CWThe Commerce WitnessPower leaves a paper trail.

Case file 11 · Supply chain

Nearshoring Was the Promise. Asia Still Received the Orders.

Executives talked about bringing production closer to home, about resilience and fairness in the supply chain. The sourcing value moved from China to South Asia instead, leaving factory workers across two continents to live with a promise that was never really kept.

By Commerce Witness Supply Chain DeskSeptember 19, 2026 · 5 min read
Workers producing garments in a factory.
Apparel sourcing shifted within Asia faster than it moved closer to the United States.

For years, apparel executives promised that disruption would bring production closer to the customer, and closer, in theory, to fairer labor conditions and shorter, more humane supply chains. China lost share. The Americas did not win it. The orders moved deeper into Asia instead, where cost and capacity still defeated the rhetoric of resilience — and where the workers actually making the clothes had no say in any of it.

THE VOLUME MOVED — JUST NOT CLOSER

China's share of sourcing value fell from roughly 30 percent to 22 percent. South Asia rose from approximately 23 percent to 34 percent, concentrated in Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Cambodia.

Nearshoring in the United States remained close to 17 percent. The supply chain changed countries without changing continents, and without changing much at all for the people standing at the sewing machines.

SPEED WON SPECIAL ORDERS. COST KEPT THE CORE.

Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala attracted programs requiring speed, flexibility and quick replenishment. The planned volume stayed with Asian factories offering scale and lower cost.

Retailers therefore built two systems: nearby production for urgency and distant production for margin, with workers in both systems absorbing the whiplash of demand that changes faster than any factory floor can plan for.

Nearshoring became the emergency lane, not the main highway — a talking point more than a transformation.

THE HEADLINE OUTRAN THE CAPITAL

Corporate presentations described de-risking while purchasing behavior continued to prioritize price. The gap between language and orders shows what retailers valued when the trade-off became real.

Resilience was promised, publicly and often. Cost remained in control — and the workers who were told their region might finally get a share of the work are still waiting.

Continue readingMore case files
01Supply chain

Twenty-One Percent of Gap's Inventory Left the Books. Somebody Carried the Damage.

Gap celebrated a cleaner balance sheet. Behind the victory were brutal markdowns, falling sales, workers absorbing the disruption, and no public unit-by-unit account of where the unwanted merchandise — and the cost of it — actually went.

Commerce Witness Supply Chain Desk · 7 min read
02Supply chain

$300 Million Went Missing. Then the Merchandise Returned as a Glut.

Gap blamed empty shelves when product arrived too late. Months later it was drowning in inventory customers no longer wanted, forcing a cleanup that landed hardest on the workers and partners least responsible for the mistake. The pipeline failed in both directions.

Commerce Witness Supply Chain Desk · 6 min read
03Supply chain

Retailers Absorbed the Tariffs. Then the Margin Started Breaking.

Companies delayed broad price increases to protect demand. The bill moved inward instead — into margins, into supplier negotiations, and into a supply chain forced to reorganize under pressure while the workers inside it absorbed the shock quietly.

Commerce Witness Supply Chain Desk · 5 min read