Page 24 - 092617

Groton Daily Independent
Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017 ~ Vol. 25 - No. 079 ~ 24 of 40
However, she acknowledged that its licensees might.
“We license the rights to our brand name to licensing companies that have their own supply chains and
distribution networks,” Klem said in an email. “The brand receives royalties on sales to wholesalers and would not bene t if a licensee increased its pro t margin by obtaining goods at a lower cost,” she added. But Michael Stone, chairman of Beanstalk, a global brand licensing agency, said lower production costs for licensees would ultimately bene t Ivanka Trump by freeing up money for marketing or lower retail
prices, both of which drive sales.
“It gives her a competitive advantage and an indirect bene t to her nancially,” Stone said. “The more
successful the licensee is the more successful Ivanka Trump is going to be.”
The AP identi ed companies that sent Ivanka Trump products to the United States by looking at ship-
ment data maintained by ImportGenius and Panjiva Inc., private companies that independently track global trade. Panjiva’s records show that 85 percent of shipments of her goods to the U.S. this year originated in China and Hong Kong, but beyond that, it’s becoming more dif cult to map the brand’s global footprint.
The companies that shipped Ivanka Trump merchandise to the U.S. are listed for just ve of 57 ship- ments logged by Panjiva from the end of March, when she of cially became a presidential adviser, through mid-September. Panjiva collects data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which did not immediately release the missing data to AP.
While in many cases the manufacturer ships goods directly, merchandise can also be made by one company and shipped by another trading or consolidation company.
There used to be more visibility. Last year, 27 percent of the companies that exported Ivanka Trump merchandise to the U.S. were identi ed in Panjiva’s records, and back in 2014 a full 95 percent were named. For two of Ivanka Trump’s licensees — G-III Apparel Group Ltd. and Marc Fisher Footwear — the number of shipments appears to plunge in 2015, likely because they “requested to hide” their shipment activity, according to Panjiva records. Neither company responded to AP’s questions.
The brand declined to comment on the growing murkiness of its supply chain.
Chris Rogers, an analyst at Panjiva, said any company can ask customs authorities to redact its infor- mation for any reason. About a quarter of companies request anonymity, he said, but the majority don’t mind disclosing who they’re doing business with.
“A lot of companies have said, ‘yes there might be a commercial disadvantage, but we want to be transparent about our supply chain,’” he explained. “’Why would we want to cover up the fact that we’re working with this particular company?’”
While ethics lawyers may see disclosure as the best antidote to con ict of interest, many brands see it as a tool to keep supply chains scandal-free. Public outcry over sweatshop conditions and worker suicides prompted companies like Nike Inc. and Apple Inc. to disclose the names and addresses of their manufac- turers, and a growing number, including Gap Inc., the H&M Group, New Balance Athletics Inc., Adidas AG and Levi Strauss & Co., publicly identify their suppliers.
Ivanka Trump should do the same, said Allen Adamson, founder and CEO of BrandSimple Consulting. “It’s a missed opportunity to lead by example.”
What shipping records do show is that a company called Zhejiang Tongxiang Foreign Trade Group Co. Ltd., a sprawling conglomerate once majority-owned by the Chinese state, sent at least 30 tons of Ivanka Trump handbags to the U.S. between March 2016 and February.
Zhejiang province’s commerce department said in June 2014 that it would help lower export costs for that same company, along with nine other local enterprises, through a special three-year trade promotion program. Among the measures outlined were export insurance subsidies and funding for online trading platforms and international marketing, as well as special funds earmarked for foreign trade companies with large-scale, fast-growing exports.
The value of the subsidies is unclear, as are details about how the directives were implemented, but us- ing subsidies to reduce the price of exports is considered so destructive to fair trade that the World Trade Organization generally bans the practice. Chinese government subsidies hurt American workers but can