In a global apparel industry defined by seismic shifts, from geopolitical tensions to sustainability mandates and supply-chain disruptions, few experts have the breadth of experience Robert Antoshak brings to the table. As Vice President of Global Strategic Sourcing & Development at Grey Matter Concepts, Antoshak leverages more than three decades of leadership across the textile and apparel value chain to help brands, manufacturers, and policymakers navigate complexity with strategic clarity.
Before joining Grey Matter Concepts, Antoshak served as a Partner at Gherzi Textil Organisation, where he advised clients worldwide on sourcing strategies, risk mitigation, and market transformation. His career spans executive and consulting roles across sectors — including trade policy, marketing, mergers and acquisitions, and global sourcing. Also, he has supported major U.S. trade negotiations as an industry advisor cleared by the FBI.
In this wide-ranging interview, he shares candid observations on mercantilism’s return, structural supply-chain weaknesses, the sustainability implementation gap, and what it will take for brands to chart a resilient course through uncertainty.
FBJ: Since our last interview, what new realities in global apparel sourcing have emerged that industry leaders were not sufficiently prepared for?
Antoshak: To answer your question directly, I think one of the most significant developments we are seeing—more than ever—is a resurgence of mercantilism, a very old term. Essentially, we are seeing the will of strong nations being imposed on smaller nations. That degree of one-sidedness reflects a very old-fashioned approach to trade—something rooted in the 19th century and even earlier. In some ways, it feels quite imperialistic.
What’s notable is the extent to which this is now playing out. We had an early picture of it through tariffs, but now we’re seeing it unfold in different parts of the world in potentially combative and very difficult ways. This does not support the peaceful trade of commerce in the long run.
As an industry, we were understandably focused on tariffs and that focus made sense. But now we are seeing tariffs combined with very different government policies than we’ve seen previously, applied in a much more targeted and forceful manner. These dynamics can take many forms, and we are seeing some profound examples around the world today. For anyone trading in products like clothing and textiles, this is deeply disturbing.
Also Read: Trump’s Tariffs and Beyond – Robert Antoshak on Trade, Tariffs and Transformation
FBJ: Beyond tariffs and trade policy, what deeper structural weaknesses in the global apparel supply chain are now being exposed?
Antoshak: There’s a natural human tendency—and a business tendency—to stick with systems that appear to be working. When things run smoothly, there’s little motivation to change established practices.
But when a shock hits the system—whether tariffs, pandemics, or geopolitical conflict—it exposes how difficult it can be for companies to pivot quickly. What we are seeing now is that many organizations were simply not prepared to adapt at the speed required. The level of uncertainty today is greater than it was even a year ago.
Companies that successfully diversified their sourcing are weathering this moment far better than those that didn’t. The latter are now dealing with higher costs, flat or declining consumption, and eroding profitability. For a time, many brands absorbed tariff-related costs, but as we move toward 2026, those pressures are coming home in ways that have caught some companies off balance.
FBJ: Sustainability is widely discussed, yet execution remains uneven. Where do you see the biggest gap between ambition and real-world impact?
Antoshak: I honestly feel bad for sustainability professionals. These are passionate people—both within companies and in NGOs—who have invested enormous effort into helping our industry clean itself up and reduce its environmental impact.
At the same time, there is a growing perception, particularly among many brands, that sustainability initiatives represent additional costs. Right now, those costs are much harder to absorb than they were in the past.
This isn’t simply about marketing. Many brands genuinely want to do a better job with their supply chains and work more closely with partners to produce more sustainably. But those efforts come with costs throughout the supply chain, and that supply chain is already under significant price pressure due to tariffs and weak market conditions.
As a result, it’s a very difficult time to be working in ESG or sustainability roles within the industry. Ultimately, the key challenge is demonstrating how these programs build value for a company. That value proposition has never been more important—but in the current environment, it’s very hard to make that case.
FBJ: Circularity is often positioned as the future of fashion. What is realistically required to scale circular business models beyond pilot projects?
Antoshak: Again, I think it comes back to cost. Many people will also say it comes back to will—and to some extent, that’s true. It requires communities, countries, and companies to adopt these approaches in a real way, not just as a marketing exercise.
But much like sustainability more broadly, the fundamental issue is the added cost. The political climate, particularly here in the United States, has not helped matters—whether we’re talking about circularity initiatives or sustainability more generally. The environment is largely hostile to these ideas, and as long as that remains the case, scaling them will be extremely difficult.
I’m not saying it won’t happen, and I certainly hope it does. But realistically, it’s a tough path. There is very little strong government support in the U.S. for these efforts. As a result, even in what may be the world’s largest consumer market, a significant portion of the population simply does not prioritize sustainability. At the end of the day, many consumers just want to buy a garment—and they want it to be cheap.
Other parts of the world are different. Europe, for example, has shown a stronger commitment and has taken concrete steps forward. But in the United States, it remains very challenging.
FBJ: As ESG expectations intensify globally, how do you see supplier evaluation and sourcing decisions evolving over the next five years?
Antoshak: If current trade policies and long, fragmented supply chains remain largely unchanged, I’m concerned that we may actually see a step backward in ESG progress over the next five years. That’s not something I’m happy to say, but it’s difficult to ignore the reality.
Without new policy frameworks or stronger institutional support for environmental and social initiatives, ESG risks being deprioritized. Many companies are focused on basic survival—market growth, margin protection, and cost control. Economists themselves are divided on whether the market outlook is strong or weak, and that uncertainty makes long-term ESG commitments harder to defend internally.
Unless there is a meaningful shift in policy direction, I don’t see dramatic improvement in the near term.
Also Read: The Fashion Industry In 2026: Low Growth, Hard Questions
FBJ: With cost pressures rising, is the industry at risk of deprioritizing sustainability—and how can long-term commitments be protected?
Antoshak: Adopting sustainable measures is especially difficult when there are clear costs associated with them.
The value proposition is extremely hard to sell to brands right now. They are not looking to add costs anywhere. Margins are already squeezed, and many companies are worried about their ability to continue selling product at current volumes.
As a result, initiatives related to sustainability and ESG are often being pushed aside, at least temporarily, because companies are simply unwilling or unable to absorb those costs. In some cases, sustainability efforts that remain are more about marketing than substance, which ultimately doesn’t benefit the industry in the long run.
In the short term, this reflects the harsh reality of where the business stands today. Sustainability advocates are under pressure to reframe these initiatives as value-creating—through efficiency gains, better resource utilization, and long-term cost savings.
There will likely be more discussion around AI and other technologies that can help companies operate more efficiently while also improving environmental performance. All of that is possible, but it takes time, and it’s a lot to implement. Right now, it’s simply a very tough road.
FBJ: Finally, in an increasingly tense geopolitical environment, how should global sourcing and trade strategies adapt to uncertainty?
Antoshak: As I learned early in the cotton business: hedge, hedge, and hedge. Diversification is absolutely critical.
Companies need to explore a wide range of sourcing strategies—nearshoring, traditional sourcing, and sourcing from regions they may not have worked with extensively before. For a long time, the industry relied heavily on China, and understandably so. China was an exceptional single source, with strong infrastructure and efficiency that helped fuel global industry growth.
But the world has changed. Trade data shows that China itself is diversifying, investing in Southeast Asia and other regions. Buyers, brands, and retailers must do the same—moving beyond one or two suppliers and developing a much more complex sourcing matrix.
This diversification acts as a hedge against disruptions caused by geopolitics, economic shifts, or unexpected events—just as companies experienced with tariffs and during COVID, when the entire industry was caught unprepared.
Building broader global relationships now is essential. Nearshoring will likely be part of the mix, depending on the product category, while reshoring may apply in limited cases. We’re also seeing growing interest in Africa and expanded sourcing across Asia.
Overall, casting a wider net is simply the smart play going forward.
