The average effective tariff rate on both footwear and apparel is more than five times higher than on all other U.S. imports, according to the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). So, it makes sense that tariffs would push US fashion companies toward supplier diversification to minimize risk and cost.
But the opposite is happening—fashion and uniform brands are actually consolidating their operations among fewer, more trusted suppliers, says Johnny Beig, Founder and Managing Director of DIOZ Group, a global manufacturer specializing in custom and private-label apparel.
Trimming Down the Supply Line
“Unlike some other categories, apparel is not easy to move around without affecting product performance,” Beig explains. “Even small differences in fabric, sizing, trims, or construction can create major issues. That makes tariff pressure especially disruptive for this sector.”
Beig adds that tariffs are only one part of the equation. Switching factories can cause issues with product consistency, fit, quality, lead times, sample approvals, testing, minimum order quantities, and supply chain coordination.
A lower tariff rate may look attractive on paper, but if the new factory cannot match the original production standards or timelines, the business ends up paying more through remakes, delays, customer complaints, and internal time spent fixing problems.
“In our experience, tariffs often push companies toward simplification rather than expansion,” Beig continues. “When duties, compliance, freight, and landed costs become less predictable, many brands realize that working with fewer, better-controlled suppliers reduces risk.”
Fewer suppliers usually mean better visibility, stronger communication, more consistent quality, and less administrative friction. Beig sees this broadly across apparel, but it is especially clear in hospitality and uniform programs. Those programs are highly operational and brand-sensitive, and the cost of managing complexity can quickly outweigh the benefit of chasing marginal tariff savings.
“When a hotel, airline, or service brand standardizes uniforms, they usually want consistency across multiple locations and teams,” Beig elaborates. “That makes supplier concentration a natural response to tariff volatility, because it gives them more control and a more stable execution model.”
Finding the Right Fit
Beig cautions, however, that many fashion companies still focus too much on the tariff number itself.
“The mistake is assuming that a factory move automatically creates savings. In reality, production changes should only be made after reviewing the full landed cost, quality risk, lead times, and operational impact. Moving production just to evade tariffs can create a lot of hidden costs and disruption.”
Beig advises companies to ask several questions before moving production: Can the new factory truly match the product’s quality and construction and provide consistent fit and fabric? What are the real landed costs, including freight, duties, testing, samples, and rework? How long will the transition take? What is the risk to brand consistency and customer satisfaction?
“If a brand is tempted to chase the lowest possible tariff rate, I would say to pause and look at the bigger picture: does that move actually improve profitability, or does it simply shift the cost somewhere less visible? My recommendation is to focus on total value, not just the lowest tariff or lowest unit price,” Beig suggests.
“The cheapest option is often the most expensive once you factor in failures, delays, and rework. Companies should work with suppliers that can provide transparency, consistency, and long-term reliability.”
Beig thinks companies will continue to consolidate suppliers, increase oversight, and demand more transparency regarding landed costs and production planning. He anticipates more interest in building resilient sourcing strategies rather than constantly chasing short-term savings.
In uniform programs especially, he expects more brands to prioritize stability, consistency and speed of execution over trying to optimize around every tariff change.
“The broader lesson is that sourcing decisions should be made with the full business impact in mind,” Beig concludes. “Tariffs matter, but they should not drive strategy in isolation.
In apparel and uniform programs, the real goal is to protect the brand, deliver consistently, and avoid unnecessary operational risk. Companies that get that balance right will be in a much stronger position over time.”
