The development of an apparel industry business model for Canada

Abstract

Purpose – Earlier attempts to develop a strategy for the apparel industry in Canada to counter the adverse effects of trade liberalisation on Canadian apparel suppliers have been based on the concept of clustering. However, despite the support from government-supported industry bodies, clustering has not been forthcoming and this situation has created a pressing need for the development of an alternative to the clustering strategy. A study by the Canadian Apparel Human Resources Council offered up several different strategies including clustering, that the Canadian apparel industry might pursue, but these have not been taken up. Evidence gained from government reports on the industry and its performance, industry case studies, an experience survey and questionnaire reported earlier, leads to a radically different alternative with a more direct relationship between Canadian apparel suppliers and retailer. The purpose of this paper is to report and construct an evidence-based collaborative strategy together with its accompanying apparel industry business model. Design/methodology/approach – The evidence gained from case studies of Canadian apparel businesses, a secondary data search, an experience survey and an online questionnaire has been followed and combined with retailer requirements from apparel suppliers. Findings – The information gained from apparel industry representatives, government sources and industry reports has enabled step-by-step construction of an evidence-based business model centred on the formation of collaborative partnerships between apparel suppliers and retailers. Originality/value – The model reflects the fact that Canadian apparel retailers have taken the leading role in the supplier/retailer relationship and shows how Canadian apparel suppliers might better position themselves to combat competition from offshore suppliers through the formation of closer links with retail partners. It points not only to a requirement for Canadian apparel suppliers to become integrated into their retail partner’s retail management systems and technology, but also demonstrates the need for the formation of strong alliances through collaborative partnerships between supplier and retailer to address the needs of the apparel market.

I do not own a car any more: An analysis of possessions’ disposal and changes in consumers’ identities

“…However, the main factors that lead consumers to engage in more sustainable methods of transportation are economic, as consumers realize that they can spend considerably less money and time by giving up ownership of their car(s). Even though previous research has found that “women … behave in more environment‐friendly ways than men” (Campaniaris, Murray, Hayes, & Jeffrey, , p. 154), we found no differences in the sample regarding gender, as the main reason mentioned by both male and female subjects for car disposal was financial. This aspect of non‐specific demographic characteristics in the process of disposal is consistent with the findings from Lindblom and Lindblom (); in a study conducted in Finland, in 2010, during an economic crisis, they showed that de‐ownership orientation was evenly spread across socio‐demographic groups.…”

From PLM 1.0 to PLM 2.0: the evolving role of product lifecycle management (PLM) in the textile and apparel industries

“…Gandhi (2012) illustrates the point that PLM approaches are not restricted to engineering through reference to the emerging applications of PLM in the retail sector. Many authors (d'Avolio et al , 2015; Campaniaris et al , 2015; Segonds et al , 2015; Vezzetti et al , 2017) describe the fashion and textiles sector as a late adopter of PLM in comparison to other manufacturing industries where PLM is well known and well-established. The need for more widespread information within the apparel sector is revealed by Easters (2012b) who suggests the extensive terminologies or acronyms are becoming “lost in translation” with PDM being poorly understood and PLM simply viewed as the renaming of PDM.…”

“…Where PLM is implemented it appears that organisations are now focusing on new product development (d'Avolio et al , 2015; Bandinelli et al , 2013; Segonds et al , 2015 and Vezzetti et al , 2017). Whereas, a holistic, ambitious, collaborative strategic vision for the apparel sector in Canada is presented by Campaniaris et al (2015). Wixom et al (2013) show how connecting business silos to users can support optimal decision making.…”

“…They provide a classification of the benefits achievable through PLM implementation summarized into four main headings of benefits in new product development, benefits in document management, benefits in manufacturing and cross functional benefits. These benefits are achieved through formalising standard procedures (Bandinelli et al , 2013; Wixom et al , 2013; Schuh et al , 2008); accurate and consistent communication both internally (Segonds et al , 2015; McCormick et al , 2014) and externally (D'Amico et al , 2013; Bandinelli et al , 2013; Lemieux et al , 2012; Campaniaris et al , 2015) which helps to reduce duplication and errors and improve quality (Bandinelli et al , 2013; McCormick et al , 2014); provide accurate analysis for decision-making (Wixom et al , 2013) and increase an organisation's ability for customising (Schuh et al , 2008).…”

“…Regardless of naming protocols, the cross-functional benefits of PLM's workflow and business process management capability are reported by d'Avolio et al (2015) to include improved coordination and management capability, improved cross-functional collaboration and autonomy. The track and trace capabilities of RFID technologies support this capability further (Kiritsis, 2008; Wamba et al , 2008; Campaniaris et al , 2015). With each design collection having thousands of interrelated references, Segonds et al (2015) illustrate the need within organizations to maintain a clear vision of the configuration state of products and tracking of their evolution over time.…”