Robo-top: The machines that could make your next t-shirt
By Maksym Misichenko · BBC Business ·
By Maksym Misichenko · BBC Business ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that while automation in garment-making is promising, it's unlikely to disrupt the industry significantly in the near term due to challenges like high-flex fabrics, lack of domestic infrastructure, and regulatory hurdles. The environmental benefits are also uncertain and depend on full supply-chain retrofits.
Risk: The single biggest risk flagged is the potential increase in landfill waste due to non-recyclable bonded textiles, which could offset transport emissions gains and trigger 'extended producer responsibility' penalties.
Opportunity: The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for adhesive-based manufacturing to become more cost-competitive with Asian production due to EU carbon border taxes, although this is not universally agreed upon.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
They assemble cars, they perform surgery, and they even handle cargo at airports. But give most robots a needle and thread, and they would probably come undone.
That's why practically all the clothes sold in the world today are still made by hand, often by very low-paid workers in Asia.
Those workers may use tools such as sewing machines but fully automating such labour is difficult. "You have a problem if it's sewing," says Cam Myers, founder and chief executive of California-based CreateMe, a robotics company. "You have to keep [two pieces of fabric] in alignment under motion."
His company takes another approach. Forget sewing – glue the pieces of fabric together instead. "Once the adhesive is laid down, you simply line something over it and stamp." CreateMe has designed robots that do this and the firm is already making women's underwear this way. It will begin producing t-shirts, too, in the coming months. Mass production could follow next year.
Roboticists have eyed the garment manufacturing industry for decades. If machines could ever take over such work, clothes-making could come back to countries in the West, and the environmental footprint of garments might be slashed in the process. But millions of textile workers could also be out of a job.
Just a few percent of clothes sold today in the UK are made here. It's a similar story in the US. Myers says he has customers seeking to market garments as "made in the US", with US-produced cotton, for example.
"We can use cotton, we can use wool, we can use leather," he says, of CreateMe's adhesive-based process. If just 10% of t-shirt manufacturing moved back to the US with the help of automation, that would be a huge industry shift, he adds.
The adhesive CreateMe uses is thermoset, which means that ironing or washing machine temperatures aren't enough to melt it and make the clothes fall apart, insists Myers. He adds that, because these garments lack seams, they are streamlined and can also be manufactured on moulds that capture the contours of the human body.
Even Myers acknowledges that a key challenge in apparel is that it is "high flex" – in other words, you won't get very far if you just make white t-shirts. Customers like choosing from an endless array of garments, with varying form factors, colours and designs. Clothes-producing robots are still a long way from doing all that.
And there remains a debate over the fundamentals.
"We don't believe that sewing is going away," says Palaniswamy Rajan, chairman and chief executive of Softwear Automation, based in the US state of Georgia. He points out that visible stitching is a key component in the design of many fashionable garments, perhaps most famously jeans.
Rajan says that his company will soon announce the third generation of its sewing robots, which he claims will make t-shirts at the same cost as importing them to the US. However, he declines to discuss any details about the technology.
Multiple firms that spoke to the BBC for this article were reluctant to share information about how their robots work, such is the competition for a slice of the giant apparel market.
Meanwhile, textile workers are already under pressure, having faced factory closures during the Covid-19 pandemic, and more recently the war in Iran, which has hit polyester supplies. Automation industry representatives often suggest that workers should aim for better-paying, less repetitive jobs – but simply handing t-shirt production to robots won't do that overnight.
One key benefit of automating garment manufacturing, however, is that it could drastically reduce the environmental impact of this industry. Every year, 92 million tonnes of textile waste is produced globally. Huge volumes of unsold clothes are incinerated. And the apparel industry also consumes vast amounts of water.
"If you can re-shore the manufacturing part, you can just produce there on-demand," says Gerald Feichtinger at the Technical University of Leoben, in Austria.
He recently led a study that analysed whether such on-demand manufacturing could reduce overproduction of garments, and slash the carbon emissions associated with transporting them from Asia to Europe, for example. "We can see a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions," he adds.
The paper found that emissions associated with making a t-shirt could fall by roughly 45% when a robot produced the garment in Europe or the US.
For their study, the researchers collaborated with an Austria-based garment-making robot company called Silana and one of the co-authors previously worked for that company, though separate research has made similar findings. There are other ways to reduce the environmental impact of clothing, such as simply extending the life of garments.
Claims around automation lowering the environmental impact of textiles should be balanced against the fact that other parts of the supply chain, such as dyeing of fabric, or the production of yarn, may not be so easy to re-shore. Feichtinger and his colleagues' study acknowledges these factors and he says re-shoring multiple parts of the garment supply chain remains "challenging".
Michael Fraede is co-founder of German firm Robotextile, which makes gripper devices that enable robots to deftly pick up pieces of fabric. Some of them work by gently blowing air across the fabric, making it flutter and lift, so that it can then be sucked towards a gripper and clamped into place, for example.
Fraede says the market for automating textile production in Europe is likely limited to specialist textiles, such as those used for bicycle bags or airbags in cars – his company's robots have helped to make both such products, among others.
"It will take 10 more years before we see the first actions of re-shoring," he says. "This industry is not used to thinking that way. They are used to saving money wherever they can."
Others are more hopeful. Lauren Junestrand, innovation and sustainability network manager at the UK Fashion and Textile Association says, "The UK has huge potential to incorporate robotics." Garment-makers are using more and more robots for various tasks already, she adds.
But even Junestrand says that countries such as the UK will probably never be able to compete with competitors in Asia, in terms of volume. "I think it's going to be more of a co-existence," she adds.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Reshoring apparel via robots will stay confined to specialist textiles for at least a decade because full supply chains and design variety cannot be replicated quickly."
The article spotlights adhesive-based robotics from CreateMe and sewing systems from Softwear Automation that could enable on-demand US/EU production of basics like t-shirts, potentially cutting emissions 45% by slashing Asia transport and overstock. Yet it glosses over how dyeing, yarn, and finishing steps resist easy reshoring, while high-flex variety demands and visible-stitch aesthetics keep sewing relevant. Industry inertia and 10-year timelines cited by Robotextile and Fraede imply any volume shift stays niche, capping revenue upside for automation plays until supply-chain clusters form.
Premium customization and policy-driven incentives could let on-demand models scale faster in Western markets than cost-focused forecasts allow, especially if brands pay up for 'made locally' branding.
"Automation solves the technical problem of garment production but not the economic problem: Asian labor arbitrage remains so powerful that widespread re-shoring requires either a structural collapse in Asian wages or a geopolitical shock, neither of which the article substantiates."
The article conflates technical feasibility with economic viability. CreateMe's adhesive approach and Softwear's sewing robots are real, but the economics don't yet work at scale. Note: Softwear's CEO won't disclose details—a red flag. The 45% emissions reduction assumes re-shoring happens, but Fraede (Robotextile) estimates 10+ years before meaningful re-shoring occurs. The article emphasizes environmental benefits while burying the harder truth: Asian labor costs remain so low that even fully-automated US production may not be cost-competitive for commodity t-shirts. The 'made in US' premium exists only for niche segments. Mass production claims are speculative.
If labor costs in Asia rise 15-20% due to wage inflation or supply-chain fragmentation, and if automation capex drops 30% over 5 years, the unit economics flip fast—suddenly re-shoring becomes inevitable, not aspirational.
"Automation will likely remain confined to high-margin, specialized textiles for the next decade, failing to meaningfully displace the low-cost, high-volume manufacturing model currently dominating the global apparel supply chain."
The narrative of 're-shoring' via automation ignores the massive, entrenched capital expenditure required to replicate Asia's vertically integrated supply chains. While CreateMe’s adhesive-based manufacturing is an interesting pivot, it is a niche solution for basic apparel, not a structural threat to the $1.7 trillion global fashion market. The real bottleneck isn't just sewing; it's the lack of domestic infrastructure for dyeing, spinning, and raw material processing. Investors should view this as a long-term play for specialized industrial automation firms like Fanuc or ABB, rather than a near-term disruption to retail giants like H&M or Inditex. The 'on-demand' model is a luxury, not a scalable reality for mass-market margins.
If adhesive-based assembly achieves a 45% reduction in carbon footprint and enables true on-demand production, regulatory ESG mandates could force a rapid, non-market-driven shift toward domestic micro-factories.
"Automation in garment manufacturing could be transformative, but near-term profitability and scale are unlikely to disrupt Asia-dominated apparel supply chains."
While the story highlights a real push toward automation in garment-making, the near-term payoff hinges on defeating high-flex fabric challenges and price discipline in a sector built on razor-thin margins. Adhesive-based methods may work for limited runs or niche lines, but mass-market t-shirts require durability, recyclability, and design variety that may keep sewing and global sourcing competitive for years. The environmental upside depends on full supply-chain retrofits, not just factory floors. In short, disruptive impact is plausible but not imminent; investors should assay robotics exposure via broad automation bets rather than apparel-specific theses.
The strongest counter is that adhesives may undermine recyclability and garment repair, while reshoring apparel production entails enormous capital, energy, and logistics costs; mass-market pricing likely stays Asia-centric for years.
"Regulatory pressures like carbon tariffs could accelerate apparel reshoring timelines beyond current cost-based projections."
Claude's focus on current labor cost gaps overlooks how EU carbon border taxes could impose 20-30% effective duties on Asian imports by 2030, flipping reshoring viability for CreateMe's adhesive tech. Nobody addressed this regulatory tailwind that might compress Fraede's timeline from a decade to five years. Softwear's secrecy on economics is less concerning if mandates override pure market competition for sustainability compliance.
"Carbon tariffs compress incentives but don't eliminate the unit-economics gap between reshored automation and Asian labor arbitrage."
Grok's carbon border tax angle is sharp, but conflates regulatory pressure with actual adoption. EU tariffs on Asian imports don't automatically make adhesive-based reshoring viable—they just make it *less uncompetitive*. CreateMe still needs to solve durability, cost-per-unit, and supply-chain clustering. Tariffs are a necessary condition, not sufficient. Also: nobody's quantified what 'compliance' actually costs brands versus absorbing tariffs. That gap matters enormously for timeline credibility.
"Adhesive-based manufacturing creates a circularity crisis that will likely trigger punitive EPR regulations, offsetting the benefits of reshoring."
Claude and Grok are missing the secondary market impact: adhesives are a death knell for circularity. If brands shift to bonded seams to save on labor, they destroy the recyclability of the garment, triggering 'extended producer responsibility' (EPR) penalties that could outweigh any carbon tax savings. We are potentially trading a 45% emissions reduction in transport for a 100% increase in landfill waste. Investors should look at the regulatory blowback against non-recyclable bonded textiles.
"Bonded seams may undermine recyclability and trigger regulatory costs like EPR penalties, potentially erasing the emissions gains from on-demand adhesive assembly."
Gemini's recyclability risk is the overlooked hinge: bonded seams could elevate landfill risk and trigger EPR penalties, potentially offsetting transport emissions gains. Regulators may mandate upcycling compatibility, increasing end-of-life costs. However, this isn't a slam-dunk either—adhesives could be reformulated for recyclability, and bond-seam tech could target non-recyclable zones or be phased with post-consumer sorting improvements. The critical question: do we get a net negative or net positive lifecycle impact under plausible policy scenarios?
The panel generally agrees that while automation in garment-making is promising, it's unlikely to disrupt the industry significantly in the near term due to challenges like high-flex fabrics, lack of domestic infrastructure, and regulatory hurdles. The environmental benefits are also uncertain and depend on full supply-chain retrofits.
The single biggest opportunity flagged is the potential for adhesive-based manufacturing to become more cost-competitive with Asian production due to EU carbon border taxes, although this is not universally agreed upon.
The single biggest risk flagged is the potential increase in landfill waste due to non-recyclable bonded textiles, which could offset transport emissions gains and trigger 'extended producer responsibility' penalties.