Why NO ONE Really Wants To Onshore!

How many times, from how many people, have you heard, "bring back manufacturing"?

A series of undyed yarns are being fed off spools and into a weaving machine.

JD Vance gave a speech at the American Dynamism Summit earlier this year with a view on how innovation will support onshoring. Some of it was quite good, if you ignore the blatant lies about people earning more than the 70s (only if you don't factor in how much it costs to live now!), and the introduction which has an element of "arbeit macht frei" about it (the phrase above the entrance to  concentration camps).

Additionally, I have seen a lot of noise lately around made in the UK. Lots of calling out of brands who don't produce here. And we just aren't having an honest conversation about how no one actually wants to onshore manufacturing. 

There are 2 huge road blocks to bring back garment manufacturing. 

Capitalism and environmental responsibility.

And that's before you have ICE agents in the U.S. arresting garment workers at their machines! You kinda can't onshore production if you don't have enough workers. For which one person on TikTok responded that we could just get the able bodied on benefits to do it. Ignoring that many reasons the able bodied are on benefits is for caring responsibilities. Or how much it would cost to train people up to do both the sewing and the care taking. Benefits are cheaper for the federal government in this case!

Which feeds into the capitalist merry-go-round, for which apparel is an avid rider. 

Capitalism and political structure go hand in hand. People must not feel poorer. You can't have swathes of the middle class not being able to afford food. Quickest way to ensure political downfall. Just ask many of the recently outed political leaders. But if you can not reduce the cost of living. Then you must reduce discretionary spend products. You can make someone feel richer without actually making them so.

I saw a social media post the other month, where a woman found her basic strappy top from Miss Selfridge purchased 20 years ago. The price on the tag was £17. Today, a similar version can be found at most fashion brands for £7. (For context, inflation in the UK in that time is around 174%, so I am told).

What would happen if every t'shirt jumped £10 in price? 

Which is what would realistically happen if we onshored. 

And that's just wages and business expenses such as lighting and rent.

It does not cover the collective cost to the environment or people's health. 

At this point it's prudent to link you to Ecotextile's article this week that highlighted how brands such as Nike, Lululemon, Hugo Boss, H&M and Primark have been accused of failing to factor in workers to their environmental plans.

Which brings us into carbon accounting and why no government, who knows climate change is real, really doesn't support onshoring. Particularly of very polluting industries like apparel. 

The Global North have done a stellar job at moving our consumed carbon off to another country, and putting it on the balance sheet of the country it was made in. 

In the U.K, our Net Zero targets won't be achieved if we start onshoring. And that's before we've even addressed whether our national energy grid could even support the level of manufactured goods being created in this country to make any of the training, or investment, financially viable!

In order for businesses to be able to invest in machines that reduce their carbon footprint, they have to ensure that they are being paid a fair price for their products. Linking us back to problem number one!

And even then, is it enough? I'd like to give a shout out to Atkinson Dyeing in the U.K. at this point, for the massive investment they have just done to reduce gas by 20% and electricity by 10%. Which is great when you view that on a single unit, like 1m of fabric. But if they suddenly get an additional 20% of orders. Well then their business footprint has just gone up. The system needs growth in order to support the investment, which then wipes out Net Zero gains. 

Water is another resource that is under intense scrutiny within the industry. And in the U.K. we still use the Victorian sewer system. Which was built the same year as the first commercial oil well was drilled. And the year before the American Revolution started. Thems some old pipes down there! 

The U.K at that point had 20.1 million inhabitants. As of 2023 there was 68.35 million. All of whom need access to clean water. (As an entirely different point, but one worth considering, I once had a conversation with a friend who told me it's barking mad that we flush our toilets with drinkable water. He's not wrong.) And for anyone not U.K. based, if you visit don't take a dip in our waters. That Victorian system means we shoot water waste into the sea. 

We are not able to suppport onshoring without major innovations happening. Perhaps we could become the sublimation capital of the world! Only near the sea though. Do you know how much energy it takes to move wind power across the nation?

In both the U.K. and the U.S., there is no money in the pot to bring back manufacturing that has already left. 

We can, however, support the manufacturers already here. While we come up with a plan to replace capitalism. 

In other words, support small brands and try to get large plans to plan for degrowth. And be mindful of whether you are being pulled into a narrative that demonises others under the guise of protectionism. The system is the problem, not the people in it.

*I am aware this topic is heavy. I feel depressed having finished it. Which is not what I wanted to highlight this for. Supply chains are complex. And you should not get hung up on any one particular point. If you have good suppliers abroad, especially if they are more skilled than your country, it doesn't make sense to move it.