Everything was about supply shortages in 2021. COVID vaccine shortages at the start of the year were replaced by fears that we would struggle to buy turkeys, toys or electronics for the holidays. For most of the year, retailers’ shelves, car showrooms, and even petrol stations were emptier than usual. Some shortages were resolved quickly, others linger. So, are we facing another year of shortages or will the supply chain crisis abate in 2022?

It is worth acknowledging that the shortages have happened for many reasons. During the early 2020 lockdowns, a sudden run on essentials, such as toilet paper and pasta, left shelves around the world bare. Singapore ran out of eggs as consumers hoarded them, for example, and retailers ordered more eggs, desperate to satisfy demand. But once the demand had been satisfied, there was suddenly an oversupply. In June of that year, distributors threw away 250,000 eggs.  

This is what happens when demand temporarily changes. The effect magnifies with each tier of the supply chain as every supplier adds an extra buffer to their order to be on the safe side. Minute changes in customer demand can, therefore, result in huge extra demand for raw materials, giving rise to what is called the bullwhip effect. As with a whip, a small flick of the wrist can lead to a big crack at the other end. 

The bullwhip effect can result from demand suddenly falling, as well as rising, and during the pandemic these forces have sometimes combined. For instance, a combination of the crash in demand for new cars and higher demand for devices like laptops and games consoles for lockdown entertainment contributed to the semiconductor-chip shortage.

With modern cars that sometimes contain 3,000 chips, car makers are major customers for chips, but as car sales plummeted in 2020, supplies of chips were redirected to manufacturers of smaller electronic goods. When demand for cars picked up again a few months later, there were not enough chips to go around. Carmakers were forced to stop production lines and could not make enough cars to satisfy demand. They also started hoarding chips, making the shortages worse.

Shipping shenanigans

Other imbalances in today’s supply chains are larger than competing companies or industries. Shipping containers move some 1.9 billion tons per year by sea. alone, including virtually all imported fruits, gadgets and appliances. Normally containers are continually loaded, shipped, unloaded, and loaded again, but severe trade disruptions resulting from lockdowns and border closures broke that cycle. Containers were left in wrong locations as trade shifted, shipping capacity was reduced and vessels could not land where and when they intended. Coupled with congested ports and problems with timely unloading and onward transportation, a typical container now spends 20 percent longer in transit than before the pandemic. 

Unsurprisingly, shipping rates (and prices more generally) have soared in this environment. Prices on major east-west trade routes have increased by 80 percent year on year, which is bad news for economic recovery. Even a 10 percent increase in container freight rates can reduce industrial production by around 1 percent

The human factor

Technological advancement may have reshaped manufacturing, but production and delivery still rely heavily on people. Waves of layoffs in production due to lockdowns resulted in labor shortages when demand picked up. To give one example, Vietnam – which is a major home for garment manufacturing, with factories in the country counting brands like Zara, Ralph Lauren, North Face, Lacoste and Nike as customers – saw a mass exodus of workers from industrial hubs to rural areas, which could not easily be reversed. 

Worker shortages were also particularly evident with lorry drivers in the United Kingdom and other countries. The sector already struggled to recruit and retain drivers because of pressures of rising demand, an aging workforce and worsening working conditions. Meanwhile, Brexit has made it harder for migrant drivers to work in the UK. 

There were at least early signs of the driver problems easing in the run-up to Christmas as more recruits came through the system, which will have been one reason why goods shortages were not as bad as they might have been. Equally, however, we should not expect a swift end to the supply chain crisis in 2022, as the omicron variant is leading to more staff shortages as people take time off sick and suppliers navigate new restrictions. China’s zero-COVID strategy is likely to continue to disrupt both production and transportation of goods, possibly for the entire year.

Large-scale supply chain changes

Yet, we might also see problems in the opposite direction, via another crack of the bullwhip. Back-orders in many sectors will have been filled, but consumer demand may well be cooling now that furloughs have ended, and interest rates are beginning to rise. So, some companies (including those in the apparel and footwear industries) might find they end up with an over-supply of goods. To avoid this, they will have to level their production rates with demand, but demand may still be difficult to forecast – and not only because of omicron and China. A new variant of concern leading to a new wave of lockdowns could easily result in people once again spending money on things rather than holidays and nights out.

Supply chains with good visibility of actual demand and clear communication across supply chain tiers will be at a considerable advantage. In sum, it is likely that different industries will experience both shortages and over-supply problems throughout 2022.

A longer-term issue is to what extent supply chains change. The pandemic has raised new doubts about outsourcing production to far-away countries with lower labor costs. Equally, problems were aggravated by strategies to maximize supply-chain efficiency such as just-in-time manufacturing, where companies keep inventories to a bare minimum to reduce costs. 

A major theme of 2021 was how to make supply chains more resilient. But building additional capacity, holding inventory, and safeguarding against disruptions is not cheap. As shipping logjams ease and recruitment rises, the talk of reform could peter out. Some companies will probably continue to improve their just-in-time with a sprinkle of just-in-case. Others will bring production of some products closer to home markets while also keeping offshore production facilities to serve local markets. It also remains to be seen to what extent COVID reverses globalization.

Ultimately, supply chains are driven by people, and 2021 showed the limitations of the system. As companies and consumers adapt, current knots will untangle somewhat. But as the pandemic wears on and the realities of keeping businesses profitable come back to the fore, you probably should not expect a resolution in 2022.

Sarah Schiffling is a Senior Lecturer in Supply Chain Management at Liverpool John Moores University. Nikolaos Valantasis Kanellos is a Lecturer in Logistics at the Technological University of Dublin. (This article was initially published by The Conversation.)

Finding good employees has always been a challenge – but these days it’s harder than ever. And it is unlikely to improve anytime soon. The so-called quit rate – the share of workers who voluntarily leave their jobs – hit a new record of 3 percent in September 2021, according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The rate was highest in the leisure and hospitality sector, where 6.2 percent of workers quit their jobs in September – but retail was not too far behind. In all, 20.2 million workers left their employers from May through September. 

Companies are feeling the effects. In August 2021, a survey found that 73 percent of 380 employers in North America were having difficulty attracting employees – three times the share that said so the previous year. And 70 percent expect this difficulty to persist into 2022. Observers have blamed a wide variety of factors for all the turnover, from fear of contracting COVID-19 by mixing with co-workers on the job to paltry wages and benefits being offered. 

While the current resignation behavior may seem like a new trend, data shows that employee turnover has been rising steadily for the past decade and may simply be the new normal employers are going to have to get used to.

The economy’s seismic shifts

The U.S. – alongside other advanced economies – has been moving away from a focus on productive sectors like manufacturing to a service-based economy for decades. In recent years, the service sector accounted for about 86 percent of all employment in the U.S. and 79 percent of all economic growth. 

That change has been seismic for employers. A majority of the jobs in service-based industries require only generalizable occupational skills, such as competencies in computing and communications, that are often easily transportable across companies. This is true across a wide range of professions, from accountants and engineers to truck drivers and customer services representatives. As a result, in service-based economies, it is relatively easy for employees to move between companies and maintain their productivity.

And thanks to information technology and social media, it has never been easier for employees to find out about new job opportunities anywhere in the world. The growing prevalence of remote working also means that in some cases employees will no longer need to physically relocate to start a new job. Thus, the barriers and transition costs employees incur when switching employers have been reduced. 

Greater options and lower costs to move mean that employees can be more selective and focus on picking jobs that best fit their personal needs and desires. What people want from work is inherently shaped by their cultural values and life situation. The U.S. labor market is expected to become far more diverse going forward in terms of gender, ethnicity and age. As such, employers that cannot provide greater flexibility and variety in their working environment will struggle to attract and retain workers. 

Employers now have a greater obligation than in the past to convince existing and would-be employees why they should stay or join their organizations, and there is no evidence to suggest this trend will change going forward.

What companies can do to adapt

It has been estimated that the cost to the employer of replacing a departing employee is on average 122 percent of that employee’s annual salary in terms of finding and training a replacement. This means that there is a large incentive for businesses to adapt to the new labor market conditions and develop innovative approaches to keeping workers happy and in their jobs. 

A May 2021 survey found that 54 percent of employees surveyed from around the world would consider leaving their job if they were not afforded some form of flexibility in where and when they work. Given the heightened priority employees place on finding a job that fits their preferences, including on the ESG front, companies need to adopt a more holistic approach to the types of rewards they provide. It is also important that they tailor the types of financial, social and developmental incentives and opportunities they provide to individual employees’ preferences. 

And it is not just about paying workers more. There are even examples of companies providing employees the choice of simply being paid in a cryptocurrency like bitcoin as an inducement. While customizing the package of rewards each employees receives may potentially increase an organization’s administrative costs, this investment can help retain a highly engaged workforce. 

Managing the new normal

Companies should also plan on high employee mobility to be endemic and reframe how they approach managing their workers. One way to do this is by investing deeply in external relationships that help ensure consistent access to high-quality talent. This can include enhancing the relationships they have with educational institutions and former employees. For example, many organizations have adopted alumni programs that specifically recruit former employees to rejoin. These former employees are often less expensive to recruit, bring access to needed human capital and possess both an understanding of an organization’s processes and an appreciation of the organization’s culture. 

The quit rate is likely to stay elevated for some time to come. The sooner employers accept that and adapt, the better they will be at managing the new normal. 

Ian O. Williamson is the Dean of the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine. (This article was initially published by The Conversation.)

Despite falling sales during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020 as a result of the striking impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Deloitte found that the luxury goods market as a whole “proved resilient,” as indicated by the fact that the world’s Top 100 luxury goods companies generated luxury goods revenues of $252 billion, down by just over 10 percent from the $281 billion generated during the previous fiscal year. Revenues generated by the Top 10 luxury brands on Deloitte’s Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2021 list, alone, topped $129.7 billion for 2020, accounting for a whopping 51.4 percent of the total sales by all of the Top 100 brands. 

Even with the overarching drop in sales, more than half of the Top 100 were profitable, per Deloitte, with 13 companies still reporting double-digit net profit margins. The report points to Hermès, which it says achieved “industry-leading net profit margins,” and the highest net profit margin of all companies in the Top 100 in FY2020, at 21.7 percent. According to Deloitte, Hermès has consistently been one of the most profitable companies in the Top 100, delivering net profit margins of more than 20 percent in each of the past five years FY 2016-2020.

The report also makes a nod to LVMH’s profitability, stating that during the disruption from COVID-19, “efforts to control costs and adapt to new requirements enabled Louis Vuitton to maintain its exceptional level of profitability, while continuing its investment policy; and Christian Dior Couture increased its profitability.” And also cites Moncler, which achieved a net profit margin of more than 20 percent for the past four years, the second highest net profit margin in the Top 100 in FY2020. 

Luxury brand ranking

As for the Top 10 for the year, there was relatively little change in terms of positioning, with LVMH, Kering, Estée Lauder Companies, Richemont, L’Oréal Luxe, Chanel Limited, and EssilorLuxottica SA again taking the top spots seven respectively. Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger owner PVH Corp. jumped up a spot to number eight driven by growth in its Tommy Hilfiger brand., Hermès entered the Top 10 for the first time, and Chow Tai Fook Jewelry Group Limited fell to the number ten spot. Rolex is inching towards the top 10, rising one spot to number 11 this year, followed by Ralph Lauren (12), Swatch (13), Versace-owner Capri Holdings (14), and Lao Feng Xiang Co., Ltd.  (15).)

Turning to the fastest-growing companies on the list (based on FY2017-2020 CAGR), e-commerce platform Farfetch topped that list, which the triple-digit sales growth in its owned and licensed luxury brands coming “mainly from its acquisition of streetwear luxury company New Guards Group in August 2019.” It was followed by watchmaker Richard Mille, outwear company Canada Goose, (unrelated but similarly-named) Italian sneaker company Golden Goose, and Stone Island’s corporate entity Sportswear Company SpA, which round out the rest of the top 5.  

And not to be overlooked, luxury outerwear maker Moncler retained its position as “the most consistent luxury goods star performer.” Remo Ruffini-led Moncler has “not only appeared in the ‘Fastest 20’ [list] for the past six years,” according to Deloitte, but it has also achieved a net profit margin of more than 20 percent for the past four years. Things are only expected to look up further for the company in 2021, as its growth will be boosted in 2021 by its acquisition of another “Fastest 20” company: Sportswear Company.

Deloitte states that Canada Goose is also a “star performer,” as the only other company in the Top 100 to achieve double-digit sales growth and double-digit net profit margin in each of the past three years. 

The Year in Luxury Trends

In terms of broad takeaways, Deloitte highlighted to three industry developments for the year, the first of which was “digitalization and sustainability goals in the luxury goods industry,” which it says are driving fashion-tech investments. “What were previously choices of product design of just a few environmentally-conscious and courageous innovators are now moving closer to the mainstream, involving almost all the companies in the industry,” the report states, noting that “increasingly, luxury goods companies are changing their approach and mindset, incorporating sustainability and digitalization into their long-term strategies, to align with consumers’ demands and new regulatory requirements. They are focusing more on sustainability in the design and production of luxury goods, and at the same time are accelerating the adoption of digital solutions to engage with consumers and deliver luxury shopping experiences using technology.” 

Second Deloitte pointed to the embrace of the circular economy, stating that “given the changes in the luxury industry over recent years, it’s clear that sustainable luxury – promoting environment and social responsibility—is here to stay. Increasing numbers of luxury products are labeled ‘sustainable’, and the industry is now accustomed to concepts like ethical fashion (production methods, working conditions, and fair trade); circular fashion (recycling, upcycling, and thrifting); slow fashion (sharing, renting); and conscious fashion (eco-friendly and green fashion).” 

While luxury goods companies are “setting environmental targets for the future, with offsetting carbon emissions as a priority,” Deloitte asserts that “an imperative is to find new ways to be more sustainable, in design, production, distribution, and communication.”

And finally, the consultancy aptly states that NFTs and fashion gaming are a “new luxury frontier,” and that luxury goods companies are becoming involved in the market for non-fungible tokens, and potentially, more interestingly, gaming. “In general, the relevance of fashion and luxury to gaming is that virtual outfits are a vital part of the gaming culture – a way to ‘dress up’ avatars in the virtual world. The link is so tight that in March 2021, the sale of 600 non-fungible token sneakers in a seven-minute auction, generated $3 million in revenue,” the report states. “In the digital world, luxury has the same aspirational relevance that it has in real life: it is an asset to differentiate oneself and express one’s way of being and values.” 

Deloitte further contends that “entering the gaming world is a way for luxury houses to speak to the younger generations, who will be their most important customers in the coming decades and creating appeal by modernizing their brands. Gaming could also be considered a new touchpoint for luxury brands outside the store, and a new context for getting in touch with a target audience and creating engagement with the brand. Collaborations between luxury goods firms and gaming companies offer the opportunity to create parallel streams of revenues thanks to capsule collections that can be found first in a game and are then sold in real life.” 

Companies are included among Deloitte’s Top 100 according to their consolidated sales of luxury goods in FY2020, which it defines as financial years ending within the 12 months from 1 January to 31 December 2020. In order to be included on the list, Deloitte says that a company must first be designated as a luxury goods company, which it defines those offerings up products for personal use, and that is “the aggregation of designer clothing and footwear (ready-to-wear), luxury bags and accessories (including eyewear), luxury jewelry and watches and prestige cosmetics and fragrances.” The companies can range, per Deloitte, from traditional ultra-luxury, through super premium and aspirational luxury, down to affordable/accessible luxury.

At the start of the pandemic, consumers were bombarded with a new and hastily constructed form of advertising. In those “uncertain times,” customers were promised, they could rely on their favorite brands for help. The ads – often featuring somber piano music and/or declarations that everyone was “in this together” – were ubiquitous. Now that the dust has settled on the COVID-centric advertising flurry, new research reveals the tactics behind these often-largescale advertising campaigns, and why consumers (and thus, brands, themselves) should be wary of marketing in a crisis.

When COVID first began to plague individuals across the globe, and governments were unsure about how to respond, corporate advertising sought to define the pandemic in ways that made companies – and their products – an essential part of whatever the solution might turn out to be. In a review of advertising campaigns that ran between mid-March to the end of April 2020, companies used ads to tell three main types of stories about COVID. Some, like the global shipping giant Maersk, emphasized the supply chain impact of the pandemic and pointed to their role helping to get essential equipment to the right places. This kind of marketing defined COVID as a crisis of logistics – a problem for which corporate managers could argue they have the most specialist expertise.

Others, especially consumer goods brands like Starbucks, concentrated on the financial side of the situation, and their role in donating food or money to those in sudden need. This kind of marketing defined COVID as a crisis of capital. If the problem is not enough cash, then wealthy corporations can swoop in as heroes by freeing some up quickly. And then there were those – especially fashion and luxury brands – that focused on the emotional impact of the pandemic, and pointed to their products as a way to make the experience easier and more enjoyable. These adverts made the case that personal consumption – shopping from your lockdown – could be a form of humanitarian heroism, with you as the grateful recipient, or a way of taking care of yourself.

But there were risks attached to these messages, and not all of them landed well. Some ads seemed oblivious to the wider social problems that were making the crisis harder for some to bear. Fashion advertisements targeted at women that described the pandemic as a kind of “staycation,” for example, sat uncomfortably next to news reports about women who were leaving the workforce under the crushing burden of childcare and housework. E-cigarette advertisements encouraging consumers to take up vaping “for your health” invited a backlash when hospitals were filled with COVID patients on ventilators.

Some companies even provoked consumers by mocking the severity of the pandemic, including an Italian ski resort that invited travelers to “experience the mountain with full lungs” in a place “where feeling great is contagious.” All the while, social media companies struggled to stamp out misinformation from “influencers” hired by wellness brands to promote untested products as COVID-19 cures.

Even companies behind advertising campaigns that took the pandemic seriously found themselves on shaky ground. When the UK was coming out of its first lockdown, cleaning brand Dettol went viral (in the wrong way) when it appeared to be encouraging commuters to return to the office. Some consumers conflated the ads with government public service announcements promoting shopping as a way of boosting the economy. The misconception contained a grain of truth, as Dettol was the government’s corporate partner for sanitizing public transport. Indeed, several brands in our research mentioned partnerships with government as one of the benefits of the crisis. 

Meanwhile, advertisements encouraging consumers to shop to “help” rebuild the economy (and companies in it) have proliferated.

Beyond the Pandemic: Consuming with a Conscience?

Advertising that addresses social concerns is common, and not just in relation to COVID. In fact, such advertising extends to a range of causes where consumers are primed to see corporate solutions for everything from poverty to climate change. Our research shows that this type of advertising is frequently designed to influence how the public understands social problems, and encourages people to think of ethical consumption as a way of helping

As others have argued, such marketing related to good causes “creates the appearance of giving back, disguising the fact that it is already based in taking away.” For example, consumers can be deterred from campaigning for more radical change, believing they have already played their part through “ethical” purchasing. One familiar example is when companies boast that a percentage of proceeds from certain products goes to a social cause. The amount donated is often small  while the revenue the new product generates for the company is considerable. (Another comes in the form of fashion industry capsule collections that tout the products as “sustainable” or “recycled,” and thus, may deter consumers from cutting back on their consumption due to the “eco-friendly” nature of the offerings.)

Against this background, the risks of attaching a social issue to an advertising campaign are considerable – for the company, the consumer, and the cause, itself. Our research suggests that not every time is the right time for advertising, and we should beware of brands bearing gifts.

Lisa Ann Richey is a Professor of Globalization at Copenhagen Business School. Maha Rafi Atal is a Lecturer in Global Economy at the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow. (This article was initially published by The Conversation.)

Reshoring and nearshoring are making headlines after the limits of a long and strong wave of offshoring – which has seen manufacturers move their factories abroad, often to lower-cost countries, such as China – continue to emerge, especially in the fashion industry. These include hidden costs in logistics, quality and in coordination, as well as counterfeiting, negative impacts on the environment, and poor working conditions. Trends are also changing more rapidly, making long supply chains problematic. The fashion industry is an interesting case as it is labor-intensive – particularly when it comes to stitching, which has not yet been automated – and most of its occupants have off-shored substantially to lower their costs and boost margins. Yet, it is also an industry where clusters exist and flourish – whether it be Italian cities of Prato and Florence or the garment centers in London and Paris.

A study from Boston Consulting Group shows a reduction in the gap between labor costs in China and in the United States because of an increase in Chinese labor costs and rising productivity in the United States. This, therefore, suggests in numerous industries, there may be a wave of reshoring – bringing manufacturing back after it was offshored. Reshoring is also becoming a buzzword in Europe, and the benefits of manufacturing for European countries are clear. (These trends are being accelerated, as COVID-19 and subsequent supply shortages have shed light on the fragility of global supply chains.)

While offshoring can cut some costs, it has been shown to reduce firms’ capacity for innovation. Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih, who are researchers from MIT, for instance, have proposed a framework that allows industries to be classified based on their innovation type – pure product innovation, pure process innovation, process-embedded innovation, and process-driven innovation. Fashion is considered a process-embedded innovation industry, which means that design and manufacturing have to be co-located for firms to sustain their capacity to innovate. As a consequence, the recommendation from Pisano and Shih is to co-locate the two activities in the country of origin, and innovation is presented as an additional argument in favor of reshoring.

Digitization, automation and the industry 4.0 technologies are also presented as changing the manufacturing landscape in fashion, encouraging closer manufacturing locations.

Not Reshoring, but omnishoring

An in-depth analysis of 20 European fashion companies (realized by Celine Abecassis-Moedas and Valerie Moatti within the ESCP Europe Lectra “Fashion and Technology” Chair) shows a more complex picture. First, European firms perceive sourcing countries differently depending on whether they are distant (i.e., located in Asia) or located closer to home (such as in Europe, Turkey or North Africa), rather than in accordance with the usual dichotomy of local versus distant sourcing. Manufacturing in a company’s home country is virtually non-existent; one of the fashion companies examined reshored from far-sourcing countries to its home country, while quite a few shifted manufacturing back to places that are closer to it – i.e., nearshoring. The majority of firms, however, are manufacturing more than half of their volumes in close-sourcing destinations, and “finishing” those products in their home country in order to benefit from loopholes in national labeling laws.

All of the firms examined manage a complex portfolio of sourcing locations, which see them either allocating certain products to particular locations (jeans are made in Turkey, for instance) or allocating the same products to different sourcing locations depending on the product life cycle – close in smaller series at the beginning of the season, then distant in large quantities, and again close for replenishment at the end of the season. This is what we call “omnishoring” – or a portfolio of multiple sourcing locations (close and far) that depends on the specific products and their degree of innovation, and that serves to complement the whole.

Strategies to coordinate & manage distance

The need to coordinate design and manufacturing when these operations are not co-located is essential, and firms use a variety of strategies that go beyond co-location in the home country. Some have developed a reverse co-location system, in which they move design close to manufacturing, rather than the other way around. For example, some large players in the European fashion industry have moved (part or all of) their design department to Hong Kong or China. Another coordination mechanism is to physically situate prototyping operations – i.e., an early step of manufacturing that is considered to be critical for the innovation process – close to design, and then allow the rest of the manufacturing phases to be carried out in a more distant locale.

Alternatively, some firms manufacture in distant countries that have some cultural proximity – for example, British firms can choose Thailand because of a greater level of English fluency. Others manufacture in distant locations in their own facilities or through strong partnerships, which allows for greater control and stronger coordination. Finally, the use of manufacturing and communication technologies (PLM, 3D design, etc.), intermediaries, and/or regular and systematic trips of designers to manufacturing plants is also a strong coordination mechanism.

Ultimately, our analysis shows a more dynamic approach to what distance is, one that goes beyond its purely geographical dimension, and how it is managed. Four strategies to manage distance between design and manufacturing emerged: (1) Avoiding distance by co-location or reverse co-location; (2) segmenting geographical distance, by segmenting manufacturing between prototyping and product development, and bulk manufacturing; (3) hedging against geographical distance through other forms of proximity, such as cultural or institutional proximity (manufacturing in distant locations in a firm’s own facilities); and (4) managing geographical distance through the use of technology.

The term omnishoring reveals a rich portfolio of sourcing destinations (both close and far) and of institutional models (a firm’s own facilities and contracted ones) that allows firms to manage different products, seasons, series, and more. This study of the fashion industry shows that the need for co-location between design and manufacturing can be managed in different ways. These strategies are also food for thought for other industries that want to manufacture outside of their home country without sacrificing innovation.

Céline Abecassis-Moedas is an affiliate professor at ESCP Europe and Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Valérie Moatti is the Professor Lectra Fashion and Technology Chair at ESCP Business School. 

This article was initially published on November 28, 2018, and has been republished in light of recent shifts within the supply chains in the fashion industry – including efforts by the likes of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger-owner PVH to move manufacturing operations closer to home – much of which has been prompted by the onset and enduring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent supply chain shortages.