from design to distribution: a strategic overview of the fashion industry
The fashion industry is often discussed through aesthetics, creativity and commerce - and, in design schools, primarily through the cultivation of individual expression and conceptual experimentation. While creativity remains the foundation of design practice, undergraduate programs frequently isolate it from the economic and systemic realities of the industry. Students learn to develop ideas and construct garments but rarely understand how fashion operates as an interconnected structure of production, communication, and consumption.
For consumers, the system is equally opaque. It is often unclear where garments originate, how they move through complex global supply chains, or why their prices differ so drastically. A button-down shirt may travel across several continents - its fibers might be spun in India, dyed in Turkey, stitched in Bangladesh, and packaged in Italy before being sold in Paris or Los Angeles. Behind every garment stands a complex system, a distributed and interdependent labor ecosystem that enables a single garment to exist. This complexity spans not just production, but the entire fashion system including creative, logistical, technical, and symbolic labor - creating intangible value.
This structure - what Roland Barthes famously termed the fashion system - organizes the relationship between production, communication, and consumption. It is not merely an industrial mechanism but a semiotic one: a network through which garments acquire cultural value and social significance. Within this system, fashion operates as a product, an art form, and a language - governed by codes, hierarchies, and cycles of renewal that translate material goods into symbols of identity and status.
For most of the twentieth century, the fashion system operated through a tightly organized hierarchy that effectively coordinated design, production, and communication. Designers, editors, and manufacturers occupied distinct but interdependent roles within a vertical structure that aligned with creativity, production, and consumption - in an unequal manner. This model ensured stability and predictability - because of its structural mechanisms of control and repetition, regulated seasons, centralized authority, and standardized channels of diffusion.
Fashion is a semiotic structure through which clothing is transformed into meaning (© Edie Lou)
The Fashion System We Know
What exactly is the fashion system? The fashion system was first formalized by Roland Barthes in his 1967 study Le Système de la Mode. For Barthes, fashion was not a set of garments but a language - a semiotic structure through which clothing is transformed into meaning. In this framework, a dress or a coat is not significant by its material presence alone but by its description, its image, and the network of signs that surround it. Fashion, he argued, operates through codes that translate the practical act of dressing into a social and cultural statement. It is a process of communication in which meaning circulates through signs rather than fabric. For Barthes, the system referred to the linguistic and visual codes that transform garments into cultural meaning - how fashion is written and communicated as language.
This article, however, shifts the focus from language to organization. While Barthes’s framework will be explored more fully in a separate, upcoming article, the present discussion follows Andrew Reilly’s conception of the fashion system as an operational network: the interdependence of designers, producers, communicators, and consumers that sustains the production and diffusion of fashion. Each stage of the system relies on the others: designers develop concepts, manufacturers transform them into products, communicators translate them into desire, and consumers validate them through adoption. The system appears spontaneous but functions through structured relationships that determine what is produced, how it circulates, and why certain styles become dominant.
The contemporary fashion industry operates as a globalized and interdependent system that links design, production, distribution, and communication. As Andrew Reilly observes, fashion functions through a structured relationship between these actors rather than through isolated creative events. Each component operates within a network of economic and technological coordination that determines how clothing is conceived, manufactured, and brought to market. The process remains largely linear - a take-make-dispose model -, moving from material extraction, procurement of raw materials, to production, retail, and disposal. Yet within this linear system exist feedback processes that allow information to move backward through the system.
Sales performance, material availability, and consumer data inform subsequent design and production decisions, creating a form of short-term responsiveness without altering the system’s fundamentally extractive structure. Information is gathered at the end of one production cycle (e.g. how well production sold, whether raw materials were delayed or scarce, and what consumers clicked or bought online) and directly influences the decisions made at the start of the next cycle. If oversized blazers sell well, designers plan more next season, if cotton prices rise or mills are overbooked, production shifts to other fabrics, if e-commerce data shows strong demand for neutral tones, color palettes are adjusted. Sales, supply, and consumer analytics all “feed back” to influence what will be designed and made next. And of course, brands and manufacturers nowadays react very quickly to data. Instead of planning a year in advance, they adjust in near real time. Fast-fashion, luxury brands with fast fashion business strategies, and ultra-fast fashion companies do this operationally. Design becomes a reactive process driven by consumer signals rather than long-term creative direction.
The Production Infrastructure
At its foundation lies a production infrastructure that translates creative concepts into material goods through a chain of technical and logistical operations. The fashion industry operates through a sequential but interdependent chain of activities that link creative development to global distribution and consumption. Each stage functions as both an autonomous field of expertise and a component within a larger economic system. As Andrew Reilly describes, fashion’s coherence arises from coordination rather than creativity alone: the alignment of design, production, communication, and retail maintains the system’s rhythm.
The process begins with design development - where creative concepts are shaped by commercial, material, and increasing environmental constraints. Designers translate cultural references, market research, and trend forecasts into sketches and digital prototypes. The creative process is now closely aligned with data analysis; sales histories and predictive algorithms inform design choices regarding silhouettes, fabrics, and colors. But the final “creative” look of a garment is rarely the result of unbound artistic freedom. Instead, it usually emerges through a process of negotiation and adjustment - between what the designer envisions and what is technically, financially, and materially possible. Scalability and commercial viability are core feasibility criteria in the contemporary fashion system. A design may be beautiful, but if it cannot be efficiently reproduced or is unlikely to sell across multiple markets, it won’t proceed to production.
The process begins with design development (© Edie Lou)
Design Process
So, first, the design team tests the concept against multiple constraints. They investigate each concept against a range of feasibility criteria that determine whether it can transition from prototype to production. These include fabric availability and costs - whether the chosen materials exist in sufficient quantity and within budget - the manufacturing capabilities of suppliers - such as the machinery, stitching techniques, and construction methods required to realize the design. Before approval, each design is tested for both technical reproducibility (fit) and production timelines - often through many prototypes, digital adjustments, and material substitutions, a process that, while necessary for refinement in the traditional design processes, generates significant material waste in the form of discarded samples, fabric remnants, and rejected trims. Physical prototyping remains one of the least sustainable phases of the design cycle, as each iteration consumes textiles, energy, and labor before the final version is approved.
The growing use of computer-aided 3D simulation mitigates much of this inefficiency by allowing designers to visualize and adjust garments virtually. Programs such as CLO3D and Browzwear enable precise modelling of fabric drape, fit, and movement, significantly reducing the need for repeated sampling and transport between design and manufacturing teams. Although digital simulation consumes computational energy, its overall environmental footprint remains markedly lower than that of conventional prototyping, particularly when integrated with digital sampling and material libraries. Overall digital garment visualization enables faster communication between design, sourcing, and marketing teams, creating a shared visual language across the supply chain. It reduces energy use, transportation demands, labor intensity, and overall resource consumption.
Complementing this, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems - like Centric PLM, one of the industry leaders, or WFX PLM, a cloud-based solution popular among small and medium-sized brands - serve as centralized digital platforms that connect every stage of development - from initial sketch to final shipment. PLM software integrates data on fabrics, trims, costs, and suppliers, allowing cross-functional teams to collaborate within a single digital environment. It functions as a shared communication platform linking everyone involved in the product’s lifecycle - from designers and merchandisers to suppliers, manufacturers, and logistics teams. PLM systems ensure that information about materials, specifications, and timelines remains consistent across departments and geographies. These programs also enable traceability and performance tracking, reducing material waste and minimizing the hidden discrepancies that occur when data on orders, samples, and inventory remain fragmented. By consolidating this information, PLM platforms support the industry’s gradual transition toward greater transparency, efficiency, and accountability.
So, first, the design team tests the concept against multiple constraints (© Edie Lou)
Sourcing
It might not be known by many fashion students and consumers, but sourcing is one of the most decisive and least understood processes - from my point of view at least - in the fashion system. In professional practice, sourcing refers to the entire procedure of finding, evaluating, and managing suppliers of raw materials - fibers, fabrics, trims, and fastenings - as well as production services such as dyeing, finishing, and printing. It is not a single purchase decision but a continuous negotiation across global networks that connect design studios to industrial manufacturing ecosystems.
In large-scale fashion production, sourcing functions as an institutionalized system that coordinates global networks of material and labor. Major brands and luxury conglomerates operate through specialized sourcing departments and regional offices that manage hundreds of suppliers across continents. These teams work with textile mills, intermediaries, and manufacturers to align design concepts with industrial feasibility, balancing cost, quality, and delivery time. PLM platforms integrate data from design, production, and logistics, allowing real-time tracking of materials and lead times. The process is continuous - a negotiation shaped by market volatility, raw material prices, and geopolitical disruptions. This level of sourcing relies on scale, efficiency, and predictive analytics, but it also creates distance between creative decision-making and the human realities of production.
Sourcing for independent brands depends less on industrial systems and more on personal networks and flexibility. Designers adapt their choices to available materials, lead times, and costs, negotiating directly with local suppliers rather than shaping production through global scale. Small brands must adapt the design to what is realistically available. They work with smaller quantities, adjusting colors or fabrics when something sells out, changing delivery windows, and switching suppliers if a fabric is discontinued. Independent designers respond reactively to supply reality, rather than dictating it.
Without the infrastructure or purchasing power of large corporations, smaller brands rely on networks of wholesalers, mills, and international textile fairs such as Premièr Vision or Texworld, where premium materials remain accessible but at significantly higher unit costs due to small volumes. They typically cannot justify investment in enterprise PLM systems or benefit from large data insights; instead, souring decisions are guided by direct supplier communication, experience, and intuition. With limited leverage over lead times, payment terms, and reorders, independent brands are relying on direct communication, material knowledge, and supplier trust.
Yet this structure offers a significant advantage: relationships are personal rather than bureaucratic. Designers work most likely closer together with a small number of partners who understand their brand vision, respond quickly to challenges, and collaborate on problem-solving. This proximity can lead to better quality control, ethical transparency, and a more intentional design process, where material choices are not distant commercial decisions but shared commitments between people who know one another.
A third sourcing model has gained prominence through designers working with deadstock - the surplus materials that remain unused after production planning changes or order cancellations. These fabrics originate from multiple points in the supply chain: luxury houses releasing excess inventory, mills overproducing to meet minimum efficiency requirements, or brands reducing quantities late in development. Designers access these materials through specialized wholesalers, mill archives, and curated digital platforms, securing premium-quality textiles that already exist in the system. A defining advantage of deadstock sourcing lies in the uniqueness of the fabrics themselves. Designers work with materials that exist only in limited and often unrepeatable quantities - sometimes only for the short run. This variability becomes part of the creative strategy: collections evolve in response to the distinct properties of each fabric, and uniqueness becomes an inherent and natural property of the work.
And because deadstock bypasses the most resource-intensive phases of the textile supply chain, it also reduces environmental impact without sacrificing quality. Deadstock sourcing reverses the conventional order of production: a garment’s scale and duration are determined by how much fabric exists, rather than by projected demand. Design decisions therefore respond to the specific characteristics of the material already in circulation. But deadstock is not only material-led - it also responds to a shifting segment of consumer demand, in which value is increasingly associated with lower environmental impact, and it operates within an actual circular-economy logic. It represents a concrete sustainable practice rather than a marketing claim - it operationalizes a closed-loop mechanism by retaining surplus textiles within the value chain, making circularity outwardly legible to the consumer. The environmental benefit of deadstock sourcing is inherent to the process itself: existing inputs are kept in circulation.
But just a sidenote. As deadstock sourcing gains visibility, surplus textiles are increasingly commercialized rather than discarded, which is a positive shift in resource use. However, this development also introduces the risk that excess fabric may be produced already with resale in mind.
Not every idea can be realised (© Edie Lou)
From Production to Market
Once materials are secured, manufacturing translates design decisions and ideas into physical garments through cutting, assembly, finishing, and quality control. For most independent brands, production is carried out by CMZ (Cut-Make-Trim) factories, which provide labor and technical execution while the brand retains responsibility for sourcing and logistics. Fully integrated, “full-package” production - where the factory manages material sourcing, trims, and delivers finished goods - is typically offered only when brands place large and recurring orders that justify the factory’s operational investment and financial risk. High-volume brands prioritize efficiency and standardization, while smaller labels often rely on specialized - they have to - CMT partners capable of delivering limited, high-skill production with closer oversight of craftsmanship.
Across both segments, production is typically planned before demand is verified, which makes overproduction an embedded requirement of volume-driven manufacturing: the system produces excess by design to secure efficiency, availability, and competitive presence in the market. Factories run on forecasts, not confirmed sales, and the risk associated with unsold inventory is often pushed downstream to suppliers and small brands with limited power to negotiate terms. Made-to-order and preorder approaches offer an alternative by aligning production with committed purchases, reducing inventory exposure.
From there, distribution coordinates the physical movement of garments from factories to end markets. Logistics decisions - shipping mode, customs procedures, warehousing - must synchronize with seasonal delivery windows. When timing fails, profitability erodes quickly: a garment delivered late to market often moves directly to markdown. Digital fulfilment has expanded distribution options, particularly for independent and small luxury brands that operate online first. In this model, value is communicated through controlled digital environments and selectively curated physical touchpoints -appointments, trunk shows, and cultural placements - where products are contextualized through their materials, construction, and the rationale behind their design. Luxury is staged through access and articulated origin, allowing a brand to maintain exclusivity while making the story of each garment visible.
Distribution also includes reverse logistics: the management of returns, alterations, and post-purchase service. In luxury and made-to-order models, this stage becomes less about recovering inventory and more about maintaining the garment’s value through repair, adjustment, and long-term customer support. The relationship with the product does not end at delivery; preserving its utility and symbolism becomes part of the distribution strategy itself.
Retail is the point at which the industry’s assumptions are tested. Sell-through data reveals whether earlier decisions on design, sourcing, and production aligned with consumer demand. If they do not, unsold stock must be discounted, warehoused, or destroyed - converting misjudgment into both - economic loss and material waste. Retail performance then feeds back into forecasting models, reinforcing or correcting the assumptions that initiate the next cycle of design and production. Digital channels compress this feedback loop even further by generating real-time demand data that can trigger production adjustments within the same season. The distinction between direct retail and wholesale also shapes risk distribution: when selling through wholesale partners, brands lose both margin and market visibility - control and access to customer data, making it harder to understand true demand and performance drivers, pushing inventory exposure downstream to retailers. Preorder and made-to-order models offer a structural alternative by eliminating inventory risk upfront and producing only committed demand, though less than 5% of global production is MTO.
Shopping, Merchandising, and Market Performance
Once garments are produced, their commercial fate depends on how they enter and move through the market. The transition from production to market marks the point where cost becomes potential revenue, making market execution as critical as manufacturing precision. The shopping environment is where products encounter demand, and where commercial assumptions made earlier in the system are confirmed or disproven. In physical retail, merchandizing - the strategic presentation of products through placement, adjacencies, stock density, prizing cues, and staff communication - directs attention and shapes purchasing behavior. Online, this role is performed by navigation structure, recommendation algorithms, search optimization, content hierarchy, and visual storytelling. In both formats, merchandizing is a form of operational decision-making that determines which products are made visible, how value is interpreted, and what ultimately sells.
To function effectively at this stage, brands must understand who their customers are, what information they require to make a decision, and how they navigate the shopping environment. There are multiple approaches to defining a market, but the industry has increasingly recognizing that relevance comes from specificity and care - and not from scale only. In practice, the goal is not to reach the broadest audience, but to connect with the specific customer for whom the product is relevant and desirable. As Seth Godin notes, successful brands do not attempt to appeal to everyone; they identify and serve a clearly defined community, aligning product, communication, and distribution with the expectations of that specific group.
Direct-to-costumer models give brands full control over presentation and access to real-time insight into how customers behave and what they value, enabling brands to refine decisions with a level of specificity and care that mass-market strategies cannot achieve, obviously. DTC models allow brands to manage not only the presentation of their products but also the quality of interaction around them. Rather than relying on fragmented data from wholesale partners, DTC channels provide continuous insight into purchasing behavior, product preference, and fit - information that can inform decisions with precision and attentiveness. It gives brands full control over their products and access to real-time data on traffic, conversion, sizing, and returns - insights that feed directly back into design and production planning. Independent luxury brands typically sell through a combination of their own e-commerce platforms and temporary physical formats such as pop-up stores, showroom appointments, and trunk shows, allowing them to reach customers directly while retaining control over pricing and brand presentation.
Market performance determines whether the system’s upstream decisions - design, sourcing, and production volumes - align with actual demand. Merchandizing becomes the operational mechanism through which value is either realized or undermined. When expectations are misaligned, unsold inventory becomes a direct economic and material cost: discounted, repurposed, or written off entirely. Retail performance data then travels back to the system, informing future planning and reinforcing or correcting prior assumptions with real evidence. In this final interface, commercial logic and consumer response converge; the system is either validated by demand or exposed in its inefficiencies.
Brick and Mortar Store (© Edie Lou)
Conclusion: System Outlook
This article - so far - has provided a structural overview of how the contemporary fashion system operates - from design and sourcing through production, distribution, and retail. It is not an exhaustive analysis; it is not possible within the scope of a single article to examine every process, exception, or stakeholder in detail; fully addressing the system’s complexity would require a PhD-level study. What has been presented here are the core operational structures that define how fashion is currently produced, distributed, and sold. The goal here was to make the system’s core architecture visible and to clarify how its interdependent mechanisms shape outcomes across creativity, commerce, and environmental impact.
The established model relies on long lead times, seasonal planning, and volume-driven production. This structure has delivered scale, efficiency, and global reach - but it also embeds overproduction and inventory risk into the system by design. Value is measured through throughput. In the traditional fashion system, brands plan collections 6-12 months in advance. This means that decisions about design, fabric orders, production volumes, and delivery timelines are made well before any actual consumer behavior can be measured. To make these decisions, brands typically rely on trend forecasts, historical sales data, and often creative instinct or internal direction. However, none of this reflects what consumers actually want at the moment the product hits the store. By the time garments finally arrive - after months of design, souring, and manufacturing - consumer preferences may have shifted due to cultural moment, social media trends, influencer impact, weather conditions, or economic changes. As a result, even well-executed collections can miss the mark, leading to markdowns, excess inventory, or waste. This is a fundamental weakness in the legacy system: it is slow to respond yet built to produce in bulk.
Emerging strategies offer concrete alternatives to the inefficiencies of the traditional model. Preorder and made-to-order systems help avoid overproduction by ensuring that garments are only produced after a customer has placed an order (confirmed demand), rather than making large amounts of stock in advance and hoping it sells. These systems minimize waste, lower unsold stock, and align production with actual market interest, rather than relying on speculative mass production. In addition to preorder and made-to-order strategies, new business models are emerging that restructure how value is created and delivered in fashion. Circular models - including resale, rental, repair, and take-back programs - shift the brand’s role from linear production to long-term product stewardship. These approaches extend garment lifecycles and decouple growth from volume, while also responding to consumer interest in access, flexibility, and waste reduction. Integrating deadstock sourcing into circular strategies, using surplus as both a resource and a statement against overproduction, adds another layer of resource responsibility.
The future of fashion will not be dictated by scale alone - that is for sure - but by the ability to align production with cultural relevance, ecological limits, and real demand. While the traditional system remains dominant, it is increasingly out of step with the environmental, social, and psychological realities shaping today’s markets. Independent and emerging brands are not simply reacting to constraints; they are building alternative frameworks. By operating with precision rather than scale, they maintain creative autonomy, reduce waste, and foster closer connection between material, maker, and customer.
And as Seth Godin notes, success in today’s landscape depends less on mass appeal than on clarity of purpose and alignment with a defined community. For emerging designers and small independent labels, this is a structural advantage. They are more flexible and closer to their audience. So, they can build smarter, more intentional ways of working right from the start - not just designing clothes, but deciding how their entire brand operates. Independent brands need to be clear about what they stand for (values), open about how they make things (methods), and directly in touch with their customers. In this context, fashion becomes not just a product, but a proposition - one that redefines value through focus, responsibility, and cultural relevance.
For many fashion design students, customers, and emerging designers, the scale of coordination, business logic, and decision-making involved in bringing garments to market is often invisible and not easy to understand. Understanding the fashion system is essential because without that knowledge, designers and emerging brands cannot make informed choices - or challenge the model they are entering. Knowing how sourcing, production, logistics, and retail actually work - with all their constraints and trade-offs - allows for strategic decisions and activism. It is the difference between reacting to the system and actively reshaping it. If you don’t understand the rules, you can’t break or rewrite them with purpose. And in times where change is both needed and possible, that kind of informed agency matters.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24369658-key-concepts-for-the-fashion-industry
https://archive.org/details/fashionsystem00bart/page/n5/mode/2up
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/278044.A_Stitch_in_Time
http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/felipe.caro/papers/pdf_FC27.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0039-9
https://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/268121024/Manuscript.R2.pdf
https://globalfashionagenda.org/event/global-fashion-summit-copenhagen-edition-2025/
https://katefletcher.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Earth-Logic-plan-FINAL.pdf
https://www.isea-symposium-archives.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ISEA2011_460_Otto-von-Busch.pdf
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/64931/gupea_2077_64931_1.pdf?sequence=1
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy