in studying the role of the netherlands within international clothing trade, levelt (2010) proposed yet another list of ideal types of clothing firms, based on the seven steps of the clothing value chain of lane & Probert (2009). these include manufacturers, brands, wholesalers, private label companies, and retailers (levelt, 2010). like faust, levelt (2010: 106) also recognizes that “in practice many hybrid forms are possible and there is continuous flexibility in activities that firms integrate and outsource.” While her typology, in principle, follows the same logic as the typologies i have discussed above and only slightly differs in terminology, it is remarkable that levelt only identifies manufacturing abroad.
the absence of domestic manufacturing in levelt’s (2010) typology can be explained by her explicit focus on companies that generate re-exports of clothing in the netherlands. however, it is also a reflection of how dutch fashion industry in general is organized: domestic manufacturing is of minor importance to the dutch fashion industry and is generally restricted to sample production and small production runs. compared to other Western european countries, the netherlands was an ‘early mover’ into foreign sourcing (levelt, 2010), as the outsourcing of clothing manufacturing by dutch firms started as early as the 1960s, as we have seen in chapter 1.
the offshoring and outsourcing strategies of dutch clothing firms have led to “the dominance of a type of firm that is neither strictly manufacturing nor wholesaler” (scheffer & duineveld, 2004: 344). this type of firm, often called kopstaartbedrijf (head-and-tail company), subcontracts the assembly function of the production process (the rump), but maintains design and product development (the head) and sales and marketing (the tail), as well as quality control and logistics (Braaksma, 2009). the head-and-tail metaphor refers to the process of outsourcing and offshoring of lower-value, labour-intensive operations by a formerly integrated firm. however, the concept of managing the production process without actually manufacturing has been adopted by many wholesalers as well. furthermore, new companies have emerged adopting the head-and-tail model, having never owned any production facilities. one could even say that this concept has almost become the standard within the dutch fashion industry (ibid.).
the concept of head-and-tail firms resembles lane & Probert’s branded ‘manufacturers’ or faust’s branded producers. in a similar vein, melchior (2010: 17) discusses the emergence
of “concept houses” in denmark in the early 1990s: former manufacturers which have converted their companies into “wholesalers of clothing focusing on design, distribution, marketing, and retail, rather than manufacturing.” however, the dutch concept of head- and-tail companies is not confined to brand owners, which means that it can be a supplier or a retailer as well. the question thus remains which concepts and typologies are most useful to analyse the dutch fashion industry. Based on the literature review in this chapter, i propose the following definitions for this study.
to begin with, it is important to define fashion industry. in the first part of this chapter, i defined fashion industry as the collection of economic actors that are involved in the production of fashion garments. especially when trying to draw the boundaries of the Dutch fashion industry, we are faced with a highly fragmented organization, both spatially and organizationally. designers, marketers, and manufacturers operate in complex relationships with each other, which is why dutch firms and brands cannot be conceived as independent from overseas suppliers. dutch fashion firms and brands are part of global production networks that transcend national boundaries. furthermore, fashion conceived as a process means that it depends on a variety of knowledge flows deriving from design, production, and consumption. therefore, i have adopted a broad definition of production, which is not limited to the practices of physical manufacture. in line with entwistle (2009) and Weller (2004), fashion production in this study is conceptualized as the combined practices of aesthetic and industrial development.
in defining fashion industry, it is also important to discuss the distinction between fashion, clothing, garment, and apparel. as explained in section 2.1, i follow entwistle (2009) and lipovetsky (1987/1994) in understanding fashion as a system of stylistic innovation; of change and marginal differentiation. this means that, in principle, the concept of fashion extends beyond garments to include photography, modelling and other related industries. however, as the fashion system in its entirety is beyond the scope of this research, in this study i confine myself to the production of fashion garments only. i use the terms clothing, apparel, and garments interchangeably to refer to the material product without the aesthetic aspect of fashion (cf. Jones, 2006).
having defined the fashion industry as the economic actors involved in the production of fashion garments, the next step concerns the identification of these economic actors in the form of particular firm types. in this chapter, we have come across a variety of definitions and typologies of fashion and clothing firms. these definitions differ not only in terms of terminology, but also in terms of their approach to the value chain – as well as the national contexts to which they apply.
despite these admittedly minor differences, all typologies emphasize the fragmented nature of the fashion and clothing industries and the consequent difficulties when applying these ideal types to concrete situations. as the boundaries between different types of firms have become blurred, one might ask whether a consistent and unambiguous typology is required at all, or even possible. except for legal and statistical purposes, it is a legitimate question to ask whether we need to classify firms in order to be able to analyse their organization. i consider such typologies useful for the analysis of the dutch fashion industry insofar as it is important to be explicit about what we mean when we discuss manufacturers, clothing firms, retailers, etc. despite the suggested fluidity of firm boundaries and the messy and complicated reality of global production networks, it is still firms and organizations that are the observable economic outcomes of organizational practices, which cannot be ignored as existing entities. as argued above, there are two complementary ways to define firm types. one can define a firm by referring to its position within the production network (i.e. supplier or buyer) and/or one can base it on the firm’s competences (i.e. manufacturing, designing, etc.). the former definition means that a firm’s identity is a relational one, defined by its relationships to other firms. contrary to the latter, there is no direct translation to what a firm does.
i will take a pragmatic approach in order to analyse firms in both relational and absolute terms, without the restrictions of pre-defined ideal types. to do so, one final dimension of fashion production has to be taken into account: the brand. of course, there can be no fashion industry without the making and selling of garments. however, since the 1980s, core competences of fashion firms have increasingly shifted from the production of clothes to marketing brands. Brands have become a central organizing principle within the fashion industry. they “unify commodities, ideas and organisations” (Weller, 2004: 160) as they organize both “the exchange between producers and consumers [and the] relations within the company itself, between employers and employees” (lury, 2004: 33). more than “simply an add-on, a mark to identify an origin that is fixed,” explains lury (2004: 27), “[t]he brand is thus a mechanism – or medium – for the co-construction of supply and demand.” in a similar vein, Power and hauge (2008: 125) speak of brands as institutions; “as ongoing processes of negotiation and interaction between various economic actors.” Brands have become important in virtually all sectors of today’s economy, but especially in the volatile and competitive market of the fashion industry. in fashion, brands play a decisive role in providing stability and recognition in a system that is driven by continuous change:
in the fashion industries, brands stabilise the otherwise slippery over-determined and under-coded meanings of garments and provide continuity across the rhythmic
changes in fashion seasons. in this respect, fashion brands function to moderate the uncertainty of fashion over time by facilitating control and stability over consumer valuations (Weller, 2004: 153).
Brands and fashion are thus closely related, but serve different purposes:
Both brand and fashion serve individual’s desire for expression of aesthetic taste and distinction from others. Both combine in a complex manner conformity to trends, to satisfy an urge for belonging, with desire for individualization and differentiation [...]. at the same time both brands and fashion, in different ways, maintain/create market demand [...]. But whereas fashion, created in a collusive manner between producer and consumer, involves constant change to overcome conformity by further differentiation and individualization, brands guarantee a constancy of highly regarded product features (lane & Probert, 2009: 38-39).
in their mediating role between supply and demand, brand narratives have the power to both connect and distanciate tangible and intangible aspects of fashion production, “often romanticising craft-based production forms such as hand-sewing” (Weller, 2004: 155). Brands are therefore an important factor in my aim to understand how design and manufacturing relate to each other. Brands transcend firm boundaries both in space and time. as Weller (2004: 144) explains, “[b]rands exist in a different dimension to firms – one firm may control many brands, but the reproduction of each brand involves a range of specialised tasks that are rarely contained within a single firm.” furthermore, while firms go bankrupt regularly, brands often survive through mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers. Brands are often the only common denominator when studying organizational change over a longer period of time.
therefore, the starting point for my analysis in every case study is the dutch brand of the co-
ordinating firm or lead firm. these two terms are used interchangeably and do not specify which operations the firm has integrated or outsourced. What the firm does and how it works will be further explicated in the analysis of the practices of design and manufacturing. it then depends on the context and the exact place within the analysis as to whether i define firms in more relational or absolute terms. in relation to a brand, firms that qualify as supplier can be further specified as fabric supplier, ready-made garment supplier, or subcontractor (cm(t)). i adopt the typology of third-party sourcing strategies as explained by faust (2005) and lane & Probert (2009), including cut-make-trim, full-package, and
When addressing a supplying firm not as part of the chain, but as an entity in its own right, i use the term clothing firm or producer: a firm that is involved in the supply of clothing which it either manufactures itself or subcontracts the manufacturing part. for such a clothing firm to qualify as a manufacturer, it must own a manufacturing plant in the netherlands or abroad. Producer is a general term that refers to any firm that arranges for the production of fashion garments, while a manufacturer actually assembles the garments. although this distinction might seem straightforward, in the netherlands there is still a category of clothing firms that do not actually assemble the clothes but are highly involved in the entire production process (i.e. pattern making, fabric buying, and production preparation) and possess the same knowledge and skills as manufacturers. scheffer and duineveld (2004) have described such firms as co-makers. “these start with designs supplied by clients, but organize all preparation and offshore subcontracting of manufacturing as well as logistics and custom clearance” (scheffer & duineveld, 2004: 346). in a way, it is a concept that addresses both what the firm does and its position within the chain. more importantly, however, it illustrates once more the fluidity of boundaries between different firm types (cf. tyler, 2003). that is why i adopt a flexible analytical approach that starts with a dutch brand, and includes firms and other economic actors insofar as they appear to play a significant role within the relationship between design and manufacturing.
Table 2.1: Defining the field from global production networks to firm types
2
Global Production
Networks The nexus of interconnected functions and operations through which goods and services are produced, distributed and consumed (Henderson et al., 2002: 444).
Including textile manufacturers, fabric and trim suppliers, agents, subcontractors, and international trade regulations.
Dutch fashion industry All socio-economic actors involved in the production of fashion garments in the Netherlands.
Including retailers, consumers, trade associations, art academies, fashion institutes, media, trade journals, fashion weeks, museums, and cultural and economic policy. Dutch fashion brands +
associated firm types that pertain to the relationship between design and manufacturing
Lead firm/ co-ordinating firm Brand owner that governs the chain Suppliers Fabric suppliers, ready-made garments
suppliers, and subcontractors (CMT) Producer Firm that arranges for the production of fashion
garments
Manufacturer Producer that also assembles the garments through own production plants Co-maker Producer highly involved in the entire
production process, but without the actual assembly
Based on the literature review in this chapter, my analysis of dutch fashion production is thus centred around dutch fashion brands and their relationships with other actors in the wider context of global production networks. this is summarized in table 2.1. the focal point of my analysis, however, is not the production network in its entirety. instead, the emphasis is on the distance between design (i.e. usually incorporated by the co-ordinating firm of the brand), and manufacturing (i.e. usually operated abroad by a variety of supplier firms and countries), which is represented by the bottom row of table 2.1. having defined fashion, industry, networks, brands, firms, and sourcing strategies in this chapter, the next step in building a conceptual framework for this study is to further operationalize both the observed distance between design and manufacturing and ways to understand distanciated relations. in proposing a practice-oriented approach, the next chapter aims at providing such understanding.
2.3 ConClUdinG ReMaRKs
the reviewed literature in this chapter provided a variety of theories to conceptually frame my study of the dutch fashion industry: from fashion as a system, to its production within industries, to the ways in which these industries are shaped in the form of chains and networks, to the firms and brands that constitute these networks, and the specific strategies and competences that these firms pursue in organizing the production networks of which they are a part.
fashion can be understood in a multifaceted way: as a “system of stylistic innovation” (entwistle, 2009: 8); a system that is guided by the principles of seduction, ephemerality, and marginal differentiation (lipovetsky, 1994); a “system of institutions” (Kawamura, 2005: 1), and a “set of organizations, individuals and routine organizational activities” (Kawamura, 2005: 32) that produce both ideas and objects. Within its aim to produce newness, and its routinized logic of seasonal schedules, fashion can be understood as an institution in the sense that it guides and regulates the behaviour of economic actors (gertler, 2004) – almost as if it issued corporate rules to follow. these rules and norms of the fashion system are virtually universal throughout capitalist consumer societies; fashion production around the globe is subject to the same rules of seasonal change and marginal differentiation.
fashion, in other words, is a global phenomenon. however, as we have seen in chapter 1, fashion is also an instrument for nation-branding, which implies that the aesthetic, visual, and material outcomes of the global fashion system are subject to national differences. furthermore, the literature in the current chapter suggests that national and regional institutions also affect fashion’s organization of production. the concept of global production networks helps 1) to comprehend the global arena in which the production of dutch fashion takes place, 2) to take into account the variety of actors and heterogeneous
power relations within such networks, and 3) to be sensitive to the role of different spatial and institutional contexts in shaping these production networks.
the spatial organization of dutch fashion industry’s global production networks is marked by geographical distance between design and manufacturing. in this chapter, the relationship between design and manufacturing has been primarily discussed in terms of buyer-supplier relations, governance structures, and coordinating firms’ sourcing strategies. the nature and complexity of knowledge exchange has been put forward as an important element in understanding these buyer-supplier relationships. this idea requires further scrutiny, as fashion production is concerned with different types of aesthetic and technical knowledge and skills that are inextricably linked in the process, yet spatially separated due to a fragmented organizational structure.
in the next chapter, i further elaborate on the role of knowledge in defining the relationship between design and manufacturing at a distance. in aiming to develop a conceptual framework for a more in-depth analysis of how such distanciated relations may work, and how distance may affect these relationships, the focus shifts from networks and firms to actual practices and routines.