 345-359.
[41] Plunkett Research, Ltd. 2006, Apparel and
textiles industry overview, Available at:
www.plunkettresearch.com/Industries/Appare
lTextilesFashions/ApparelTextilesFashionsTr
ends/tabid/158/Default.aspx
[42] Power, D. 2005, April 06, Top technologies
CEOs can’t ignore. Women’s Wear Daily,
Available at: http://www.wwd.com
[43] RFID: It’s here to stay. 2003, Apparel
Magazine, Available at: http://www.
apparelmag.com
[44] Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. 2003, Qualitative
Research Practice: A Guide for Social
Science Students and Researchers, Sage
Publications, London, UK.
[45] Rosen, E.I. 2002, The Globalization of the
U.S. Apparel Industry: Making Sweatshops,
University of California Press, Berkeley, UK.
[46] Shim, S. 1998, ‘The changing marketplace in
the global economy: implications for future
114
research’, Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, vol. 26, no. 4, pp.
444-461.
[47] Shrestha, L.B. 2006, The Changing
Demographic Profile of the United States,
Congressional Research Service, The library
of Congress, Washington, DC.
[48] ‘Special report: State of the industry’ 1996,
Bobbin, vol. 35, no.4, pp. 48-51.
[49] Sridharan, U.V., Caines, W.R. & Patterson,
C.C. 2005, ‘Implementation of supply chain
management and its impact on the value of
firms’, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
313-318.
[50] Su, J., Gargeya, V.B. & Richter, S.J. 2003,
‘Global sourcing shifts in the U.S. textile and
apparel industry: A cluster analysis’, Journal
of the Textile Institute, vol. 96, no. 4, pp.
261-276.
[51] Supply-chain 2009, Economist, Available at:
http://www.Economist.com
[52] The top 8 shopping trends 2004, June 28,
Just-style, Available at: http://www.just-
style.com
[53] Top 25: Innovations 2005, CNN, Available at:
http://www.cnn.com
[54] Ward, P.T. & Duray, R. 2000, ‘Manufacturing
strategy in context: Environment, competitive
strategy and manufacturing strategy’, Journal
of Operations Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.
123-138.
[55] Weller, E.O. 1987, ‘Special report:
Distribution - taking stock of the warehouse’,
Bobbin Magazine, pp. 64-66.
[56] Wong, C.W.Y. & Lai, K-H. 2008,
Organizational mindfulness and the
development of information technology for
logistics operations: The experience of an
apparel company. Research Journal of Textile
& Apparel, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 30-37.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.