Market Report - Home Decor - EN

THE US MARKET FOR HOME
AND DÉCOR AND OPPORTUNITIES

FOR PORTUGUESE SMES:
COMPETITION AND DEMAND
VOLUME ONE: REPORT
Produced by Marq Consulting Group and CH Academy
Commissioned by the Associação Empresarial de Portugal (AEP) Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Porto
Funded by the European Union (EU), Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) / European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF)
Lead authors: Dr Laura J White and Alex Murray, Marq Consulting Group
Editors: Julie Peterson, Marq Consulting Group, and Carlos Lacerda, CH Academy
September 2016
2 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 7
Acronyms 9
Lists of Figures 11
List of Tables 15
Section 1: Introduction 17
1.1 Report Parties 17
1.2 Report Focus 17
1.3 Report Methods 19
1.4 Report Subsectors and Product Categories 21
1.5 Conclusion 21
Section 2: Internal (US) Competition 23
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Top US Exporting Countries 23
2.3 US Home Décor Market Competition 26
2.3a Bedspreads 26
2.3b House Linens 29
2.3c Window Dressings 33
2.3d Iron Housewares 36
2.3e Knives 42
2.3f Porcelain Tableware 46
2.4 Conclusion 49
Section 3: External Competition 53
3.1 Introduction 53
THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

• 3
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PORTUGUESE SMES
3.2 Top Sector Competitors 53
3.3 Global Competitors 55
3.3a Bedspreads 56
3.3e Knives 59
3.4 European Competitors 60
3.4a Bedspreads 61
3.4e Knives 63
3.5 Conclusion 65
Section 4: Legal Regulations and Compliance 69
4.1 Introduction 69
4.2 Packaging and Labelling 69
4.3 Special Requirements 72
4.4 Tariffs 74
4.5 Distribution Structure and Channels 76
4.6 Effects of Legislation 85
4.7 Conclusion 87
Section 5: An Insider’s Perspective 89
5.1 Introduction 89
5.2 US Home Décor Demand 89
5.2a Bedspreads Demand 90
5.2b House Linens Demand 93
5.2c Window Dressings Demand 101
5.2d Iron Housewares Demand 104
5.2e Knives Demand 109
5.2f Porcelain Tableware Demand 111

5.3 Trends Affecting US Supply and Demand 117
5.3a Materials 117
5.3b Luxury on a Budget 121
5.3c Bathrooms 124
5.3d Product Origin Stories 125
5.4 Understanding How the Competition
Responds to Trends 129
5.5 Conclusion 134
Section 6: Conclusion 137
6.1 Introduction 137
6.2 Portuguese SMEs’ Strengths and Challenges 139
6.2a Challenges 140
6.2b Strengths 146
References 155

• 5
Executive
Summary
This report was conducted by Marq Consulting Group and
CH Academy for the Next Challenge USA project that was
commissioned by the Associação Empresarial de Portugal (AEP)
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Porto. It was financially
supported by European Union (EU) through Le Fonds Européen
de Développement Regional (FEDER) or, in English, the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) as part of the Compete
2020 project. It contains two volumes. This volume (Volume
One) contains the report content, and Volume Two includes all
necessary appendices. The projects and report aim to improve and
assess export development and growth opportunities for over 150
Portuguese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through
trade facilitation with the United States (US).
Section 1 introduces the report, report parties, and report focus

by giving an overview of global and Portuguese trade. The section
highlights current Portuguese trade competitiveness – ranked 38th
out of 190+ countries by the World Economic Forum for 2015 to 2016
– and how home décor exports support Portuguese growth, gross
domestic product (GDP), and economic recovery. Using a multi-
factor analysis, the report examines how US market access and
growth can facilitate development and growth in six subsectors:
bedspreads, house linens, window dressings, iron housewares,
knives, and porcelain tableware.
Section 2 assesses US import competition, top exporting countries,

and import volume and predicts intermediate growth potential
for Portuguese exports in the US market. Opportunities for export
development and growth are positive in all six subsectors –
although commodity-based products (involving cotton or iron /
steel) are subject to global price volatility. The markets showing
the strongest current growth for SMEs are in the knives and
porcelain tableware subsectors. Portugal has been (and in some
cases, continues to be) a top ten country exporting to the US in
bedspreads, house linens, and porcelain tableware, but in most of
these markets, Portuguese competitiveness has declined in recent
years. The challenge will be turning that trend around. However, the

• 7
potential passage of the Transatlantic Trade and in the US market. SMEs must ensure they that
Investment Partnership (TTIP) in the mid-term understand the US market and regulatory
could improve Portuguese competitiveness on structure in order to be export ready for 2017.
the US market. The US market is dominated by
Chinese and / or Asian exporting countries, but US Section 5 fosters an “insider’s perspective” of
imported home décor markets in textiles, metal, how to compete effectively within the US home
and ceramic / stone products continue to grow, décor market. Supply and demand analyses are
demonstrating a need for more, differentiated conducted by subsector, and the report adds
products. Portugal’s most consistent competitors value by assessing other subsectors and product
in the US home décor market are Bangladesh, categories where SMEs may be competitive.
Canada, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Japan, the The findings highlight subsectors and product
Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Serbia, categories where import demand is lower and
Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and the UK. domestic supply is greater and vice versa. With the
exception of cotton furnishings, cotton window
Section 3 builds on the competition analysis dressings, non-printed cotton bed linens, and
of the internal (US) market by examining copper housewares, US demand for imported
global and European competitors and home décor is steadily increasing. The section
Portugal’s performance in markets outside highlights the importance of SMEs’ ability to
the US. The section sees global and European recognize and prepare to supply future trends,
competitiveness and export development as two which are profiled in Section 5.3. SMEs’ export
processes that shape a dynamic environment for readiness will be paramount in their ability to
SMEs assessing opportunities in the US market. respond to trends and build relationships with US
Globally, Portugal’s most significant competitors suppliers. This can be accomplished in a variety
are Bangladesh (specifically in house linens and of ways from dropshipping to working with large
porcelain tableware), Pakistan, Thailand, and US chains to e-commerce do-it-yourself market
the US. Globally and within Europe, Portugal is access sites like Etsy. The report helps SMEs gain
competitive in house linens exports. The best a competitive edge by profiling varied US home
strategies for improving competitiveness are décor companies, trade associations, trade shows,
consistent export volume, building relationships and publications.
with suppliers, product and supplier servicing,
and developing a marketable product “story” that Section 6 concludes this report with a sector-
reflects Portuguese uniqueness and quality. by-sector, product-by-product summary of the
competition, supply / demand, and opportunity
Legal regulations and compliance are the subjects assessments. Though US import markets declined
of Section 4. The section includes critical resources in 2015 across industries and trade growth
that will help SMEs avoid costly mistakes, such for 2016 has proven sluggish, the report finds
as failure to comply with packaging, labeling, excellent opportunities for Portuguese SMEs in all
and special requirements. There are considerably subsectors assessed in the report. Though house
more regulations for textiles and metal home linens, window dressings, and iron housewares
décor products. There are a number of voluntary are more challenging markets due to domestic
certifications that could benefit producers, production and US price competitiveness, the
particularly in servicing the trade (interior US home décor market is vastly open to foreign
designers, hotels, restaurants, hospitality, and products, particularly those that are competitive
business and government offices). Volume One in terms of price and servicing that tell a story
outlines the range of tariffs for each product that the consumer can integrate into their
category, and SMEs can consult Volume Two for lifestyle. The report concludes by discussing SMEs’
product-specific tariffs. The most critical resource challenges and strengths in the US market and
for SMEs is Section 4.5 — Distribution Structure operationalizing a model for sustainable export
and Channels — offers five points of market entry development.
for SMEs looking to establish exports for the US
market. The section also provides an overview of
relevant US legislation, including the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), and African
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) that affects
SMEs export readiness and competitiveness

Acronyms
ACT Association for Contract Textiles
AEP Associação Empresarial de Portugal
AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act
AICEP Agência para o Investimento e Comércio Externo de Portugal
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
B Billions
BdP Banco de Portugal
BIT Bilateral Investment Treaty
CBP US Customs and Border Protection
Comtrade United Nations’ Commodity Trade Statistics Database
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
DIY Do-It-Yourself
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
EU European Union
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FEDER Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional
FHSA Federal Hazardous Substances Act
FTA Free Trade Agreements
FTC Federal Trade Commission
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HS Harmonized (Tariff) System
IABFLO International Association of Bedding and Furniture Law Officials
IMF International Monetary Fund
K Thousand
Kilo Kilogram
M Millions
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NOP National Organic Program
OEC Observatory for Economic Complexity
SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise
TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
US United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WTO World Trade Organization

• 9
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Portuguese Net Contributions to Real Volume One: 10
GDP Growth in Percentage Points (BdP 2016)
Figure 2.1 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume One: 16

Bedspreads to the US (2014)
Figure 2.2 - US Bedspreads Imports Market Value Volume One: 17

(Millions) By Country (2014)
Figure 2.3 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:



Figure 2.6 - Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume One: 19

Linens to the US (2014)
Figure 2.7 - US House Linens Imports Market Volume One: 19

Value (Millions) By Country (2014)
Figure 2.8 – Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume Two:



Figure 2.11 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Window Volume One: 22

Dressings to the US (2014)
Figure 2.12 - US Window Dressings Imports Volume One: 22

Market Value (Millions) By Country (2014)

• 11
Figure 2.13 – Top Countries Exporting Window Volume Two:


Figure 2.16 - Inconsistency in the US Imported Volume One: 24

Window Dressings Market (Millions, 2011-2014)
Figure 2.17 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume One: 25

Housewares to the US (2014)
Figure 2.18 - US Iron Housewares Imports Market Volume One: 26

Value (Millions) By Country (2014)
Figure 2.19 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume Two:



Figure 2.22 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume One: 30

to the US (2014)
Figure 2.23 - US Knives Imports Market Value Volume One: 30

Figure 2.24 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume Two:

to the US (2013)

to the US (2012)

to the US (2011)
Figure 2.27 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume One: 33

Porcelain Tableware to the US (2014)
Figure 2.28 - US Porcelain Tableware Imports Volume One: 33

Market Value (Millions) By Country (2014)



Figure 5.1 - US Imported Iron Housewares Volume One: 75

Demand (2004-2014)

• 13
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Portugal’s US Imported House Linens Volume One: 21
Market Competitors
Table 2.2 - Inconsistencies Among Top Ten US Volume One: 27

Iron Housewares countries (and Portugal) (2011-
2014)
Table 2.3 - Inconsistencies Among Portugal and Volume One: 28

Comparable US Iron Housewares Exporting
Countries (2011-2014)
Table 2.4 - Portugal’s Most Similar and Target Volume One: 31

Competitors in the US Imported Knives Market
(2011-2014)
Table 5.1 - Select Bedspreads Product Volume One: 65

Categories US Import Demand Levels (2011-
2014)
Table 5.2 - Select Bedspreads Product Volume One: 67

2014)
Table 5.3 - Non-printed and Printed Cotton Bed Volume One: 69

Linens Comparison
Table 5.4 - Window Dressings Subsector and Volume One: 73

Product Categories US Import Demand Levels
(2011-2014)
Table 5.5 - Iron Housewares Subsector and Volume One: 76

Product Categories US Import Demand Levels
(2011-2014)
Table 5.6 - Aluminum and Copper Housewares Volume One: 78

US Import Demand Levels (2011-2014)

• 15
Table 5.7 - Knives Subsector and Product Volume One: 79
2014)
Table 5.8 - Porcelain Tableware US Import Volume One: 81

Demand Levels (2011-2014)
Table 5.9 - Ceramic Tableware US Import Volume One: 82


Section 1:
Introduction
In 2015, countries around the world continued to recover from on-
going global crises. Trade flows reflected this crisis with significant
declines. Forecasts for global trade growth in 2016 remain modest
at approximately 2%; political instability, currency fluctuations, and
restricted business and personal lending continues to affect growth
(WTO 2016; Banco de Portugal 2016). There is reason, however, to be
optimistic about trade; trade flows are predicted to considerably
improve across 2017 to 2018 at a growth rate of 3.5 to 3.8% (WTO 2016;
Banco de Portugal 2016). This report is similarly optimistic about
Portugal’s ability to utilize global trade growth through short and long-
term, sustainable export development strategies in the US market.
1.1 Report Parties
This report offers guidance on how Portugal can enhance home

décor exports and is one of five market reports in the Next
Challenge USA project. Next Challenge USA was commissioned
by the Associação Empresarial de Portugal (AEP) Chamber of
Commerce and Industry of Porto and is supported by European
Union (EU) through Le Fonds Européen de Développement
Regional (FEDER) or, in English, the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). Part of the wider Compete 2020 project,
Next Challenge USA works to improve market access for over 150
Portuguese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through
trade facilitation with the United States (US). Next Challenge USA
supports SMEs’ role in fostering sustainable market development
and is orchestrated through a series of reports, workshops, and
seminars, hosted by the Portuguese consulting group, CH Academy,
and their American contracting partner, Marq Consulting Group.
1.2 Report Focus
This report reflects on general and specific issues that shape

sustainable export development strategies through increased
US market access and growth. The analysis takes into account
the historical origins of Portugal’s export economy, dating back
to Portugal’s 15th century leadership in early mercantilist trade.
Portuguese exports across sectors have remained strong, but the
2008 global financial crisis has had deep effects on Portuguese
trade from which SMEs are still recovering. Specifically, the crisis
and underlying governance factors contributed to Portugal’s
need for financial assistance from the EU and International
Monetary Fund (IMF). After instituting reform with great success:
“the Portuguese economy has made significant progresses in the
correction of a number of macroeconomic imbalances, having
implemented measures of a structural character in several areas”
(AICEP 2016i: 4). The report addresses these examples of general
and specifically Portuguese trade-related triumphs and challenges.

• 17
Painting a general economic landscape of Portugal’s current
trade profile, the latest projections from Banco de Portugal (BdP)
indicated growth in gross domestic product (GDP) between 1.5 and
1.7% for 2016. Growth figures were based on increased demand and
continued exports in Portuguese goods and services and tourism
promotion (BdP 2016; see Figure 1.1 below). There is, naturally, a
strong link between Portugal’s continued economic progress and
expanding its export market. According to the BdP (2016), export
volume in GDP terms should continue to recover across the coming
years, and the World Bank (2016) expects Portuguese GDP will rise
to pre-2008 crisis levels (Figure 1.1). Five-year trends show steady
progress since GDP declined from $244.9 Billion (B) in 2011 to
$216.4B in 2012 (World Bank 2016).
Figure 1.1 – Portuguese Net Contributions to Real GDP Growth

in Percentage Points (Banco de Portugal 2016)
Source: Statistics Portugal and Banco Portugal.

Note: (p) - projected.
Next Challenge USA’s goal is to improve Portuguese export

competition, particularly through the growth of SMEs, and this
report looks deeply at US, global, European, and Portuguese
competition. The World Economic Forum’s Competitive Index
ranked Portugal as the 38th (out of 190+) most competitive nation for
2015 to 2016; from 2014 to 2015, it was ranked 36th. Portugal’s most
similar export competitors, across a five-year trend analysis, are the
Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, and the UK1. Portugal consistently
outcompetes Croatia, Finland, Ireland, and Belgium-Luxemburg; it
1 The report was written before “Brexit” was negotiated, and the inclusion of the UK among
Portugal’s most similar competitors is subject to these changes.

occasionally outcompetes the Netherlands, Malta, and Sweden and
is consistently outcompeted by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Slovakia in global trade (WTO 2015ii).2 However, Portugal’s
position within the World Economic Forum’s Competitive Index
reveals inconsistencies, and this report specifically targets how
inconsistent competitiveness has contributed to Portugal’s overall
competitiveness decline.
Portugal’s position within the top 50 most competitive export

nations has been fairly consistent and reflects the fluctuations in
GDP and post-2008 recovery factors presented above. These factors
have affected Portugal’s export industry. Portuguese home décor
exports span mixed sectors, such as textiles, metal, and stone and
glass. Within home décor, textiles and metals have served as the
backbone of Portuguese trade for decades, competitive in materials
and production costs (Singh 2015). Portuguese stone and glass is
revered globally – strong sellers in upmarket stores such as Harrods
and featured in New York’s Museum of Modern Art (AICEP 2016).
Looking at a sample of Portuguese home décor exports, there has

been an average annual decline of 0.8% since before the 2008
financial crisis.3 Portugal’s home décor exports to other global
markets performed better than exports to the US, which decreased
by an average annual rate of almost 2%. Targeted, sustainable
home décor export strategies for the US market can boost
economic recovery by continuing to stabilize Portuguese export
competitiveness and GDP. With current trade growth forecasts,
Portugal has opportunities for US exports to return to pre-crisis
levels, although competitors have capitalized on Portuguese export
decline to grow their US market. This report focuses on how SMEs
can restore home décor exports to pre-2008 levels through short
and long-term sustainable export development strategies.
1.3 Report Methods
The report presents a market analysis for Portuguese SMEs looking

to develop their export strategy for the US home décor market by
focusing on six unique factors that influence sustainable strategy
development, including:
»» Internal (US) competition

»» Export competition (global and European)
»» Legal regulations and compliance
»» An insider’s perspective of the US market
»» Portuguese strengths and challenges.
2 “Consistently outcompetes” is measured by competition in all 4 or 5 years of the trend

analysis; “occasionally outcompetes” refers to competition within 2 or fewer years.
3 The report examined the 3 sectors (textiles, metal, stone and glass) and 7 subsectors within
those 3 sectors from 2006 to 2014.

• 19
The analysis of these factors produces an assessment of Portuguese
home décor exports competitiveness in the US, the world’s largest
imported goods market outside of the European Union (WTO
2015ii). The assessment relies on primary and secondary data and
qualitative and quantitative research methods, such as
»» one-on-one interviews with US companies

»» customized surveys
»» secondary research
»» case studies
»» comparative and statistical analysis
»» econometric forecasting and modeling and
»» data collected and cleaned from the United Nations’ Commodity
Trade Statistics Database (Comtrade) by the Observatory for
Economic Complexity (OEC) and report parties.
These methods were selected based on their appropriateness and

effectiveness in addressing the needs of the report. For example, the
analysis requires in-depth, regional, and state-specific information
from American home décor importers, distributors, wholesalers,
retailers, and trade associations. Interviews are the most appropriate
primary source for this data; whereas, competition analysis is most
appropriately conducted through statistical and econometric
analyses. After cross-checking sources of statistical data — such as
the World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, World Bank — the report
uses Comtrade as its primary source.
The OEC, a project conducted by the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology’s Media Lab Macro Connections Group, provides
collection, cleaning, filtering, sorting, and organization of Comtrade’s
data and thus, is the predominant secondary data source in the
report. Except where explicitly cited, the data referenced in the
report is from OEC (2014). Global, regional, and national trade data
is compiled into large datasets, and time is required to process and
clean this data. For this reason, the report’s most recent data, in most
cases, is from 2014. Data from 2016 is not yet available, and data from
2015, in some cases, is not yet processed.4
An expansive discourse exists on varied methods for collecting

and analyzing data, the methods employed in the report are
consistently deemed the most appropriate across industries and
individuals. For example, the report uses interviews with US sector
executives to understand the challenges to Portuguese home décor
exporters. The method is designed to fit the nature of the inquiry.
Similarly, the report aims to minimize detail that does not increase
clarity, such as assessing Portugal’s top ten export competitors
rather than top 20.
4 Comtrade has data from 2015, and it is utilized throughout the report where appropriate;
however, their data does not take into account exports that are refused by US Customs and
Border Protection. OEC’s data does.

1.4 Report Subsectors and Product Categories
The report assesses export development and growth opportunities

in these subsector categories:
1. Bedspreads
2. House linens
3. Window dressings
4. Iron housewares
5. Knives
6. Porcelain tableware.
For this report, the “unit of analysis” is at the subsector – not product
category – level to provide SMEs with the most comprehensive
information and assessment of export opportunity.5 Where
appropriate, the report uses the sector (textiles, metal, and stone
and glass) and product category detail. The product categories
provide highly detailed information on the top export / import
products within each subsector. For example, within the iron
housewares subsector, product categories include table / kitchen
articles, parts of 1) stainless steel, 2) iron or steel, and 3) enameled
iron or steel. There is a stronger US market for stainless steel iron
housewares, and where this information has an impact on SMEs’
export development, the product category level is analyzed.
Additionally, where there are comparable subsectors – such as
aluminum or copper housewares – the report examines these to
compare and contrast competitiveness and opportunities for SMEs.
1.5 Conclusion
This introductory section has covered the who, what, and how
of this market report on home décor. The report is structured by
the five analytical factors presented in Section 1.3. The first factor
(Section 2: internal competition) provides a detailed snapshot of
the extensive competition SMEs face in the US market. Section 3
examines Portugal’s global and European competitors, focusing
on each subsector to demonstrate how access to the world’s
largest single-nation import market can impact Portugal’s trade
competitiveness. This section also addresses how Portugal can
outperform EU competitors like the Czech Republic and Spain.
Following the complete competition analysis, Section 4 transitions

to legal regulations and compliance issues – essential information
for SMEs in all stages of export development. The fourth analytical
factor provides Portuguese SMEs an insider’s perspective of the US
market in Section 5, including the importance of trends that are
often discounted by those outside the US market. The section’s key
theme is that gaining access to the US market can present varied
challenges; SMEs should be prepared to adapt and revise existing
5 The “level of analysis” featured in the report is as follows: industry (home décor), sector
(textiles, metal, stone and glass), subsector (bedspreads, iron housewares, porcelain
tableware, etc), and product category (non-printed bed linens, butcher’s knives, etc).

• 21
export models specifically for the US. Section 6 reviews the findings
of the previous sections’ competition and supply / demand analyses
and uses this information to take a sophisticated approach to cost-
benefit analyses by examining Portuguese SMEs’ strengths and
challenges in the US market. This section offers a comprehensive
understanding of the dynamics of the US home décor market,
along with general strategies and specific tools for increasing
Portuguese exports to the US.

Section 2:
Internal (US)
Competition
2.1 Introduction
The US, the largest single-country import destination for goods

and services, is a highly competitive market. Compete 2020, Next
Challenge USA, and the report all focus on competition because of
the dynamic nature of the US market. The American market has the
unique ability to easily replace one exporter’s products with another
if products do not conform to price and quality expectations. This
section profiles US home décor import competitors.
A frequency analysis is used to determine the top overall

competitors. Then competitors within specific subsectors
(bedspreads, house linens, window dressings, iron housewares,
knives, porcelain tableware) are analyzed. Because competition
is the focus, the analysis highlights countries that Portugal has
potential of outcompeting in the US market. Drawing on these
analyses, the section makes preliminary recommendations for
Portuguese SMEs in specific subsectors based on US import
competition. The section aims to provide a snapshot of competition
in the US home décor market that begins to form a picture of
competition and opportunities for Portuguese SMEs.
2.2 Top US Exporting Countries
This section presents the most competitive home décor countries

exporting to the US and addresses the general state of competition
in the US home décor market. The following section reflects the
specific state of US import competition in the six subsectors selected
for assessment. The discussion includes the top eight home décor US
exporting countries (listed below), Portugal’s ranking, and Portugal’s
most significant US competitors. Through a frequency analysis of the
subsectors in Section 2.3 from 2011 to 2014, the report finds that the
top US home décor exporting countries are:
»» China
»» Mexico
»» India
»» Pakistan
»» Turkey
»» Other Asia
»» Thailand
»» Italy.

• 23
It is not surprising to see China at the top, particularly as the
majority of subsectors fall within the textiles sector; China, as
Portuguese SMEs will be aware, is highly competitive in textiles.
In the other sectors (metal and stone and glass) China is also
highly competitive; porcelain and china are synonymous. A
trade association executive interviewed that even high quality
porcelain and glass tableware producers have difficultly
competing with China, as the product profit window is narrow
and US retailers have the power to drive down producers’ prices
due to market concentration that this report will unpack in
Section 4.5.6 China is able to cost-effectively produce several basic
home décor goods, and similarly, it is not surprising to see India,
Pakistan, Turkey, Other Asia7, and Thailand as top US home décor
exporting countries.
The commonalities between these exporters are low production

costs, including materials, labor, industrial real estate, and
maintenance. India, Pakistan, and Other Asia likely have the lowest
production costs as lower-middle income countries, and Turkey,
Thailand, and Mexico follow as upper-middle income countries;
Italy, like Portugal, is a high-income country (World Bank 2016i).
Italy is well-known for their high quality home décor products, and
their competitive advantages are similar to Portugal’s. Mexico’s
competitiveness is also likely due to its geographic proximity to
the US and preferential trading agreement, the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Similarly, the US has a bilateral
investment treaty (BIT) with Turkey, which helps develop bilateral
trade policies between nations.
It initially appears that competitiveness in the US home décor

imports market is linked to low production and import costs, and
from this, the report makes an early finding that competitiveness
in the US market is also likely linked to exporting low-cost home
décor products. However, this early finding does not suggest that
Portuguese SMEs will have difficulty being competitive in the US
market if they produce high quality goods; rather, they will need
to identify the market for their specific products and target US
suppliers appropriately.
All producers need to know where they fit in the market. If you’re
upmarket and you decide Crate and Barrel if your best fit, you
better be in their market for at least two seasons to understand
what they are selling and what the competition looks like. The last
thing you want to do is walk into a retailer and say I don’t know
what you sell, but I got this great product.8
Across the six subsectors from 2011 to 2014, Portugal was a top US
exporting country ten times (bedspreads 2011-2014, house linens
2011-2014, and porcelain tableware 2013-2014), which is the most
6 See Interview 5, Appendix 4.
7 Other Asia is a conglomeration of free trade zones, “bunkers”, and several Asian nations
where original export location cannot be determined at the country-level.
8 Interview 5, Appendix 4.

competitive of all industries analyzed across the Next Challenge
USA project. There were two countries with the same frequency:
Canada and France. Canada has the competitive advantage of
proximity to the US and party to NAFTA. Canada was a top US
exporting country in bedspreads (2011-2014), window dressings
(2011-2014), and iron housewares (2011-2012). Portugal, with its
lower production costs, perhaps has a competitive advantage
over France, which was a top US exporting country in iron
housewares (2011-2014), knives (2014 and 2012), and porcelain
tableware (2011-2014).
Additionally, between Portugal – a top exporting country ten

times – and Italy – a top exporting country 12 times – was only
Indonesia, which was a top exporting country eleven times
(window dressings 2014-2013 and 2011, iron housewares 2011-
2014, and porcelain tableware 2011-2014). This demonstrates how
well Portugal competes in the US market despite a 1.6% average
annual decline since 2014. Portuguese home décor producers
also performed better in the US market than Germany, which
was a top exporting country nine times (iron housewares 2013,
knives 2011-2014, and porcelain tableware 2011-2014). Other
countries Portugal outcompeted in the US home décor market
(2011-2014) were Bangladesh, Japan, Egypt, South Korea, Spain,
Switzerland, the UK, Brazil, Poland, and Denmark.
This section has highlighted that countries with low production

costs that produce low-cost home décor products are more
likely to be top US competitors. Portuguese industry continues
to benefit from low taxation, labor, and import (shipping, tariffs,
etc) costs to the US. There are two key challenges for SMEs. The
first will be finding their niche in the US market, to which this
report endeavors to provide great resource. For example, working
as a manufacturer for a small US company, printing their designs
and concepts, may be a way for SMEs to access the US market.
The report parties spoke to Fishs Eddy – a New York e-commerce
home décor company that specializes in unique design
products, such as porcelain tableware and house linens. “We use
manufacturers from all over the world.” The second challenge
will be ensuring products remain competitive as education and
advanced manufacturing enhances Portuguese productivity and
shapes production costs (AICEP 2016i).
Additionally, as Portugal continues to recover from the 2008 crisis,

austerity measures to correct the excessive fiscal deficit – imposed
by both the European Commission and IMF – may impact SMEs and
Portugal’s continued competitiveness in the US market (European
Commission 2016). For example, macroeconomic pressures could
delay wage increases, which could keep production costs lows,
or health benefits could be cut, which could possibly impact the
larger workforce’s productivity. However, the US home décor market
continues to grow and offers SMEs excellent opportunities to
contribute to Portugal’s continued economic recovery in the face of
such challenges.

• 25
2.3 US Home Décor Market Competition
After profiling the top US home décor exporting countries, this

section explores the countries dominating the US market for six
home décor subsectors by examining five-year trends. All subsectors
were selected for analysis following an assessment of Portuguese
export volume, US import demand, export and import competition,
product value, and industry factors, such as Portugal’s transition to
advanced manufacturing. The analysis of US competition begins
by profiling bedspreads. This is followed by house linens, window
dressings, iron housewares, knives, and porcelain tableware.9 This
assessment of US competition across subsectors provides a solid
foundation for the report’s recommendations to Portuguese SMEs
on export development and growth for the US market.
2.3a Bedspreads
Out of almost 1220 global product subsectors, bedspreads are
the 574th most traded product and 973rd most complex product
(OEC 2014). This subsector includes coverlets, quilts, duvets,
comforters but not blankets – a more frequently traded but less
complex product. Blankets, by contrast, were a $958 million (M)
import market in the US in 2014; the market for bedspreads in
the US in this year was $670M. The US is the top importer for
both subsectors, but bedspreads are the focus of this analysis. The
report mentions blankets because they are a related subsector
and perhaps one where SMEs could also be competitive in the
US. Figure 2.1 shows top exporting countries US market share for
bedspreads imported in 2014. Of the $670M US import market
value, Figure 2.2 shows each of the top ten 2014 bedspreads
exporting countries’ market value.10
Figure 2.1 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Bedspreads to the US

(2014)
◼ China
◼ India
◼ Mexico
◼ Pakistan
◼ Portugal
◼ Nicaragua
◼ Italy
◼ Turkey
◼ Thailand
◼ Canada
9 All Harmonized Tariff System (HS) codes are featured in Appendix 2 in Volume Two of this
report.
10 The terms market value and market share are used consistently in the report. Market
value is measured in currency, and share is a percent.

Figure 2.2 - US Bedspreads Imports Market Value (Millions) By
Country (2014)
◼ China
◼ India
◼ Mexico
◼ Pakistan
◼ Portugal
◼ Nicaragua
◼ Italy
◼ Turkey
◼ Thailand
◼ Canada
In 2013, the US bedspreads import market value reached $720M –

the greatest value for all years examined. Figure 2.311 shows the top
ten countries’ exporting to the US market share. Portugal held 2.7%
of the market, and value was $19.2M. The most notable changes
from 2013 to 2014 was the $50M total market loss in a single year,
which resulted in a $31M loss for China, $9M for Turkey, and $8M
for Pakistan. Market shares remained stable, demonstrating that
these value losses did not affect competition in the same year.
Possible reasons for this decline could be fluctuating commodity
costs, currency fluctuations, decreased production, decreased US
demand, or increased import costs. As one buyer highlighted: “So
much of [the market] fluctuates. Things like cotton prices… the price
of oil… and so prices are going to fluctuate.”12
It appears losses were concentrated in Asia, which could indicate

producers that obtained commodity materials, such as cotton,
from similar sources that may have had reduced yields. Trade
remedies, such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties, could
have been applied to these top producers in an effort to prevent
exporting countries from flooding the US market with their
products, making other countries’ products less competitive. Other
changes were that Other Asia and Poland were outcompeted by
Thailand and Nicaragua, which made an impressive $13M gain in a
single year. Portugal was not spared the effects of the $50M single-
year market loss, losing $1.8M in this market from 2013 to 2014.
The 2012 US bedspreads import market was valued at $701M,

and Figure 2.4 highlights the top exporting countries’ US market
share. Portugal’s market value was $16.6M. From 2012 to 2013 there
were several changes in US bedspread import competition. China
gained 3% of the overall market for a 60% dominance; Pakistan
outcompeted Mexico for a position in the top three US exporting
countries. Other Asia was a top competitor this year, and Turkey
11 See Appendix 1 in Volume Two of this report for all Figures after 2014 across product
categories.

• 27
and Poland declined in competitiveness – not as much as Ukraine,
which dropped from the top ten competitors.
In 2011, the market for imported bedspreads was $653M, and

Portugal – a top US exporting country all four years – accrued a $18.3M
market value. Figure 2.5 shows Portugal and other top exporting
countries’ market share. Some notable changes in this market from
2011 to 2013 were that China continued to gain more of the market
while every other exporting country – save Italy – lost market shares,
and Ukraine outcompeted El Salvador for a top ten position.
Portugal was the largest European exporter of bedspreads to the

US, and in 2013, it outcompeted Turkey, gaining a position in the
top five exporting countries where it has remained. Portugal’s
ability to increase its competitiveness in this market was more a
result of Turkey’s lack of competitiveness, rather than Portugal’s
enhanced competitiveness. From 2011 to 2014, Portugal was the
least competitive in 2012 ($16.6M market value, 2.4% market
share); it was the most competitive in 2013 ($19.2M market value,
2.7% market share) and 2011 ($18.3M market value, 2.8% market
share). For Portugal to continue being as competitive, strategies
must focus on consistent export volume; presently, Portugal’s
competitiveness in this market is declining at average annual rate
of 1.3%, and from 2014 to 2015, Portugal’s US bedspreads exports
declined a further 7.3% (Comtrade 2016).
Comtrade (2016) reveals that China and India continue growing in

the US imported bedspreads market; from 2014 and 2015, China’s
US imports increased 6% and India’s 22%. The other top five
2014 exporting countries’ (Nicaragua, Pakistan, and Portugal) US
imports are declining. Nicaragua’s impressive $13M 2014 growth
proved unsustainable, as its US imports declined at a rate of 75%
in 2015; Portugal’s US imports are declining at a slightly more
rapid pace (7.3%), compared to Pakistan’s 6.6% decline (Comtrade
2016). Examining pre-2008 crisis exports, 2007 was the peak year
for Portuguese bedspreads on the US market, a $28.5M value and
5% market share. China only held 53% of the market that year,
but since the 2000s, Portuguese bedspreads exports to the US
have declined. While the report does not argue that these trends
should discourage Portuguese SMEs, the findings should highlight
SMEs’ that relationship-building and product marketing are key to
maintaining competitiveness in the US market.
In markets where Portugal is already a top competitor there

will be advantages and disadvantages. An advantage will be
product, origin, and quality recognition, and a disadvantage will
be competing with producers that have established a firm hold on
the US market. To balance these pros and cons, SMEs must ensure
they have a clear target market and competitive advantage in
the US. Competitive advantages can be built on product quality,
price, availability, and product or supplier servicing, but their
ability to enter this market will be highly dependent on building
relationships in the US, which will require resource investment.
Another consideration is that China previously occupied
approximately half this market, and presently, they dominate it.
If this trend continues, Portugal may find their share of the US

market in further decline without concerted effort, particularly if
some exporting countries, such as India, Pakistan, and Nicaragua,
are able to maintain their market share against China.
SMEs will need to conduct tailored cost-benefit analyses to

determine their level of investment towards export development
in the US bedspreads market, and the costs are primarily
based around variable market costs. These costs that impact
stability in the US imported bedspreads market are increased
competitiveness from China and India, erratic commodity prices
(cotton and oil), fluctuating US demand, and import (US import
quotas / tariffs) and production costs. Sections 3, 4, and 5 will
discuss these factors further to provide SMEs with concentrated
recommendations about export development in the US
bedspreads market.
2.3b House Linens

Out of almost 1220 global product subsectors, house linens are
the 184th most traded and 1087th most complex product (OEC
2014). This subsector includes bed, table, toilet, and kitchen linen
products. Figure 2.6 shows the top 2014 US exporting countries’
market share, and of the $4.66 billion (B) US import market value,
Figure 2.7 lists each of the top ten exporting countries’ market value.
Figure 2.6 - Top Ten Countries Exporting House Linens to the

US (2014)
◼ China
◼ Pakistan
◼ India
◼ Turkey
◼ Portugal
◼ Bahrain
◼ Bangladesh
◼ Italy
◼ Mexico
◼ Colombia

• 29
Figure 2.7 - US House Linens Imports Market Value (Millions) By
Country (2014)
◼ China
◼ Pakistan
◼ India
◼ Turkey
◼ Portugal
◼ Bahrain
◼ Bangladesh
◼ Italy
◼ Mexico
◼ Colombia
The 2013 US imported house linens market was valued at $4.46B,

and Figure 2.8 provides the top exporting countries’ US market
share; Portugal – a top US competitor all four years – had a market
value of $84.8M; this was Portugal’s best year in the US house linens
market – the highest value and share and $4M greater than in
2014. There were many notable changes in this market from 2013
to 2014. For example, the market increased by $20M; Portugal,
Bangladesh, and Mexico did not benefit from this value increase,
but China, Pakistan, India, Turkey, and Bahrain did. Pakistan
outcompeted India for second place among exporting countries;
Bahrain outcompeted Bangladesh; Italy outcompeted Mexico, and
Colombia replaced Jordan in the tenth position. Overall, a dynamic
year for US competitors exporting house linens.
In 2012, the US house linens market was $4.45B, the lowest value
across these four years but only $10M less than 2013. With 102
competitors this year, Figure 2.9 shows the top exporting countries’
market share. Portugal secured a $70.6M market value, also its
lowest value across these four years. From 2012 to 2013, China and
Pakistan made significant market share gains (greater than 1%), and
Turkey, Mexico, and Italy made minor share gains. Portugal’s market
share declined, as did Bangladesh’s, and this resulted in Portugal
outcompeting Bangladesh for fifth position, where it remained in
2014. Bahrain also lost a minor market share (0.2%), and this minute
loss resulted in its decline to the eighth-most competitive exporting
country. India and Jordan’s shares remained stable.
In 2011, the US imported house linens market reached its peak

at a value of $4.76B, and Figure 2.10 demonstrates how a larger
market value affected top exporting countries’ US market shares.
Portugal held the same market share in 2011 as in 2012, but its
market value was $4M greater than in 2012. Other notable one-
year changes were that China’s market value increased 4%, a
$40M increase, and India’s losses were impactful – 7% or $360M.
Pakistan and Turkey made significant share gains (greater than 1%);
while Bahrain, Mexico, and Italy made less significant share gains,
Jordan outcompeted Israel for a top ten position. Bangladesh and
Portugal’s shares both remained stable, but both also experienced

significant value losses – $6M for Bangladesh and $4M for Portugal.
There were six more competitors in 2011 than 2012, and the total
market value declined $310M, which is the likely explanation for the
value losses. Portugal’s loss was almost 6% of its 2011 market value,
and for producers that are dependent on the US market, there were
serious financial implications.
This competition analysis has demonstrated similarities with the

imported bedspreads US market – potentially indicative of larger,
sector-wide trends that are further investigated in Section 3.
Similarities within the US imported house linens and bedspreads
market include:
»» In both markets, Portugal moved into fifth position in 2013, where

it has remained.
»» Both markets have peaked – in 2013 for bedspreads and 2011 for
house linens – and have not rebounded since their peak values.
»» China, India, and Pakistan are top three exporting countries in
both markets.13
»» Turkey and Italy are top competitors in both.
»» For the most part, there is only one NAFTA exporting country that
is a top ten competitor in each market, and both NAFTA exporters,
in both markets, are declining in competitiveness.
»» From 2014 to 2015, the US imported bedspreads market value
grew 5.3%, and the house linens value by 4.3%.
As such, SMEs are likely to encounter similar challenges in the

house linens market as bedspreads. Firstly, SMEs will need to
compete in the US market alongside Portuguese producers that
have established themselves on the US market. Secondly, SMEs
will require competitive advantages to access the US market,
such as how their bedspreads or house linens offer greater value,
profitability, or service to US suppliers. Thirdly, SMEs must locate
their target market in the vast US market, where the GDP of a single
state is equivalent a European country.
These competitiveness factors must reflect intentional decisions

by SMEs that are shaped by business goals, values, and models, or
SMEs will risk approaching US market access in a which may not
be sustainable in the longer-term. The report parties interviewed an
e-commerce retailer that offers a vast catalogue of products, as well
as recommendation posts and room-by-room “idea” suggestions.
The retailer said that this model – building sales off of decorating
suggestions and tips – is also what they look for in producers.
“Marketing and social media are pretty important to us because we
mostly do e-commerce. We consider those things when making our
purchasing decisions.”14
In assessing these competitiveness factors, SMEs should recognize

that China’s majority is inconsistent across the US imported
13 In 2013 and 2014 in the bedspreads market, Mexico outcompeted Pakistan.

• 31
bedspreads and house linens markets, but China does not (yet)
dominate in house linens. However, China, India, and Pakistan
occupy the majority of the market – an average share of 82%
between the three for bedspreads and 77% for house linens. In
bedspreads, both India and Pakistan are being outcompeted by
China at an increasing rate, but in house linens – where China is not
yet the majority – India and Pakistan have been able to maintain
their shares against China’s relatively slower gains.
Based on this assessment, SMEs may find greater opportunity

in the house linens market, and this market is, on average, five
times greater in value than bedspreads. In consideration, Table 2.1
examines Portugal’s most significant competitors in the US imported
house linens market. Bahrain and Bangladesh have, at various
points, outcompeted Portugal, but Table 2.1 reveals that these two
competitors are rapidly declining in the home linens subsector.
Table 2.1 - Portugal’s US Imported House Linens Market

Competitors
Average
Annual
2011 Value 2012 Value 2013 Value 2014 Value Growth Rate
Portugal $74.9M $70.6M $84.8M $80.7M 1.9%
Bahrain $81.4M $68.9M $57.3M $62.5M -6.4%
Bangladesh $86M $79.5M $69.8M $61.4M -8.1%
Italy $44.1M $46.2M $54.4M $54.3M 5.3%
Mexico $47.7M $56.7M $62.6M $53.5M 2.9%
Turkey $132M $147M $157M $171M 6.7%
While Italy and Mexico are not current threats to Portuguese

competitiveness in this market, Italy’s average annual growth rate
is double that of Portugal; Mexico’s growth rate is considerably
less. Both Italy and Mexico’s market values are less than 70% of
Portugal’s, and at these respective average annual growth rates,
neither will not outcompete Portugal in the near future. However,
this assumes market conditions – in the US house linens import
market and Portuguese, Italian, and Mexican export volume
– remain constant, and one factor that could influence these
conditions is potential of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) in the mid-term, which has the potential to
increase Portugal’s competitiveness in textiles and lower European
import tariffs in the US (CEPR 2014).
Portugal can reclaim its rank in the top six US exporting countries
by outcompeting Turkey. Turkey is Portugal’s nearest competitor

in terms of rank, but Portugal’s 2014 market value was less than
50% of Turkey’s. Turkey’s average annual growth rate is also more
than three times that of Portugal. Italy is nearer to outcompeting
Portugal than Portugal is to outcompeting Turkey, but again, this
projection stands if the US house linen market conditions remain
stable. Should TTIP be implemented, Portugal could have a major
competitive advantage over Turkey, and the elimination of textile
tariffs could significantly alter this market, for both Portugal and
Italy (CEPR 2014).
2.3c Window Dressings

The last subsector in the textiles sector, window dressings, is the
519th most traded product and 812th most complex product out
of almost 1220 global product subsectors (OEC 2014). Window
dressings include curtains, drapes, and blinds. Figure 2.11 gives the
top ten US exporting countries’ share of this market for 2014. Of
the $1.14B, Figure 2.12 provides exporting countries’ market value,
compared to Portugal’s 0.23%.
Figure 2.11 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Window Dressings to

the US (2014)
◼ China
◼ Mexico
◼ Pakistan
◼ India
◼ Other Asia
◼ Turkey
◼ Canada
◼ Malaysia
◼ Egypt
◼ Indonesia
◼ Portugal
Figure 2.12 - US Window Dressings Imports Market Value

◼ China
◼ Mexico
◼ Pakistan
◼ India
◼ Other Asia
◼ Turkey
◼ Canada
◼ Malaysia
◼ Egypt
◼ Indonesia
◼ Portugal

• 33
The 2013 window dressings market value was the largest of all four
years at $1.19B – $50M more than 2014 – and Figure 2.13 offers the
top ten exporting countries’ market shares for this year. Portugal’s
0.2% market share equated in a $2.34M value. Despite the market
contraction in 2014, Portugal increased its market share and value.
Other notable changes in the US imported window dressings
market were related to growth with all top competitors (Mexico,
Pakistan, India, Other Asia, Turkey, Canada, Malaysia, Egypt) – except
for China, Egypt, and Indonesia – increasing their market shares in
this year. However, only Mexico, India, Turkey, Canada, and Malaysia
managed to increase their market value as well. Canada’s $5M
value gain was most significant, and China’s market loss was also
substantial (3% or $64M). Two-thirds of China’s market loss went to
Mexico; Egypt also suffered significant market losses of $12.6M.
Similar to bedspreads, commodity production losses could explain

China and Pakistan’s decline, but this factor does not account
for India’s – similarly geographically located – value increase or
Egypt’s significant loss. Oil prices and shipping rates could have
impacted import costs; however, Malaysia saw a value increase, and
its proximal neighbor, Indonesia, experienced value loss. Perhaps,
it is significant that Canada’s market share only increased 0.5%
but value rose $5M, which could indicate – as was hypothesized in
Section 2.3a – that it took advantage of increased anti-dumping /
countervailing duties15 (trade remedies) on Chinese goods.
In 2012, China filed a dispute against the US with the WTO in

regards to countervailing duties brought against non-market
economies that involved a range of products, including home
décor, and in 2013, China (and several third-party countries) brought
another WTO dispute against the US in regards to its anti-dumping
methodologies, ie: how import quotas and / or tariffs are applied in
suspected dumping cases. The WTO did not resolve either disputes,
and a ruling or update was expected in June and July 2016, but
there has been no further progress – as of this writing – on these
cases (WTO 2015; WTO 2015i).
In 2012, the US window dressings import market was valued at

$1.03B, the lowest value of all four years. Figure 2.14 shows the
top US exporting countries’ market share when Portugal claimed
0.14% ($1.39M) of the US market. From 2012 to 2013, some notable
changes were that China lost a further 2% market share but
gained $90M in market value; Pakistan, India, and Other Asia
also experienced small share losses with value increases. It
seems likely that these seemingly conflicting losses and gains
are related to US countervailing duties. Currency fluctuations
could also have played a part, as could have greater volume of
more cotton-rich window treatments, as opposed to cheaper
15 Dumping refers to: “the practice of trying to sell products in the United States at lower
prices than those same products would bring in the producer’s home market” due to
subsidies or artificially deflated prices (CBP 2006i). Anti-dumping refers to trade policy that
places import quotas and countervailing duties against these products. Countervailing,
as the name implies, duties are applied with the intention to offset the impact on the US
(or other countries’) economies to adjust for the effects of dumping and can range from a
fractional percent to over 500%.

synthetics. Relatedly, there is the further possibility that these
countries source raw materials from the same supply chain, and
production costs affected import prices. Turkey and Egypt made
solid value and share gains; Egypt increased its window dressings
market value by $12M, after its $12.6M loss in 2013. Canada
and Malaysia made small gains, and Indonesia outcompeted
Denmark for a top ten position.
The 2011 US import market for window dressings was valued

higher than 2012 at $1.09B; Figure 2.15 highlights the top ten US
exporting countries’ market shares. Portugal’s market value was
also higher. In 2011, its share was 0.25% and value was $2.77M,
but in 2012, Portuguese window dressings exports to the US
decreased by half. Portugal recovered the majority of this loss
in 2013, but as of 2014, it has yet to surpass its 2011 export value
level. A notable change across 2011 and 2012 was that the market
was erratic. For example, Mexico and Other Asia experienced
share increases but value losses; while Pakistan, India, Turkey,
and Egypt had both value and share losses, and Canada and
Denmark experienced value and share gains. Turkey and Egypt’s
losses were considerable, $11M and $3M respectively. China’s
market share remained stable, but value declined $45M; the
total market only declined $60M. China bore the majority of
the market loss. Again, it is difficult to generalize about this
window dressings market, as NAFTA and European countries had
losses and gains. Malaysia outcompeted Indonesia, but for the
most part all Asian countries suffered losses in this year, which
could indicate currency, supply chain, countervailing duty, or
commodity production issues.
Overall, the window dressings US import market shows similar

features to the other textiles markets (bedspreads and house
linens). Like bedspreads, window dressings peaked in 2013 and
2011 was the second strongest year. China, Pakistan, and India are
top competitors, but in this market, Mexico is consistently second;
Turkey is again a top US competitor, as it was in the other two
markets. Both NAFTA countries are top competitors, although
Canada’s market is only 10% of Mexico’s.
Portugal’s progress has not been as strong in the window dressings

market as the other two. In 2011, it was the 12th most competitive
US exporting country and in 2012, down to 18th. In 2013, it
rebounded to 15th and most recently back down to 17th. This
fluctuating pattern seems to reflect the overall market; however,
there is a key difference across the three textiles markets from
2014 to 2015. For bedspreads, the 2014 to 2015 US market grew
by 5.3%, house linens by 4.3%, and window dressings by 12.9%
(Comtrade 2016). Despite this higher than average growth rate,
Figure 2.16 reveals that stability in the US window dressings market
is uncommon.

• 35
Figure 2.16 - Inconsistency in the US Imported Window
Dressings Market (Millions, 2011-2014)
◼ 2011
◼ 2012
◼ 2013
◼ 2014
China and Mexico are absent from Figure 2.16 because their
values are much higher than the other top ten competitors,
which skews the visual impact of the figure, but these top
competitors have also been affected by this comparatively
more tumultuous market. From 2011 to 2012, China’s market
value decreased $45M, from 2012 to 2013, increased $89M, and
from 2013 to 2014, decreased $41M. From 2011 to 2012, Mexico’s
market value stayed the same, from 2012 to 2013, increased
$27M, and from 2013 to 2014, increased $19M. Mexico appears to
consistently perform well – despite overall market fluctuations
– and Figure 2.16 demonstrates that from year to year (line to
line), values for six of ten countries – with some exception to
Other Asia, Indonesia, Denmark, and Portugal – vary greatly.
The Inconsistencies of this market makes export development
challenging, particularly for SMEs that require slow and steady
growth to manage export development.
Window dressings is the second-most lucrative of the three

textiles subsectors in this home décor report, but it has been
difficult to objectively pinpoint market forces that shape this
market – ranging from supply chains to international disputes to
production, import, commodity, and raw materials prices. The
report would advise that SMEs conduct cost-benefit analyses to
determine their level of investment in this US market, and the
coming sections of the report provide further strategies for SMEs
looking to grow in this challenging window dressings market
that saw almost 13% growth in 2015.
2.3d Iron Housewares

The first subsector within the metals sector, iron housewares, are
the 294th most traded and 731st most complex product out of
almost 1220 global product subsectors (OEC 2014). Iron housewares
includes, but are not limited to, cast iron pots and pans and
enameled table or kitchen articles. Figure 2.17 shows the top ten

US exporting countries’ share of this market for 2014. Of the $1.14B,
Figure 2.18 highlights each exporting country’s’ market value,
compared to Portugal’s 0.15%.
Figure 2.17 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Housewares to

the US (2014)
◼ China
◼ India
◼ Other Asia
◼ France
◼ Thailand
◼ Indonesia
◼ Mexico
◼ Italy
◼ South Korea
◼ Hong Kong
◼ Portugal
Figure 2.18 - US Iron Housewares Imports Market Value

◼ China
◼ India
◼ Other Asia
◼ France
◼ Thailand
◼ Indonesia
◼ Mexico
◼ Italy
◼ South Korea
◼ Hong Kong
◼ Portugal
The 2013 iron housewares US import market was valued at $2.09B –

the largest value between 2011 and 2014. Figure 2.19 shows the top US
exporting countries’ market share for this year when Portugal’s share
was 0.047% and value was $978 thousand (K). From 2013 to 2014,
some notable changes in this market were that the total market
declined 4% in a single year, and this resulted in each of the top
ten competitors except for Mexico losing market shares and values.
China lost $60M; India declined $2M, Other Asia by $8M, France by
$2M, Thailand by $13M, Indonesia by $8M, Italy by $6M, South Korea
by $3M, and Germany by $2M. These losses equate to $104M in a year
when the total market only declined by $80M, and other competitors
took advantage of the majority of the top ten’s decline.
Mexico increased its market by $6M or 20% of their 2013 total US

market value; Hong Kong gained a $5M market value or 45% of

• 37
their 2013 total. Most impressive was Portugal’s progress – $2M
overall – that was three times their 2013 market. While these gains
appear modest in the scope of a $2B market, increasing market
values and shares in a year where almost all of the top exporting
countries declined not only creates momentum around those
exporters, but it also demonstrates reliability and adaptability to
US importers, distributors, and retailers – priceless when seeking
to build relationships with new producers. As a buyer for a large
hotel and suites chain said: “We try to maintain good relationships
with a lot of vendors. We work with vendors that are the best in the
business for their particular area… When we bring in someone, we
want them to be a partner in every day.”16
In 2012, the iron housewares US import market showed greater

stability with a total value of $1.96B, and Figure 2.20 provides the
top US exporting countries market shares for this year. Portugal
held 0.04% of the US imported iron housewares market, which
earned it $791K. Some notable changes across this year were that
the total market increased $50M, which resulted in mixed gains
and losses among top competitors. China, India, France, and Italy
benefited from increased market shares and / or values; Portugal
grew its market by a quarter in a single year ($200K). Other Asia,
Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Korea experienced declines
in their market shares and / or values. Germany had one of the most
significant gains for this year, increasing its market by $4.5M or 45%
of their 2012 market. Canada had a polar experience, losing $7M or
almost half of its US market.
The 2011 market showed remarkable stability with a total value of

$1.85B, but Figure 2.21 reveals that top competitors experienced
market loses and gains on a much smaller scale when compared
to previous years. Most top exporting countries experienced gains
across this year, including China, India, Other Asia, Italy, South
Korea, and Thailand, which gained $2M in value while losing 0.1%
in share. France had fractional losses, and Indonesia, Mexico, and
Canada had more significant losses; however, these losses averaged
$1.7M between four exporting countries, compared to the average
$14.5M of losses between nine countries across 2013 and 2014.
Portugal saw slow and steady increases that culminated in large
gains from 2013 onwards. Again, it was a remarkably stable year for
the US imported iron housewares market.
The US imported iron housewares market has demonstrated

Inconsistencies in the most recent years, even for top exporting
countries where gains and losses typically reflect overall market
changes. With a $50M market decline from 2013 to 2014, top
exporting countries lost $104M – double the overall market
loss – and this is not typical. However, the base product in iron
housewares (iron ore) is a commodity, and this can explain
significant market value losses – even up to $103M – particularly if
currencies and other production-related commodities, such as oil,
fluctuate in the same year, compounding the effect of a decline in
iron ore commodity prices.

Table 2.2 aims to establish – in consideration of unpredictable
market features – whether this market is stable enough for SMEs
export development by examining net gains / losses over four years
of US iron housewares exports. Despite large scale losses across
all but one top US exporting country in 2013, almost all (past and
present) top US exporting countries have experienced net gains.
China’s staggering $100M value loss across 2011 and 2012 – while still
significant – appears less consequential upon examining Table 2.2.
Italy’s $0 net gain / loss result is particularly interesting but, at best,
unique to countries exporting similar volumes to Italy across these
four years.
Table 2.2 - Inconsistencies Among Top Ten US Iron Housewares

countries (and Portugal) (2011-2014)
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 Net Gains / Losses
China ↑ $100M ↑ $90M ↓ $60M ↑ $130M
India ↑ $12M ↑ $25M ↓ $2M ↑ $35M
Other Asia ↑ $4M ↑ $500K ↓ $3M ↑ $1.5M
France ↓ $.3M ↑ $6M ↓ $2M ↑ $3.7M
Thailand ↑ $2M ↓ $3M ↓ $12M ↓ $13M
Indonesia ↓ $2M ↓ $3M ↓ $8M ↓ $13M
Mexico ↑ $1M ↓ $2M ↑ $6M ↑ $5M
Canada ↓ $4M ↓ $7M ↓ $2M ↓ $13M
Italy ↑ $4M ↑ $2M ↓ $6M $0
South Korea ↑ $5M ↓ $300K ↓ $3M ↑ $1.7M
Germany ↑ $.5M ↑ $4.5M ↓ $2M ↑ $3M
Hong Kong ↑ $3M ↑ $300K ↑ $5M ↑ $8.3M
Portugal ↑ $17K ↑ $187K ↑ $2M ↑ $2.2M
Thailand and Indonesia both experienced $13M net losses; both

countries import approximately the same volume to the US; both
are in Southeast Asia, and neither have free trade agreements (FTAs)
or Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with the US, meaning their
iron houseware products receive no preferential tariff treatment.
Therefore, it could be expected that similar Southeast Asian countries

• 39
without FTAs or BITs with the US exporting similar volumes to the
US would experience net losses. On average, top US competitors
experienced a $12.4M net gain exporting iron housewares to the US
over four years, and top European competitors, including Portugal,
experienced an average net gain of $2.2M.
Table 2.3 takes the above analysis a step further to better advise
SMEs producing iron housewares on export development.
European countries without US FTAs or BITs that performed similar
to Portugal over these four years were identified – a difficult task
because of Portugal’s impressive gains over 2013 and because
the US has BITs with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia,
which were, at times, more similar competitors to Portugal than
those selected below. No European exporter without a BIT had a
similar growth rate to Portugal in the US iron housewares market,
and this makes uncovering Portugal’s most similar competitors
difficult. Despite these idiosyncrasies, generalizations can be made
about the nature of export development for SMEs from European
countries without BITs in the US iron housewares market.
Table 2.3 - Inconsistencies Among Portugal and Comparable

US Iron Housewares Exporting Countries (2011-2014)
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 Net Gain /

Losses
Portugal17 ↑ $17K ↑ $187K ↑ $2M ↑ $2.2M
Belgium-Luxemburg18 ↑ $470K ↑ $60K ↓ $280K ↓ $250K
Netherlands19 ↓ $37K ↑ $309K ↑ $492K ↑ $764K
Serbia20 ↑ $131K ↓ $121K ↓ $155K ↓ $145K
Spain21 ↓ $210K ↑ $150K ↓ $560K ↓ $620K
Switzerland22 ↓ $126K ↑ $526K ↓ $1.1M ↓ $730K
UK23 ↑ $2.2M ↓ $1.3M ↓ $340K ↑ $580K
17 Ranked 29th in 2011 and 2012, 30th for 2013, and 21st for 2014 as a US exporting country;
27th average four-year rank.
18 Ranked 18th in 2011, 2013, and 2014 and 15th in 2013 as a US exporting country; 17th
average four-year rank.
19 Ranked 36th in 2011, 40th in 2012, 32nd in 2013, and 30th in 2014 as a US exporting
country; 35th average four-year rank.
20 Ranked 32nd in 2011, 31st in 2012, 34th in 2013, and 36th in 2014 as a US exporting country;
33rd average four-year rank.
21 Ranked 19th in 2011 and 2013, 21st in 2012, and 24th in 2014 as a US exporting country; 21st
22 Ranked 26th in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and 35th in 2014 as a US exporting country; 28th
23 Ranked 23rd in 2011, 18th in 2012, 21st in 2013, and 22nd in 2014 as a US exporting country;
40 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE 21st average four-year rank.
Between Portugal and its most comparable US iron houseware
exporting countries, the average net change in this market is
positive, a $257K gain. Examining the footnotes from Table 2.3
demonstrates that some of these exporting countries are more
similar to Portugal in competitiveness, such as Serbia, Spain,
Switzerland, and the UK. The Netherlands may also be a good
comparison case for Portugal; it exported smaller volumes from 2011
to 2013, growing slowly, and doubled their market value in 2014.
While the Netherlands’ market value declined from 2011 to 2012, its
growth pace is more similar to Portugal.
Examining these five countries – the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain,

Switzerland, and the UK – that are most comparable to Portugal’s
performance in this US market, two of five (the Netherlands and UK)
experienced net gains. Serbia, Spain, and Switzerland experienced
net losses; this analysis would suggest more of Portugal’s most
similar competitors had negative experiences in the US iron
housewares market. However, the average net change among top
European countries exporting iron housewares to the US from
Table 2.2 was $2.2M. Analytically, Portugal’s US competitiveness is
somewhere between the European countries in Table 2.2 (France,
Italy, and Germany) and the five most similar European competitors
from Table 2.3 (the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and the
UK), likely closer aligned with those in Table 2.2.
This would suggest that this market is more stable than unstable
for Portuguese SMEs, as long as Portuguese exporters continue to
establish and grow in the US market. Additionally, from 2014 to
2015, the US imported housewares market grew by 11.6% (Comtrade
2016). Weighing these findings, the report argues that SMEs that
actively pursue export development in the US iron housewares
market will likely profit. The market is growing at an average
annual rate between 1.2% and 2.1% since 2011.24 SMEs can benefit
from the progress Portuguese producers – regardless of size – have
made in introducing Portuguese iron housewares to US suppliers
when marketing their own products, as it is clear Portuguese
iron housewares are increasingly competitive. However, Portugal
exported half the value of iron housewares in 2015 as it did in 2014
(Comtrade 2016).
This drop in export volume could reflect three key developments,

including: 1) Portuguese companies were affected by increasing iron
ore commodity, production, or import prices, 2) Portuguese iron
housewares’ competitiveness declined relative to other producers,
and / or 3) Portugal exported less in-demand iron houseware
product categories. Section 3 will investigate the first development;
Section 5 will explore the second and third. At this juncture, the
report finds that the majority of export decline occurred in the
stainless steel table / kitchen articles, which is the most in-demand
product category from this subsector in the US. Section 5 will
explore this further and highlight the importance of supplying
products that have a sufficient level of US import demand.
24 The first calculation of 1.2% represents Comtrade’s data for 2011-2105; the second
calculation represents OEC’s data for 2011-2014.

• 41
2.3e Knives
Knives is the last metal subsector analyzed in this section, and out
of almost 1220 global product subsectors, they are the 649th most
traded and 333rd most complex product (OEC 2014). The knives
subsector contains knives for mixed use, including the product
categories of:
»» Butcher’s knives
»» Hunting knives
»» Pocket/pen/folding knives
»» Knives as parts of cutlery sets
»» Knives for hand use.
Figure 2.22 shows the top ten US exporting countries’ 2014 market
share out of the $584M market, and Figure 2.23 gives exporting
countries’ market value, compared to Portugal’s 0.23% share.
Figure 2.22 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives to the US (2014)
◼ China
◼ Germany
◼ Japan
◼ Other Asia
◼ Switzerland
◼ Brazil
◼ Mexico
◼ Spain
◼ Thailand
◼ France
◼ Portugal
Figure 2.23 - US Knives Imports Market Value (Millions) By

Country (2014)
◼ China
◼ Germany
◼ Japan
◼ Other Asia
◼ Switzerland
◼ Brazil
◼ Mexico
◼ Spain
◼ Thailand
◼ France
◼ Portugal

In 2013, the US knives market was valued at $568M; overall, the
knives subsector is the second smallest assessed in this report.
Figure 2.24 provides the top US exporting countries’ market share
for this year when Portugal’s share was 0.18% and $1.04M. From 2013
to 2014, some notable changes in this market were that China’s
share increased 4% (almost $30M); Brazil’s value increased almost
$3.5M, and Mexico, Spain, Thailand, and Portugal made modest
gains. France outcompeted Hong Kong for the tenth position –
worth half a million dollars less in 2014 than 2013. Switzerland
gained a half of a million-dollar market value without losing or
gaining market shares, while Germany lost 2% of its share ($6M);
Japan lost a 1% share ($4.5M), and Other Asia almost lost 1% of its
market (almost $6M).
The 2012 US imported knives market dropped to $508M – the

lowest of all four years – and Figure 2.25 demonstrates how $60M
loss affected top US exporting countries. Despite the overall market
decline, Portugal fared better in 2012 than 2013, with a 0.27% market
share and $1.37M value. Other changes from 2012 to 2013 were that
China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain, and Thailand continued to
grow; only Other Asia and Switzerland experienced value and / or
share losses. Hong Kong and Brazil dropped from the top rankings,
outcompeted by France and Pakistan. Overall, a positive year for most
top exporting countries despite the market decline.
In 2011, the US imported knives market was valued at $511M; Figure

2.26 shows the top exporting countries’ market share, compared to
Portugal’s 0.23% share and $1.19M value – more similar to its 2014
performance than the previous year. Some notable changes across
2011 and 2012 were a fractional total market decline, gains for China,
Other Asia, Switzerland, and Pakistan, and losses for Germany,
Japan, and Thailand. Mexico remained stable but outcompeted
Spain, which lost $2.5M or 30% of its 2011 market. France was back
in the top ten after outcompeting Brazil.
The interesting element of the US imported knives market is its

stability; with almost constant growth since 2009, competitors
fight for top positions. Competition is dynamic, but the market
is stable overall, which is refreshing following the more complex
and problematic markets assessed previously in the section. China
continues to gain market share, and with 58% in 2014, Chinese
dominance of this market is likely inevitable. However, consistent
demand for knives from Germany, Switzerland, Spain, and France
indicates that there is a market for Portuguese SMEs in the US.
Table 2.4 details Portugal’s most similar competitors in the US

imported knives market; competitors were selected by analyzing
export performance and competitiveness from 2011 to 2014, and
all are significant US exporting countries (export volumes greater
than 0.1%). With the exception of Hong Kong in 2013 and Norway in
2012, all competitors remained within six positions from Portugal
(under and outcompeting Portugal) through all four years. Table 2.4
reveals that while ranking remains consistent and close between
these competitors, market value varies greatly, which makes
some competitors more of a threat and others less so. Calculating
exporting countries average annual growth rate helps clarify which

• 43
competitors are more of a threat to Portuguese competitiveness in
the US knives market.
Table 2.4 - Portugal’s Most Similar and Target Competitors in

the US Imported Knives Market (2011-2014)
2011 2012 2013 2014 Average

Value Value Value Value Annual Growth
Portugal $1.19M $1.37M $1.04M $1.32M +2.6%
Canada $1.77M $770K $1.72M $1.56M -3.1%
Estonia $1.53M $1.41M $1.52M $1.97M +6.5%
Hong Kong $1.49M $1.6M $6.06M $3.76M +26%
India $629K $792K $906K $876K +8.6%
Indonesia $2.05M $1.6M $2.02M $2.01M -0.5%
Norway $294K $299K $549K $726K +25%
South Africa $877K $688K $484K $894K +0.5%
For example, examining market values, Norway does not appear

much of a threat to Portuguese competitiveness, but their
average annual growth rate indicates the opposite. Norway’s
knives exports to the US have been steadily increasing, and by
2017, it could reach $1M in exports to the US market, making it
an immediate threat to Portugal. Whereas, Hong Kong has been
growing at almost the same rate as Norway with values that far
surpass Portugal; however, unlike Norway, Hong Kong’s growth
may not be sustainable. The almost $5M increase from 2012 to
2013 and subsequent $2.3M 2014 decline could provide evidence
of an unsustainable level of growth. Because Hong Kong’s 2014 US
imports were double that of Portugal, it is unlikely that Portugal
could outcompete Hong Kong in the next couple of years –
assuming market conditions remain stable.
Like Norway, India is a rising threat to Portugal, and it is likely

that they will also reach $1M in US knives exports – should market
conditions remain similar – between 2017 and 2018. South Africa’s
2014 market value was greater than India’s, but their performance
in this market remains unsteady, which makes them less of
a threat to Portuguese competitiveness. This leaves Canada,
Estonia, and Indonesia as Portugal’s most similar and immediate
competitors. Canada’s 2014 market value was highly similar to
Portugal’s, but its growth rate is negative, albeit barely so. Canada
has many advantages over Portugal in this market, including

proximity to the US and little to no tariffs due to its preferential
trading partner status through NAFTA. SMEs should consider
Canada one of Portugal’s top competitors, and one strategy in
developing relationships with US importers and retailers – where
quality, export volume, and consistency are essential – would be
to compare Portugal’s steady and positive US export figures to
Canada’s performance. This data-driven approach could give SMEs
the competitive edge they need over Canada in developing US
supplier relationships.
Both Estonia’s market values and growth rates surpass Portugal’s

in the US imported knives market. Its competitiveness is nearer
Indonesia’s than Portugal, but Indonesia’s average annual growth
is negative – discussed further below. Estonia has the competitive
advantages of lower production costs, rising industry, and a BIT
with the US. As part of becoming export ready for the US market,
SMEs should identify Estonian competitor businesses of similar
size and exporting similar knives product categories to the US.
Once identified, SMEs should explore the quality and price
competiveness of Estonian knives, as this provides a benchmark
for SMEs looking to enter the US market. As one trade association
executive highlighted: “you certainly have to be concerned with
price if you want to succeed on the US market.”25
Finally, Indonesia is a highly similar competitor to Portugal in

the US knives market, and Portugal has geographic advantages
over Indonesia. Indonesia is not party to any US FTAs or BITs.
Within the metals sector, knives were Indonesia’s 27th largest
subsector export to the US out of approximately 70 subsectors
in 2014. Comparatively, knives were Portugal’s 19th largest metal
subsector export to the US in the same year. Indonesia’s knives
exports are overwhelmingly in the table knives product category;
it exported $1.85M of table knives to the US in 2014. Contrast
this with Portugal, where Portugal’s knives exports to the US are
predominantly split between the butcher’s and hunting knives
product category – $799K in 2014 – and table knives – $455K in
2014. Therefore, for Portugal to become more competitive against
Indonesia in the US market, SMEs should target increased table
knives exports particularly. Absorbing a share of Indonesia’s market
in this product category – while also aiming to increase overall
knives subsector exports, including all knives product categories –
would have a considerable effect on Indonesia’s competitiveness.
This analysis of Portuguese competitiveness in the US knives

subsector has recommended product categories where SMEs
can become more competitive, strategies for improving US
marketing, sales, and business relationships, Portugal’s most
similar competitors, and top exporting countries, which Portugal
is not far from. These findings help SMEs understand how to
develop competitive advantages in the US market, which is key in
building US supplier relationships. A trade association executive
advised that: “differentiation or price competitiveness from a retail
standpoint is your base” when developing competitive advantages

• 45
for US suppliers; they also advised: “price is the one differentiator
you don’t want to rely on, because you’ll get driven down [on price
by retailers]”.26
While this may be accurate with the larger, chain stores, a smaller
retailer / e-commerce company countered: “We’re not going to say:
‘it has to be this price for us to buy it.’”27 SMEs are advised to fully
understand how to market their knives as competitive on the US
market – be that in quality, price, or with the most appropriate US
supplier for their level of flexibility and production quantity. Overall,
the US knives market is stable with steady, albeit low, levels of
growth that is highly recommended for SMEs export development.
2.3f Porcelain Tableware

The final and smallest US market assessed in this report, porcelain
tableware, is the only subsector within the stone and glass sector in
the report. The stone and glass sector is the sixth smallest US import
sector and tenth smallest Portuguese export sector out of 21 sectors.
Out of almost 1220 global product subsectors, porcelain tableware
is the 520th most traded and 760th most complex product (OEC
2014). The subsector includes, but is not limited to, fine china,
tableware, dinnerware, and plates. Figure 2.27 provides the top
ten US exporting countries’ market share for 2014, when the total
market value was $400M, the second lowest value since 2011. Figure
2.28 shows each top ten exporting countries’ market value.
Figure 2.27 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Porcelain Tableware

to the US (2014)
◼ China
◼ Indonesia
◼ UK
◼ Germany
◼ Thailand
◼ France
◼ Bangladesh
◼ Sri Lanka
◼ Japan
◼ Portugal

Figure 2.28 - US Porcelain Tableware Imports Market Value
◼ China
◼ Indonesia
◼ UK
◼ Germany
◼ Thailand
◼ France
◼ Bangladesh
◼ Sri Lanka
◼ Japan
◼ Portugal
In 2013, the US imported porcelain tableware market reached

$446M, the highest value for all four years, and Figure 2.29 shows the
top exporting countries US market shares for this year. Portugal’s
share remained steady, and its value – mirroring the US import
market – reached its four-year high ($5.59M) this year. Portugal was
able to constrain its market value loss between 2013 and 2014 to
half a million, despite the market’s $50M overall loss. Other notable
changes from 2013 to 2014 were that China suffered a substantial
loss (4% market share, almost $40M) that appeared to benefit
Indonesia, which gained a 3% market share and $7.5M. Thailand
and Bangladesh also suffered losses. Despite Bangladesh’s $1M loss,
it outcompeted Japan and Sri Lanka, which both lost between $3M
and $4M in this year. France made fractional gains, and the UK and
Germany both maintained their market values despite losing $2.6M
and $1.5M, respectively. Despite their combined $4M loss, the UK
and Germany outcompeted Thailand, which lost $7M that year.
The 2012 US imported knives market was valued at $414M, and

Figure 2.30 highlights the top ten US exporting countries’ market
share for the year. In 2012, Portugal was not a top exporting country,
as it was in 2013 and 2014. It held 0.91% of the US market, a value
of $3.76M. From 2012 to 2013, Turkey held the tenth position, as
they did in 2011. Other changes across this year were that China
increased its market share 10%, claiming half the market, and
Indonesia lost 2% of their market share and $3M in value, while
France lost only a fraction of both. Japan also suffered losses
amounting to $1.5M, which appeared to have directly benefited Sri
Lanka. Bangladesh also gained market value but slightly less than
Sri Lanka. Thailand outcompeted the UK, Germany, and France in
a single year, shifting from 6th to 3rd, which not a sustainable level
of growth. The UK declined slightly, and Germany increased more
substantially in its close competition with the UK.
In 2011, the total US imported porcelain tableware market was worth

$391M. Figure 2.31 shows the top US exporting countries’ market
share in this year when Portugal had 0.78% of the market or $3.04M.
The total market increased $23M from 2011 to 2012. Other notable

• 47
changes were that China lost 7% of its market share or almost $20M,
and this caused China to lose the majority control of this market.
The UK outcompeted Germany, and France and Thailand increased
in competitiveness. Japan lost $3M, Turkey lost half that, and
Bangladesh also suffered some loss. Both Indonesia and Sri Lanka
maintained their market shares while increasing their values.
Taking a macro view of the US imported porcelain tableware

market, there was considerable stability in this market, growing
steadily, until 2014 when it declined $46M or 10% of its 2013 total
value. This market experienced a similar downturn in 2009, when
it declined $88M or 22% of its 2008 total, which was a further $13M
or 3% less of its 2007 total. In 2015, the US imported porcelain
tableware market increased a staggering 12%, putting it just above
its 2013 total (Comtrade 2016).
Portuguese exports to the US also continued to grow, but the

sustainability of it and the US market’s overall growth are key
questions for SMEs. Another major market force for SMEs to
consider is Chinese majority and Asian dominance in this market.
Of the top ten 2014 US exporting countries, two have BITs with
the US (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka); four, including Portugal, are
European. SMEs will have difficulty outcompeting those with BITs,
and the European competitors (the UK, Germany, and France)
export approximately four times the volume of porcelain tableware
as Portugal.
This leaves Japan as Portugal’s most similar competitor, as it

continues to grow in the US porcelain tableware market. Japan
exported $1M more porcelain tableware products than Portugal
in 2014. However, Japan has lost half of its US market share from
2011 to 2014, and its rate of decline is 19%. Therefore, Portugal may
outcompete Japan by the end of 2016. This would put Sri Lanka and
Bangladesh as the countries to outcompete for Portugal to increase
its competitiveness. Recalling that Sri Lanka and Bangladesh 1) both
have BITs with the US, 2) both have negative average annual growth
rates in the US porcelain tableware market – Sri Lanka of -1% and
Bangladesh of -0.4%, and 3) Portugal is growing at a rate of 16%
in this market Portugal will grow by $900K annually, Sri Lanka to
shrink $67K annually, and Bangladesh to decline by $30K a year.
It will be a few years until Portugal outcompetes Bangladesh

and Sri Lanka, but outcompeting Japan is within Portugal’s
immediate reach within the US porcelain tableware market. If
US market conditions remain constant, Portugal is positioned to
move from the tenth-most competitive US porcelain tableware
exporting country to seventh. Maintaining or fractionally increasing
its US exports are all that are required. By 2020, SMEs’ export
development could contribute to a massive improvement in
Portuguese porcelain tableware export competitiveness, which is an
exciting opportunity. Section 3 will present other market strategies
and competitiveness factors for SMEs to consider; Section 5 will
advise on what product categories are most in demand on the US
market, but there are very positive opportunities for SMEs to grow
in this market. With goodwill towards “Made In Portugal” branded
tableware already present on the US market, challenges for SMEs in

this market center on building relationships with US suppliers and
marketing their competitive advantage(s).
2.4 Conclusion
This analysis of US import competition has yielded important

findings, and in many ways forms the core of the report by helping
Portuguese SMEs understand their competition and providing
recommendations for enhancing export development strategy in
the selected subsectors. This section will summarize the findings
and reflect on the top US home décor exporting countries and
Portugal’s most similar US market competitors.
The report finds overall growth across all subsectors, though

commodity-based markets are subject to global price volatility.
Prospects for Portuguese export development appear strongest in
the knives and porcelain tableware subsectors. Within bedspreads,
Portugal was the largest European exporter of bedspreads to the
US and in 2013, gained a position in the top five exporting countries
where it has remained. However, Portugal’s exports to the US are
declining at an average annual rate of 1.3%. For Portugal to maintain
its competitive edge, strategies must focus on honing in on product
and service differentials or competitive advantages, export volume
consistency, and supplier relationships. The 2008 financial crisis had
a profound effect on Portuguese bedspreads exports, but Nicaragua
and Pakistan – Portugal’s closest bedspread competitors – are also
experiencing negative US export growth rates.
Primarily, it will be difficult for SMEs to compete with Portuguese

companies that are established and well connected within the US
market, but they can build off of their success. The analysis advised
SMEs to know their target market, as one US state often has a
GDP comparable with major European nations. One strategy. for
identifying a target market would be to target US states/regions
where there is job growth, such as California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada,
Colorado, North Dakota, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York. Once a target market
has been identified, SMEs should differentiate their products from
those already on the market or offer US suppliers improved value
on similar products – whether this is in specialty products, service,
smaller minimum quantities, faster delivery times, and / or price.
Leveraging these competitive advantages will depend highly on

SMEs’ ability to form and maintain relationships with US suppliers.
Section 2.3a advised tailored cost-benefit analyses to determine the
extent of resources SMEs should allocate to develop and maintain
US supplier relationships, and the report would further recommend
that SMEs encourage the Portuguese and European government to
invest in export development in various subsectors. However, SME’s
can be competitive in any product category if they can determine a
positive cost-benefit analysis.
In the US imported house linens market – another textiles subsector

– the analysis found similarities with the bedspreads market,
such as top competitors, Asian market dominance, peak market

• 49
values, and growth rates. The assessment advised that SMEs are
likely to encounter similar challenges and risks, as such. The key
differences between the house linens and bedspreads market
is that house linens is not (yet) dominated by China, and the US
house linens import market is 30 times the size of bedspreads.
The report recommended SME export investment in the house
linens market over bedspreads if SMEs cannot discern competitive
advantages in the US bedspreads market, which could range from
price competitiveness, high English language proficiency, to a mere
five-hour time difference with the US, that there are more frequent
positive opportunities for export development, growth, and
competitiveness in the US house linens market, particularly if TTIP
continues along currently negotiated lines (CEPR 2014).
Next, the US imported window dressings market also shows similar

features of the other textiles subsector markets (bedspreads and
house linens), but Portugal’s competitiveness has been weaker
in this market. With a high growth rate between 2014 and 2015,
Portugal has opportunity to increase its competitiveness from
its average rank as 15th from 2011 to 2014; however, the window
dressings market has been historically inconsistent. As the
second-most lucrative of the three textiles subsectors, the report
highlighted varied market forces that shape the US window
dressings market – ranging from supply chains to international
disputes – to help SMEs assess an appropriate level of investment
in export development for this market. Cost-benefit analyses were
again recommended, and the coming sections of the report focus
on strategies for SMEs looking to enter rapidly growing markets.
The first subsector in the metals sector, iron housewares, was

particularly problematic market to assess. Unstable in recent years,
the analysis examined average net gains and losses to determine
that though the US iron housewares market can be volatile due to its
commodity relationship, this market is most stable for top exporting
countries, Portugal, and European exporters similar to Portugal
(Serbia, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK). Somewhat
like window dressings, the report found that SMEs will likely profit
from investing in this US market, which has been growing at an
average annual rate between 1.2% and 2.1% since 2011.
SMEs were advised to utilize progress other Portuguese companies

have made when marketing their products to US suppliers.
However, currency and commodity fluctuations can and have
affected the US iron housewares market, and Portugal’s recent
inconsistencies in export volume could be cause for sustainability
concerns. It could also be the case that other exporting countries
have increased their competitive advantages over Portuguese
products. As with the other subsectors, the coming sections will
continue to explore opportunities for SMEs to be competitive on the
US iron housewares market.
The other metals subsector, knives, was remarkable stable by

comparison, and Portugal continues to be a significant US exporting
country. While China holds the majority of this market and will likely
achieve dominance, opportunities remain for SMEs. By examining
Portugal’s most similar competitors in the US imported knives

market, the report found that Norway, India, Canada, Estonia, and
Indonesia are Portugal’s most significant and fiercest competitors.
After analyzing competitors’ performance, SMEs were advised to:
»» Leverage Portuguese export growth, volume, and consistency

against Canada’s unsteady performance when pitching products
to US suppliers;
»» Determine their competitive advantage against Estonia and build
marketing campaigns based on a product or service differential,
endeavoring to keep pace with Estonian export volume to the US;
and
»» Become more competitive in the table knives product category to
outcompete and outsell Indonesia in the US market.
Finally, the only stone and glass subsector – porcelain tableware

– was examined, which also has considerable stability compared
to other home décor subsectors. It will be essential for SMEs to
monitor overall US porcelain tableware imports once 2016 figures
become available to determine whether the high levels of export
growth present in 2015 are sustained. Other major market factors for
SMEs to consider are Chinese majority and Asian dominance in this
market, and it appears that BITs play a key role in competitiveness
in the US porcelain tableware market. Though BITs play a role, the
report found that Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, in addition to Japan –
which does not have a BIT with US but was outcompeting Portugal
– are declining in this market. By or prior to 2020, Portugal could
move from the tenth largest US exporting country of porcelain
tableware to the seventh largest. Portugal must merely maintain
or fractionally grow its US exports, and this presents exciting
opportunities for SMEs.
Having analyzed the internal, US import market competition,

the report now narrows its focus on the recommendations by
examining SMEs external competition, globally and within Europe,
within these subsectors. Combining US export development
strategies with development and / or growth in other foreign
market allows SMEs to compound successes experienced in varied
markets while improving overall competitiveness in the home décor
industry – the goals of Next Challenge USA and Compete 2020. The
next section is organized similarly, with an introduction, analysis
of the top global and European competitors, and examination of
Portugal’s top subsector exports.

• 51
Section 3:
External Competition
3.1 Introduction
The US market is the largest single-country import destination

for global goods and services, and it is highly competitive. For
Portuguese SMEs in the home décor industry to develop long-
term, sustainable export development and growth strategies, a
full picture of market competition is essential. Competition and
demand are the cornerstones of export strategy, which makes
knowledge of external competition fundamental. This section aims
to enhance Portuguese SMEs’ understanding of how competitive
the US home décor market is through a snapshot of external
market competition for subsector products.
Portuguese SMEs face exorbitant competition globally, but the

analyses from Section 2 revealed that the following are Portugal’s
top competitors in home décor: Canada, France, Italy, Indonesia,
Germany, Bangladesh, and Japan. Because they are distributed
throughout the world and concentrated in Europe, Section 3
will assess Portuguese competitiveness in global and European
contexts. The objective of the report is to help Portuguese SMEs
develop sustainable export strategies by recovering pre-2008 export
volume. This section discusses the countries that compete in the
global home décor industry for access and dominance of the US
market. A frequency analysis identifies Portugal’s most significant
global and European competitors. A close-up of this distribution is
examined by looking at each subsector covered in the report, first
globally and then within Europe.
3.2 Top Sector Competitors
This section analyzes the largest global and European home

décor exporters within the subsectors examined in this report –
bedspreads, house linens, window dressings, iron housewares,
knives, and porcelain tableware. It examines the general state of
global home décor competition and isolates Portugal’s European
competitors to give Portuguese SMEs a better idea of how to
improve competitiveness globally and within the common
(European) market in these six subsectors. Global competitors
are analyzed first and then European competitors follow; to
accommodate for this division, 2014 global market values are given
for all competitors. This allows for comparison across exporting
countries. Through a frequency analysis, these six exporters
represent the strongest competitors on the global market from 2011
to 2014 in these subsectors, with all European competitors removed:
1. China ($78.92B)
2. India ($13.86)

• 53
3. Pakistan ($12.47B)
4. Turkey ($8.01B)
5. US ($2.11B)
6. Thailand ($1.55B).
Portugal’s total global exports were $2.88B, higher than global

home décor exports from the US.
It is of little surprise that China, the world’s second largest economy,

is at the top. Generally, China exports mass volumes of home décor
products to the US, the world’s largest global economy and largest
importer of these products. More specifically, China is the largest
global exporter of bedspreads, a product for which the United States
is the largest importer. The other five top global home décor exporting
countries’ values combined are less than half of China’s global exports
in these subsectors – a strong indication of China’s dominance. The
majority of the top global competitors are Asian countries, and
this could be a result of the low production costs in each of these
markets. Comparatively lower overhead (land, facility maintenance,
industrial materials) and labor costs compared to European and North
American competitors underlies China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and
Thailand’s price competitiveness. One buyer interviewed reflected on
the challenge of buying quality products produced with ethical labor
standards. “For 99% of these cases [where we buy from China, India,
and Pakistan] it is that we can’t find anyone in the US who can do it
in the volume we need or do it period or at a price point competitive
with the overseas manufacturers.”28
Shifting to the largest European global home décor exporters, the

report finds that across the six home décor subsectors from 2011 to
2014 the top competitors were:
1. Germany ($8.23B)
2. France ($3.1B)
3. Netherlands ($2.23B)
4. Italy ($3.26B)
5. Poland ($2.01B).
As a reminder, Portugal’s total global exports were $2.88B – putting

it between France and the Netherlands in terms of global export
value. If European competitors were to be integrated into the global
competitors’ rank (in these six subsectors), a different picture emerges.
1. China ($78.92B)
2. India ($13.86B)
4. Germany ($8.23B)
5. Turkey ($8.01B)

6. Italy ($3.26B)
7. France ($3.1B)
8. Netherlands ($2.23B)
9. US ($2.11B)
10. Poland ($2.01B)
11. Thailand ($1.55B).
Portugal’s global exports of these products amounts to $2.88B. It

does not appear on the combined list here because its frequency
in being a top global exporter was lower than the countries listed.
However, the value Portugal extracts from its global home décor
exports places it between its two European competitors – France
and the Netherlands – in the overall global ranking. Interestingly,
Portugal’s global export volume is almost 90% more than that of its
neighbor, Spain. Spain is also absent from the list due to the lower
number of times it appeared as a top global or European home
décor exporting country.
Examining Portugal’s global home décor subsector

competitiveness, it was a top global exporter (with Europe isolated)
once across the six subsectors (house linens) within four years
(2011-2014). It was the top European house linens exporter in 2013,
coming in second to Germany in 2011, 2012, and 2014. There were
three global and two European countries with similar frequencies
to Portugal:
2. Thailand ($1.55B)
3. US ($2.11B)
4. Czech Republic ($1.28B)
5. Spain ($1.52B).
Pakistan, the similar exporter with the highest value on the above list,
was only a top global exporter in two subsectors: house linens and
window dressings. The Czech Republic had an export value that was
a fraction of Pakistan’s, and it was also a top exporting country in two
subsectors: window dressings and porcelain tableware. The other
country with a comparatively lower global export value, Spain, was a
top exporter three times (bedspreads, iron housewares, and knives),
but Spain’s top ranking was not consistent from year to year, which
negatively affected its competitiveness. The next section examines
top global and European exporting countries’ performance in specific
subsectors to better understand the interacting processes and events
that shape external export competition.
3.3 Global Competitors
Detailing the top five global competitors in a subsector provides

insight about market dynamics that influence external export
competition, which, in turn, shapes internal US competition. The US
is often a top exporter within some of these subsectors on the global

• 55
market. This is referred to as a dialectical, where several concurrent
processes or events influence outcomes that produce differing effects
for competitors. For example, commodity prices, trade policy, import
/ export quotas, and countries’ trade surpluses / deficits, banned
products, embargos, and anti-dumping and countervailing duties
for one exporter has an impact on markets all over the world. For
example, the US’ trade deficit with China is an influencing factor that
shapes global interactions that influence competition. Before this
analysis begins, it is important to reiterate that European competitors
are analyzed separately under Section 3.4. The report argues that is
essential that SMEs understand the complex formulas that shape US,
global, and European competition.
3.3a Bedspreads
In 2014, the global market for bedspreads was valued at $3.75B.
The global market value grew at an average rate of 2.1% per year
from 2011 to 2014, with a temporary slip from $3.45B to $3.25B
from 2011 to 2012. Unlike the US market, the global bedspreads
market did not peak in 2013. Unsurprisingly, Asia held the majority
(69%) of the global export market for bedspreads. The top five
non-European global exporter of bedspreads in 2014 were China
(market share: 51%, market value: $1.55B), India (market share: 16%,
market value: $589M), Morocco (market share: 3.5%, market value:
$130M), Turkey (market share: 3.4%, market value: $127M), and
Vietnam (market share: 2.8%, market value: $105M).
In 2014, Portugal held 1.6% (market value: $61.6M) of the global

bedspreads market, a 5.9% decline from its 2011 value, similar to
its US market that is declining at an average annual rate of 7.3%.
This subsector is not a significant contributor to Portugal’s GDP
(less than 0.0%). Portugal has a larger share of the US market than
it does the global market, and it often outcompetes countries in
the US market that it is less competitive against globally, such as
Turkey. There are also some countries, such as Mexico, that enjoy
a large share of the US bedspread market but a smaller share of
the global market than Portugal. This demonstrates how a variety
of factors, such as NAFTA or proximity, can impact countries’
performances in different markets. If SMEs can determine their
competitive advantage(s) with countries like Mexico globally,
perhaps they can leverage that knowledge to increase their US
market share further.
China, the largest global competitor in the bedspreads subsector

has had inconsistent market shares, despite maintaining its top
exporter status. China has more than twice the market share of
the next largest exporter, India, but India has grown at an average
annual rate of almost 10% from 2011 to 2014. Morocco has also
nearly doubled its market share from 2011 to 2014, displacing
Turkey as the third largest exporter in 2014.
3.3b House Linens

In 2014, the global market for house linens was $19.4B, the largest
of all six home décor subsectors. The market saw a temporary
$1.7B decline in 2012 but recovered quickly and saw 7.8% growth

from 2013 to 2014, unlike the US market that peaked in 2011. Asia
possesses more of this global market compared to bedspreads; in
2014, Asia held 79%, followed by Europe with 17% and Africa with
just 1.9%. The top five non-European global exporters of house
linens in 2014 were China (market share: 37%, market value $7.07B),
Pakistan (market share: 17%, market value $3.23B), India (market
share: 11%, market value $2.36B), Turkey (market share: 7.8%, market
value $1.5B), and Bangladesh (market share: 3.1%, market value
$603M). In terms of ranking, the top non-European competitors
did not change from 2011 to 2014. This demonstrates how static the
upper echelon of the global house linens market is. House linens is
a valuable market, the largest in this report.
In 2014, Portugal held 3% (market value: $576M) of the global house

linens market. Although this is a 0.2% decrease from its 2013 market
share, Portugal has seen an overall average growth rate of 1.7% from
2011 to 2014 – slow but steady – which is almost on par with its 1.9%
average annual US market growth rate. This product category is a
significant contributor to Portugal’s GDP (greater than 0.0%). Unlike
bedspreads, Portugal holds a greater global market share than US
market share at just 1.7%, but it remains the fifth largest exporter to
the US market. In the US market, Portugal recently outcompeted
Bangladesh, a country that consistently outcompetes Portugal in
the global market. This is an excellent finding for SMEs looking to
develop exports for the US market, and they should build on this
competitiveness when building relationships with US suppliers.
If SMEs can determine their competitive advantage(s) over

Bangladesh in the US market, perhaps they can apply that to their
global competitiveness, additionally, and outcompete Bangladesh
on a wider scale. Even an incremental increase in this global export
market could be extremely beneficial for Portugal’s competitiveness
both globally and within the US. Enhanced competitiveness will
also give them more competency as Portugal aims to outcompete
Turkey, the next largest US exporter.

In 2014, the global market for window dressings was $4.63B. The
market value fell by $29M from 2011 to 2012 but recovered by 2013,
coinciding with fluctuations in the US window dressings market.
Overall, the global window dressings market had an average annual
growth rate of 1.6% from 2011 to 2014, another slow but steadily
growing market. The top five non-European global exporters of
window dressings in 2014 were China (market share: 50%, market
value $2.32B), Vietnam (market share: 3.9%, market value $182M),
Mexico (market share: 3.8%, market value $178M), India (market
share: 3.8%, market value $177M), and Pakistan (market share: 3.7%,
market value $170M).
Similar to the other subsectors analyzed in this section, the global

window dressings export market is largely dominated by Asian
countries (70%). However, this export market is unique in that
Mexico is highly competitive – third largest non-European global
exporter in 2014 – on the global market, which is typically not the
case. In the US market, Mexico is the second largest exporter after

• 57
China, and it could be beneficial for Portugal to see how Mexico
translates its success in the US to the global market and vice versa.
This market is also somewhat more dynamic than other markets in

terms of competition. China commands the market with half the
market share, and a significant value gap (over $2B) exists between
China and the next largest non-European competitor, Vietnam
with 3.9% market share. India, the second largest exporter until
2013, had been losing market share since 2011; this resulted in India
being outcompeted by Vietnam in 2013 and Mexico in 2014. By 2014,
India had fallen to the fourth largest non-European global exporter
ranking. Both Vietnam and Mexico have seen large market share
increases in recent years.
Portugal held 0.4% (market value: $20M) of the global window

dressings export market in 2014. Although its market shares
declined from 2011 to 2014 (from 0.52% to 0.43%), there was
some improvement in 2013, suggesting that focused strategies for
enhanced global, European, and US market competitiveness can
supplement recent decline. While China maintains steady control
over the global and US window dressings market, fluctuations in
the rankings and rapid rise of competitors like Mexico indicate
promising opportunities for Portugal to become more competitive
on varied markets.

In 2014, the global market for iron housewares was valued at $10.9B
– the second largest global home décor market in the report. It grew
steadily at an average annual rate of 2.8% from 2011 to 2014 – one of
the highest growth rates so far. This global export market was also
held mainly by Asian countries with 75% market share, followed by
Europe with 22% and North America with 2.3%. China, specifically,
occupies the majority of the global window dressings export market
(59%), but it holds a greater majority of the US window dressings
market (74% in 2014).
The top five non-European global exporters of iron housewares in

2014 were China (market share: 59%, market value: $6.5B), India
(market share: 6%, market value: $657M), Turkey (market share: 2.7%,
market value: $291M), the US (market share: 1.8%, market value:
$192M), and Thailand (market share: 1.5%, market value: $168M).
Although these rankings remained constant from 2013 to 2014,
there had been some competition changes. For example, Other
Asia was the fifth largest non-European global iron housewares
exporter until the US increased its market share by 64.2% in 2012,
outcompeting Other Asia and, temporarily, Turkey.
Portugal held 0.4% of the global iron housewares export in 2014

(market value: $42.4M), compared to 0.2% of the US market. On the
global market, Portugal has an average annual growth rate of 1.5%;
on the US market, Portugal has an average annual growth rate of
25%. If Portugal can apply its incredibly successful market access
and growth strategies from the US market and apply them to the
global market, this will increase competitiveness overall. An overall
increase in competitiveness has an effect on product and origin

reputation, which has an effect on consumer preference, supplier
relations, and, perhaps, product price. However, it is noted that in
commodity markets, such as iron housewares and knives (below),
iron ore commodity prices can affect exports. In Section 2.3d, the
report uncovered that Portuguese iron housewares exports to
the US from 2014 to 2015 declined by 25%. On the global market,
Portuguese iron housewares exports declined 25%, and as such,
it appears that increased iron ore commodity prices could have
affected Portuguese exports in the most recent year.
3.3e Knives
In 2014, the global market value for knives was $2.65B, the smallest
of all six subsectors considered in this report. The global market
value had an average growth rate of 4.1% from 2011 to 2014, and
more than other subsectors, the global knives market features
stronger market diversity. In 2014, Asia held 62% of the market share
– less than its majority in the other subsectors – this was also the
only subsector where a South American country (Brazil) appeared
in the top five. The top five non-European global exporters of knives
in 2014 were China (market share: 50%, market value: $1.32B), Japan
(market share: 5.5%, market value: $145M), Other Asia (market share:
2.7%, market value: $70.7M), the US (market share: 2.6%, market
value: $67.7M), and Brazil (market share: 2.1%, market value: $55.6M).
This is another global market where the gap in market share

between China and the next largest non-European competitor is
significant. China occupies more than nine times the market share
compared to Japan, which could be linked to China’s lucrative
iron / steel subsides. From 2011 to 2014, China’s market share has
continued to increase, while Japan and Other Asia have declined.
However, in the middle to lower ends of the global market
competition – where Portugal appears – gaps between exporting
countries are narrower, and a slight increase in market share
improves competitiveness.
Portugal held 0.7% market share (market value: $17.9M) in 2014,

but its market share declined at an average annual rate of 3.4%
from 2011 to 2014. The global market and US market share many of
the same top competitors, such as China, Japan, and Other Asia.
Becoming more competitive in the US market will help Portugal
become more competitive in the global market and vice versa
through the product and price competitiveness, product and origin
recognition, wider market experience, and increased competencies.
Portuguese SMEs should identify US (and global) partners with an
appropriate expectation for Portuguese export volume to ensure
consistency through the next few years of export development.

In 2014, the global market value for porcelain tableware was $4.63B,
and the global market value grew at an average rate of 3.8% from
2011 to 2014. The total global market declined in 2012 and 2013,
but recuperated all losses in 2014, when its market value increased
by 21.2% from 2013. As with all other markets in this section Asian
countries dominate the global export market, and China has a

• 59
significantly larger market than other top exporting countries. In 2014,
Asia held 72% of the global market share while Europe held 26%.
The top five non-European global exporters of porcelain tableware

in 2014 were China (market share: 59%, market value $2.72B),
Indonesia (market share: 2.7%, market value $125M), Thailand
(market share: 2.7%, market value $124M), Turkey (market share:
1.5%, market value $69.8M), and Bangladesh (market share: 1.2%,
market value $55.4M). China has been gaining market share and
further securing its supremacy in the global market. Despite a
temporary slip in market share in 2013, China has seen an average
2.7% growth rate from 2011 to 2014.
In 2014, Portugal held 1.4% (market value: $65.4M) of the global

porcelain tableware market. While this subsector is not a significant
contributor to Portugal’s GDP (less than 0.0%), Portugal has
improved its market share, and it is, currently, more competitive on
the global market than Bangladesh, which is also Portugal’s key US
competitor. In the US market, Bangladesh outcompetes Portugal by
a 0.4% greater market share, but Bangladesh also has the benefit of
a BIT, which provides it access to the US market with lower / fewer
tariffs. On the global market, Portugal outcompeted Bangladesh in
2014 when Bangladesh lost a mere 0.2% of its market share.
This finding indicates that Bangladesh is more competitive in the

US, likely due to the BIT, and this supports a strategy recommended
in Section 2 about building in the cost of tariffs after SMEs become
more competitive in the US market after one to two years with the
benefit of brand and product quality recognition. It also supports
the report’s findings that price competitiveness is key in certain US
home décor markets where SMEs do not have the benefit of brand
/ product / country of origin recognition. Finally, SMEs should aim
to identify their competitive advantage(s) over Bangladesh in the
global context and leverage this in strategies for US and global
market access and growth.
3.4 European Competitors
This section focuses exclusively on Portugal’s European competitors’

performance within the global home décor market. Examining
Portugal’s European competitors allows the report to better assess
how Portugal can improve competition within the common market.
Again, there are dialectical factors at work in this assessment that
impact Portugal’s competitiveness within the US market. For example,
Portugal’s post-2008 recovery aid from the EU and IMF influences its
competitiveness, and assistance is ending (European Commission
2016). Portuguese businesses will be expected to drive export
growth with less input from Brussels, the IMF, and the Portuguese
government, and the effect of this process has yet to be determined.
While this may put Portugal at a temporary disadvantage with

some European competitors, such as Italy, France, and the
Netherlands, Portugal continues to have a plethora of advantages
over other European competitors. Greece is still in crisis;
Moldova requires enhanced export infrastructure, and Estonia is

comparatively further from France than Portugal. From speaking
to a trade association executive, the report parties learned that
European home décor producers are increasingly looking to the
US market for export development and growth. “We entertain 25 to
50 new exhibitors from European countries alone every year. The
European markets have stagnated, and what’s going on with Brexit
has created an unstable situation. I suspect the smart business
owners look to the US to expand their market.”29 Dialectical factors
remain in play, but this section provides intimate detail that further
illuminates export development and growth opportunities for
Portuguese SMEs in the home décor industry.
3.4a Bedspreads
In 2014, the European share of the global bedspreads market
($3.75B) was $748M or 20%. This decreased in both 2012 and 2013,
but its 2014 value was its highest since 2011. The top five European
exporters of bedspreads in 2014 were Germany (European market
share: 14%, global market value: $103M), Portugal (European market
share: 8.2%, global market value: $61.6M), Slovenia (European
market share: 8%, global market value: $59.9M), Poland (European
market share: 7.1%, global market value: $53.1M), and Spain
(European market share: 6.7%, global market value: $50M).
From year to year, competitiveness in the global bedspreads

market changes dynamically. For example, in 2012, Slovenia
outcompeted Germany for the top European exporting country
position before losing 6% of its market share in 2013 and becoming
the third largest, behind Portugal in 2014. Portugal’s market share
as also fluctuated but from 2011 to 2014, steadily risen from fourth
largest to second. Its market share peaked in 2013 with 8.8%.
Interestingly, Portugal’s European competitors on the US market
are dissimilar from those on the global market. In fact, Portugal
is the top European competitor in the US bedspreads market. It
could be beneficial if SMEs could gather intelligence on Portuguese
producers exporting to the US presently – not only for SMEs’ export
development but to improve Portuguese global competitiveness
with other European global exporters like Germany.
3.4b House Linens

In 2014, the European share of the global house linens market
($19.4B) was $3.24B. Europe held 17% of the global market, and
within the six home décor subsectors, this is Europe’s smallest
global market. The European global export market saw losses in
2012 and 2013 before rebounded to its 2011 value of $3.24B in 2014.
The top five 2014 European house linens exporters were Germany
(European market share: 18%, global market value: $584M), Portugal
(European market share: 18%, global market value: $576M), Italy
(European market share: 7.3%, global market value: $236M), the
Netherlands (European market share: 7%, global market value:
$226M), and Poland (European market share: 6.2%, global market
value: $202M).

• 61
House linens and bedspreads are two subsectors where Portugal
is in the top five European countries exporting globally. In house
linens subsector, Portugal and Germany are in fierce competition.
Since 2011, Portugal has been steadily increasing its market share,
and a small increase can shape competitiveness. This was the
case in 2013, when Portugal had a 2% greater market share than
Germany before being narrowly outcompeted in 2014.
Also similar to bedspreads, Portugal is the top European exporter to

the US house linens market, and Germany is not close to Portugal
in terms of US market competitiveness. Portugal’s success in certain
US markets compared to global markets might be due to a range
of factors. For example, Portugal’s 2014 house linens exports to the
US were 14% of its total global house linens exports, as opposed to
Germany, which exported 0.73% of its house linens to the US in the
same year. Because the US is the largest importer of house linens
(market value: $4.66B), Portugal’s relationship with the American
market is an important factor in its global competitiveness. Again,
similar to bedspreads, there are advantages Portuguese SMEs can
reap advantages from success on both the US and global market
when building relationships with US suppliers.

In 2014, Europe held 22% of the $4.63B global window dressings
market for a $1.01B market value. The top five European exporters
of window dressings were Germany (European market share: 24%,
global market value: $244M), Poland (European market share:
15%, global market value: $154M), the Czech Republic (European
market share: 7.3%, global market value: $73.2M), the Netherlands
(European market share: 6.9%, global market value: $69.7M), and
France (European market share: 6%, global market value: $60.2M).
The European market lost $93M in value in 2012. By 2014, market

values had not yet returned to their 2011 pre-decline level. There
were significant competitiveness changes in this four-year period.
For example, between 2011 and 2014, Germany and Poland have
been fiercely competitive, and Poland’s increased competitiveness
has narrowed the gap between these two competitors from 13%
in 2011 to 9% in 2014. In another example, the Netherlands and
Denmark significantly increased their markets in 2013, which made
the Czech Republic less competitive. In 2014, the Czech Republic
regained its third place ranking, and Denmark dropped from the
top five European exporters entirely. Portugal remains a modest
competitor in terms of European window dressings exports.
However, the year-to-year variability of European competitors’
market shares presents opportunities to improve Portuguese
competitiveness and market share.
Portugal’s share of the 2014 European market was 2%, and its global
value was $20M. This is most similar to Spain (European market
share: 3.3%, global market value: $33.4M), Sweden (European market
share: 1.9%, global market value: $18.9M), and Belgium-Luxembourg
(European market share: 1.8%, global market value: $17.9). Portugal
is much more competitive in the US market, and its similar
competitors differ. In the US market, Portugal’s main European

competitors are the UK, Denmark, and France. There are a variety
of factors that make certain countries more competitive in the US
than on the global market, including production costs and product
marketing. Section 5 will explore further if Portugal is exporting the
US window dressing product categories that are high in demand.
The crux of Section 3 is that Portugal can apply challenges and
successes from the global and European markets to the US market
and vice versa.

In 2014, the European share of the global iron housewares market
($10.9B) was $2.37B. Europe’s 22% of the global market was less
than a third of Asia’s 75% market share. The top five European
exporters of iron housewares were Germany (European market
share: 24%, global market value: $581M), Italy (European market
share: 16%, global market value: $387M), France (European
market share: 15%, global market value: $357M), the Netherlands
(European market share: 6.4%, global market value: $151M), and
Belgium-Luxembourg (European market share: 5%, global market
value: $119M).
The total European market value fell by $160M in 2012 but

recovered by 2014. This is notable given that the global market
saw a steady 2.8% average annual growth rate from 2011 to 2014.
Europe’s decline in this market, especially when compared to
the success of Asian countries like China and increased global
demand, should be considered. Again, China has high iron / steel
subsidies, which could affect competitiveness, and Asia, overall,
typically has lower production costs. However, generally speaking,
Europe has access to a larger global market through enhanced
trade agreements, which also lower tariffs, when compared
with China and Asia. This is where SMEs can look to build
relationships and enhance their resources with AEP and the EU,
for example. SMEs can highlight the effect decreased European
competitiveness has on Portugal’s business and economic
recovery, and initiating these discussions can yield productive
resources – perhaps even trade financing – for SMEs.
Portugal held 2.5% of the 2014 European iron housewares

market share – a $60.3M global market value. As Portugal looks
to expand its iron housewares market both globally and in the
US, understanding its European competitors and the European
market as a whole is essential. Competitors like Belgium-
Luxembourg and the Netherlands became more competitive
globally during this 2011 to 2014 period, despite the European
market decline. Their global competitiveness was not limited
by Europe’s market decline. If Portuguese SMEs can replicate
the enhanced competitiveness of their European counterparts,
particularly in the US, they can avoid feeling the effects of
declining European competitiveness in global markets.
3.4e Knives
In 2014, the European share of the global knives market ($2.65B)
was $852M. This 32% share of the global market represents the

• 63
largest European market share in the six home décor subsectors
analyzed in this report. Unsurprisingly, this is mainly due to
demand for specialty German and Swiss knives. Combined, these
two competitors comprise more than half of Europe’s global
market share. The top five European exporters of knives were
Germany (European market share: 33%, global market value
$285M), Switzerland (European market share: 19%, global market
value $160M), the Netherlands (European market share: 9.8%,
global market value $83.4M), Spain (European market share: 6.2%,
global market value $52.8M), and France (European market share:
5.5%, global market value $46.8M).
Europe’s global knives market value has seen impressive growth,

especially when compared to other subsectors. From 2011 to 2014,
the European market value in the global knives market grew at
an average rate of 5%, outpacing the global market’s average
annual growth rate of 4%. Germany, Switzerland, and Spain have
somewhat declined in competitiveness within the European
market, which is promising for SMEs looking to increase their
market share. Take for example the Netherlands, which more
than doubled its European market share to become the third
largest European global knives exporter. These countries are
also major US market competitors, and if Portugal can develop
competitive advantages against these competitors, it will improve
competitiveness in the US, Europe, and worldwide.
Portugal’s share of the 2014 European market was 2.1% (global

market value: $17.9M). Since 2011, Portugal’s share has fluctuated
from year to year but remained in the 2.1 to 2.5% range. In terms
of similar competitors, it is positioned closely between Sweden
(European market share: 2.2%, global market value: $18.4M) and
Finland (European market share: 2.1%, global market value $17.8M).
Sweden is a larger competitor in the US market, where it holds
3.6% market share (US market value: $4.4M). It is the fifth largest
European exporter in the US market.
As Portugal was only narrowly outcompeted by Sweden in the

global knives market, SMEs should target Swedish companies in
establishing competitive advantages and setting sales / export
targets in the US market. A range of factors could be shaping
Sweden’s success on the US market, such as product marketing,
positioning, or enhanced customer service for US suppliers
that results in better market knowledge and adaptability.
Outcompeting Sweden, which is entirely achievable in the next
couple years, would improve Portugal’s competitiveness in US,
European, and global markets.

In 2014, the European share of the global porcelain tableware
market ($4.63B) was $1.2B, almost 26% of the total market. The top
European exporters of porcelain tableware in 2014 were Germany
(European market share: 30%, global market value: $356M), the UK
(European market share: 12%, global market value: $143M), France
(European market share: 10%, global market value: $123M), the
Czech Republic (European market share: 7.2%, global market value:

$86.3M), Italy (European market share: 5.9%, global market value:
$70.7M), and Poland (European market share: 5.9%, global market
value: $70.3M).
Portugal held 5.5% of the European global porcelain tableware

market share (global market value: $65.4M), and behind house
linens and bedspreads, Portugal is the most competitive in this
subsector within the European market. It had an impressive 6.4%
average annual growth rate from 2011 to 2014, even as the European
market value fell in 2012 and 2013. This also outpaced the growth of
the global porcelain tableware market, which had a 3.8% average
annual growth rate during this period. If Portugal can stay on this
trajectory, it could rank as a top five European exporter of porcelain
tableware in the next few years. Its 2014 European market share
was most similar to Italy, Poland, and the Netherlands (European
market share: 4.7%, global market value: $56.7M). Italy is also a close
European competitor for Portugal in the US porcelain tableware
market, where Portugal is the fourth largest European exporter.
The European porcelain tableware market value fell in 2012 and

took two years to return to its 2011 level. There is a sizeable gap
between the top European competitor (Germany) and the rest, and
the ranking varies most in its lower end where competition is fierce.
For example, the UK outcompeted France by a slim margin in 2013;
as a result, the UK became the second largest European porcelain
tableware competitors by a $2M margin in 2013, which widened to
$20M in 2014. To use another example, Italy’s market share declined
until it was displaced by the Czech Republic in 2012. Porcelain
housewares is such a dynamic market that there are exciting
opportunities for SMEs to help improve competitiveness through
export development, especially because the gap between Portugal
and top competitors Italy and Poland is narrowing. Improving
competitiveness in the global and European markets will aid SMEs’
competitiveness in US market entry.
3.5 Conclusion
A large amount of information – both numerically and conceptually

– has been presented in this section on external competition. The
report views competition and export development as part of the
dialectical equation that influences home décor trade – two factors
in a constantly changing environment. Section 3.2 used a frequency
analysis to uncover the top exporters within this industry, from
China to Thailand. Asian and European countries dominate in terms
of top exporters.
China is the clear export leader in this industry – the top global and
US exporting country in all six subsectors. In the European markets,
Germany also topped the lists in all six subsectors. With Europe
isolated, Portugal appeared as top five global exporter eight times:
»» Bedspreads: 2nd in 2014, 3rd in 2013, and 4th in 2012 and 2011
»» House linens: 2nd in 2014, 1st in 2013, and 2nd in 2012 and 2011.

• 65
Outside of Europe, Pakistan, Thailand, and the US are Portugal’s
nearest global competitors across subsectors. Though Portugal
is most similar to the US when examining global export value its
total sector exports amount to just 23% of Pakistan’s. This could
be due to product prices, profitability, export consistency, or other
dialectical factors.
In bedspreads, Portugal held 1.6% (market value: $61.6M) of the 2014

global market, a 5.9% drop from its 2011 value. Within European
competitors, Portugal has had fluctuating market share but has
steadily risen from fourth place in 2011 to second in 2014. Portugal
occupies a larger share of the US market than the global market.
Because Portugal is more competitive in the US market, the report
suggested SMEs market its US success become more competitive in
the US and on other markets.
The global house linens market is the most lucrative of the six
subsectors in the report, and Portugal’s exports in this subsector
are a significant (greater than 0.0%) contributor to GDP – the only
subsector for which this is the case. Small increases in market
equate to large values for Portuguese exporters. Portugal is the fifth
largest exporter on the US market, and on both the global and US
market, Bangladesh is its fiercest competitor. Portugal should build
off this competition in marketing to US suppliers, particularly in
product quality, availability, and customer service. In the European
market, Portugal is essentially tied with Germany for global export
value and outcompeted Germany to become the largest European
exporter in 2013. Germany is not a top US competitor while Portugal
is, and SMEs can capitalize on this in US, European, and global
markets, as Germany has such a high reputation.
Within window dressings, Asian countries dominate global exports,

similar to the other subsectors. However, Mexico was the third largest
non-European global exporter in 2014. Mexico is the second largest
exporter after China in the US, which is not surprising due to NAFTA
and geographical competitiveness, but its global presence is notable
in a subsector so dominated by Asian and European countries. In
terms of the European exporters, Portugal is a modest competitor,
but this market is dynamic, which fosters opportunities for SMEs
to increase Portugal’s competitiveness. Portugal is also much more
successful in the US window dressings market compared to other
European competitors, and the report recommends that SMEs apply
this competitiveness in their global strategies.
Portugal occupies 0.4% of the $10.9B global iron housewares

market – the second largest global home décor subsector market
behind house linens. Again, Asian countries dominant and China,
specifically, has global and US market advantages. The global
market is dynamic, and Portugal has a slow but steady average
annual growth rate. On the US market its growth rate is more than
20 times that of the global market. This could indicate a strong
US supplier and consumer preference for Portuguese iron house
housewares, or that the Portugal’s growth rate on the US market is
not entirely sustainable. Regardless, the analysis recommended that
continued US market prowess will influence global competitiveness
and vice versa, especially as European exporting countries become
less competitive on the global market.

In knives, the smallest of all six home décor subsectors, the global
market is not only growing by more than 4% annually but it is also
becoming more diverse. Asia and China hold less of a majority here,
and in part, the report argues this is because of a strong reputation
and growing market for European knives. Portugal held 0.7% of
the global market, but its competitiveness has been declining. The
analysis argued that increased competitiveness in the US market,
particularly in comparison to Sweden, will help Portugal become
more competitive in the global market and vice versa through the
product and price competitiveness, product and origin recognition,
wider market experience, and increased competencies.
Finally, in porcelain tableware, Portugal has done well in the US,

European, and global markets, but the analysis found no reason
(price competitiveness, product and import costs, product quality,
etc) that Portugal cannot improve competitiveness to become
a consistently top exporter in all three markets. This is a growing
market, in all contexts, and although Asia dominates, Europe
has a strong market with excellent quality reputation. Like house
linens, Bangladesh is Portugal’s US and global market competitor,
and despite conditions that make Bangladesh more competitive
on the US market, Portugal’s quality reputation, availability, and
growing market indicates that SMEs can contribute to enhanced
competitiveness in these three markets.
The overall finding from Section 3 is that Portugal is competitive in

global and European markets, some more than others, and this can
help SMEs contribute to Portugal’s continued improvements in US,
European, and global competitiveness – necessary for the scope of
post-2008 economic recovery discussed in Section 1. Portugal faces
challenges in developing and enhancing its export development
and growth strategies. This report focused on general and specific
ways that Portuguese SMEs can work toward short and long-term
goals that will enable them to export sustainably. The report turns
to setting out, in broad detail, legal and regulatory compliance
issues necessary to gain US market access, with the hope of
assisting Portuguese SMEs in this complex endeavor with many
moving parts.

• 67
Section 4:
Legal Regulations
and Compliance
4.1 Introduction
This section focuses on legal, regulatory, and compliance issues

SMEs will face when exporting to the US. Portuguese SMEs are
encouraged to familiarize themselves with US import regulations
and compliance beginning with the 200-page document,
“Importing into the United States: A Guide for Commercial
Importers”, from the US Customs and Border Protection Agency
(CBP), a division of the US Department of Homeland Security. The
document includes advice on expedited merchandise clearance,
full scope documentation, foreign trade zones, bonded warehouses,
packing, invoicing, and country of origin marking. As a resource for
guidance, this section of our report and the CBP importing guide
are intended to provide an overview and do not contain the sort of
verification and detail that parties like licensed brokers or customs
attorneys would be legally authorized to provide.
For more detailed compliance and regulatory information,

the report encourages SMEs to contact a US CBP attaché,
representative, or specialist at one of the European foreign offices.
They will most likely also be able to assist exporters with the
transition from the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) –
how US imports and exports are currently processed – to the Single
Window, a paperless system designed to improve efficiency and
ease in compliance with US import regulations and compliance.
The transition is expected to be completed by December 2016.
4.2 Packaging and Labeling
Clear shipping packaging and labelling is the best way to expedite

the process of importing to the US. All products imported into
the US must conform to Country of Origin Marking (19 CFR 134)
regulations, requiring that every product of foreign origin or its
container imported into the US be marked clearly and permanently
with the English name of the product’s country of origin and
provide detailed information of the container’s contents and further
relevant information, such as the producer and importer’s contact
information and product certification or testing credentials.
The CBP advises that “palletization” – transporting cargo in pallets

or other consolidated units – is another effective technique that
can aid the import inspection process once cargo has arrived at
a US port. The CBP also recommends that itemized labelling and
documentation of materials helps the exporter receive the correct

• 69
tariffs applied to each product.30 If different items packaged
collectively are not clearly labelled, the highest tariff for all items
packaged together will be applied; having interviewed trade
associations, importers, and distributors the report fully recommends
care and compliance with US labeling and packaging requirements.
Upon reaching the first port of entry, items are also sampled and
verified, and evidence for performance testing is evaluated.
There are a handful of product-specific home décor packaging

and labelling requirements. For example, iron / steel, aluminum, or
copper products’ packaging is required to state the “percentages by
weight of the carbon and any metallic elements contained in the
articles” through a mill analysis or mill test certificate (CBP 2006i). A
mill analysis or test certificate or report is: “a certified, quality-control
document issued by a steel mill and / or an inspection authority,
which specifies a material’s chemical makeup and physical
characteristics (ie, the results of tensile and hardness tests), and
verifies that it meets the requirements of any listed standards” (CBP
2010). For porcelain tableware, it must be noted on the packaging if:
1. “[shipped] in sets, the kinds of articles in each set in the

shipment and the quantity of each kind of article in each set in
the shipment
2. “the exact maximum diameter, expressed in centimeters, of
each size of all plates in the shipment
3. “the unit value for each style and size of plate, cup, saucer, or
other separate piece in the shipment” (CBP 2010).
Moving from shipping packaging to labeling, tor textile products,

there are a number of labeling regulations and advisories that will
help SMEs avoid what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) calls a
“tag snag”. On each textile product, a label listing the fiber content,
country of origin, and identity of the manufacturer and / or business
responsible for marketing or handling the item is required, in
addition to a separate care label (washing, handling, and cleaning
care guidance). The FTC’s rules on textiles labeling – known as the
Textile Fiber Identification Act (TIFIA) or the Textiles Act – changed
on May 5, 2014, and the report summarizes guidance that SMEs
should further investigate to ensure they have met all the necessary
labeling compliance.
Before discussing the point-by-point changes to the Textiles Act,

the key provisions are highlighted. The most essential provision
is that all textile products for sale in the US must have a label
identifying the product’s fiber content, which must be attached
in a conspicuous place. The label must include the type of fibers
(in order of predominance), percentage of each type, name(s) of
the manufacturer and / or distributor / seller or their “Registered
Identification Number” (RN, assigned by the FTC), and country of
manufacture. Fibers that account for less than 5% by weight of the
30 See Appendix 3 for a sample list of tariffs that apply to the subsectors and product
categories assessed in this report.

product’s fiber content can be reported as “other fibers” rather than
listed individually, although there is exception for wool fibers (see
below). The country of origin is required to be on the front side of
the label, and the other information can either be on the front or
reverse side of the label, as long as it is in a readily accessible place
and clearly printed.
The Wool Products Labeling Act (WPLA) is highly similar to the

Textiles Act; the key difference is that the Wool Act requires that all
wool fibers are specifically listed, even if less than 5% weight of the
product’s fiber content. The “other fibers” provision does not stand
for wool products. Any textile product with wool must label the
percentage fiber weight accounted for by wool and other fibers in
the product, manufacturer and / or distributor / seller name, and
country of manufacture. Additionally, any wool fiber used that was
reclaimed or reprocessed must be labeled as “recycled wool”. The
percentage weight of any non-fibrous filler or packing material in
the product must also be included on the label.
The FTC puts the responsibility on the importer to ensure labeling

compliance, and all necessary labeling requirements must include
an invoice disclosing the fiber, country of origin, manufacturer or
dealer identity, and name and address of the person or company
issuing the invoice, unless textile products are unfinished. However,
products that are not ready for sale but are “substantially complete”
require full labeling (FTC 2014).
The first change that update both the Textiles and Wool Acts regards
the fiber names used on the label, where generic fiber names were
harmonized with the International Organization for Standardization’s
(ISO) 2010 standards. The CBP has published an excellent online
guide in compliance with fiber names for accurate US labeling called,
“What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About:
Fiber Trade Names and Generic Terms”, which lists the 43 fiber names
approved by the FTC and hundreds that are classified under these
43 names (CBP 2006). The document and CBP also list other helpful
importing guidance on customs regulations, customs bulletins,
informed compliance, and value publications.
There is similar guidance available for metal home décor products,

called “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know
About: Household Articles of Base Metal” that apply to iron, copper,
and aluminum housewares and knives (CBP 2010i). The document
gives highly in-depth guidance – including definition and four
to ten-digit HS classification for the 29 metal, metal alloys, and
composite metals – on what is regulated under this guidance. It
is sufficient to say that if SMEs are producing any functional (non-
decorative) home décor metal-based items, this document should
be consulted. Similar to the “Fiber Trade Names and Generic Terms”
document referenced above, the “Household Articles of Base Metal”
document also lists helpful guidance on customs regulations,
customs bulletins, informed compliance, and importing into the US
(CBP 2010i).
The second change concerns “hangtags” that discloses fiber names,

trademarks, and non-deceptive performance information. The

• 71
hangtag is, in most cases, the exterior product tag, which provides
brand name, generic product information, price, Stock Keeping Unit
(SKU) number, etc. This exterior hangtag differs from the product
label discussed under the Textiles and Wool Acts requirements
above. On the hangtag – again, requirements differ from the
product label – if a product is not exclusively made a single fiber,
manufacturers may choose not to disclose full fiber composition
information. However, this lack of complete information must be
disclosed on the hangtag, and the FTC suggests possible phrasing
as: “This tag does not disclose the product’s full fiber content” or
“See label for the product’s full fiber content” (FTC 2014).
Country of origin marking specificity has been debated between

nations – particularly since the WTO proposed a “Made In the World”
initiative several years ago – due to complications from supply chains
in accurate country of origin labeling. In all but rare cases, SMEs
products will likely only need a “Made In Portugal” label, but with
cotton and wool products, this can differ.31 The FTC lists the origin
requirements as: “the country where the product was processed or
manufactured”, regardless if the base materials, such as cotton, wool,
or silk, were imported by the manufacturer (FTC 2014).
The FTC’s 2014 guidance – called “Threading Your Way Through the
Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts” – also goes
into depth on new rules concerning e-commerce, guaranties, and
FTC enforcement policy, which has more information on relations
between importers and US suppliers’ legal rights than labeling.
These issues are not discussed here; however, the document
provides excellent in-depth examples of labeling, what is and not
covered by the guidance, labeling on premium cotton and wool
products, guidance on label placement and attachment, and any
exceptions to the rules. SMEs are highly advised to consult the
guidance to ensure full compliance and export readiness prior to
conducting a US partner search.
4.3 Special Requirements
The Association for Contract Textiles (ACT) has developed a

voluntary certification program / sustainability assessment for all
textiles used in the trade that apply to all textile furnishings used
in office, hospitality, healthcare, and institutional interiors, known
as “public-occupancy settings” (ACT 2012). The purpose of the
certification is to address the environmental, economic, and social
aspects of textiles, such as: “woven, non-woven, bonded, knitted,
felted and composite materials used for upholstered furniture; walls,
draperies, cubicles, furniture systems and other vertical applications;
and decorative top-of-bed applications, such as bedspreads” (ACT
2012: 1).
Within the scope of this study, bedspreads and window dressings

are the most affected subsectors; however, any textiles producers
31 See also “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Textile and
Apparel Rules of Origin” (CBP 2004).

looking to sell home décor products for use in public-occupancy
settings should consider reviewing ACT’s guidance – particularly
those looking to enter the lucrative US market selling to the trade
– further discussed in Section 4.5. A trade association executive
highlighted that though consumers and trade professionals in
the US market that would be prone to purchase products with
these voluntary certifications remains a minority – likely due to the
added price of environmental, economic, and social sustainability
– consumer consciousness is trending upwards on the US market.
“There was a brief trend before the downturn in environmentally-
friendly products, and now it’s coming back a little bit. It’s never
higher than 22%, the number of people who will spend extra for
eco or environmentally-friendly products.”32
The report suggests that because SMEs typically feature better

production and labor conditions than products produced in China,
Pakistan, or India – where degenerative labor practices are impacting
US retailers’ product sales33 – that voluntary certifications could offer
a competitive advantage for Portuguese SMEs on the US market.
In speaking to a large US hotel chain, the report parties learned
that when selecting products they: “like to look at where it is being
manufactured. About 85% of what we buy does come from overseas.
We want to look at does the manufacturer own the facility… especially
if it’s located in China, India, Pakistan, or other places where there
could be concerns over it being politically uncertain.”34
To obtain the certification, producers must conduct a first-party

(self-declared), second-party (US buyer interested in the product),
or third-party assessment (independent body / person, such as the
ACT) that evaluates eight parameters:
»» Fiber Sourcing
»» Safety of Materials
»» Water Conservation
»» Water Quality
»» Energy
»» Air Quality
»» Recycling Practices
»» Social Accountability.
Detailed guidance on these parameters and how they are evaluated

can be found in ACT guidance document, “NSF/ANSI 336” (ACT
2012). The ACT advises that the certification is used by several US and
international companies, nonprofits, and trade associations, including
the GreenBlue, NSF International (formerly known as the National
Sanitation Foundation), and American National Standards Institute.
If SMEs are considering working with US interior designers that
33 Ibid.

• 73
work in the commercial sector, awareness of this certification
is likely to help establish an excellent working relationship.
SMEs that are producing window dressings may be further
interested in exploring ACT’s guidance on voluntary certifications
on “Colorfastness to Light”, “Flammability”, “Physical Properties”,
and “Wet and Dry Crocking” (ACT 2014; ACT 2014i; ACT 2014ii).
These recommendations similarly apply to any SMEs producing
upholstered furniture, though outside the scope of the study.
There are additional requirements for SMEs that produce filled

bedding, such as bedspreads or house linens. Thirty-one states have
further labeling requirements, which are typically regulated and
enforced by the International Association of Bedding and Furniture
Law Officials (IABFLO) – an organization of state officials responsible
for enforcing their state’s textile laws (NIST 2013). The IABFLO
established a standard labeling system to satisfy the various state
requirements, which stipulates that: “labels must describe the filling
materials and give their percentage of those filling materials by
weight” (NIST 2013: 13). The label must also state: “UNDER PENALTY
OF LAW THIS TAG IS NOT TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY CONSUMER”
(NIST 2013: 13). Most states also require the tag to display a “Uniform
Registry Number”, used to identify the manufacturing facility that
produced the product, and this number can be assigned to global,
as well as domestic, producers.
Additionally, SMEs producing organic textile products should

explore the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural
Marketing Service’s (AMS) online guidance, including regulations,
certifying bodies, and organic import policies (AMS 2016). The AMS
regulates use of the term “organic” as it pertains to raw natural
fibers such as cotton and wool. Only textile products produced in
compliance with the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations
can be labeled as NOP certified organic and use the USDA organic
seal (AMS 2016i). Products produced in compliance with the Global
Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) may be labelled organic in the US
but cannot use the NOP certification or the USDA organic seal in
product labeling or marketing (AMS 2016i).
4.4 Tariffs35
The report analyzes a vast range of subsector product categories

and aims to give tariff information where Portuguese SMEs are
most likely to encounter tariffs on their imports. This section focuses
specifically on tariffs for the subsectors product categories analyzed
in Section 2. For other subsector products where Portuguese
exporters face tariffs upon entry into a US port, in-depth tariff
listings and corresponding six to ten-digit Harmonized (Tariff)
System (HS) codes can be consulted in Appendix 3.
The US has bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and / or free trade
35 The World Customs Organization applies updates to the HS every 5 years, and on January
1, 2017 around 230 tariff changes will go into effect, including changes to particular fish
products. SMEs are advised to consult the relevant HS codes for their products after this
date.

agreements (FTAs) with a range of countries, and the general
rate of duty (tariff) does not apply to these countries. They
receive preferential or “special” duty rates. Section 2 often made
reference to how BITs and FTAs influence competition, and Section
6.2a discusses how mega-regional FTAs, like TTIP, could affect
Portuguese SMEs’ ability to compete and supply import demand for
the US market. Additionally, there are “column 2” or “statutory” tariff
rates, which are reserved for countries where the US has issued an
embargo, such as Cuba or North Korea.
At present, the US has BITs with 13 European nations36 but no FTAs

with European nations. A recent investigation into the motivations
of US BITs demonstrated that the agreements provided more
political and geopolitical security benefits to the US than trade and
development assistance to the countries where the US invested
(Chilton 2016). While BITs may have less of an effect on exporting
countries’ access to the US market, the 41 African, Asia, Latin
American, and European countries party to US BITs pay reduced
or eliminated duty rates on imported products, which gives them
advantages over Portuguese SMEs.
FTAs, on the other hand, give 20 countries increased access and

enhance their competitiveness on the US market, and NAFTA
is undoubtedly the best example of the benefits of an FTA with
the US. In most industries, sectors, and subsectors, Section 3.3
demonstrated that Canada and Mexico are not remotely as
competitive on the global market as they are in the US; these
countries’ exports and GDPs have substantially benefited from
NAFTA. In this regard, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – if ratified
by the US and the other eleven contracting parties – will further
increase Canada and Mexico’s global competitiveness. Additionally,
TPP will give nine other countries37 increased access and enhance
competitiveness for these countries in the US, which – again, if
ratified – could change the scope of the report’s findings in Sections
2, 5, and 6.
Portugal is party to no BITs or FTAs with the US, but TTIP could
drastically improve Portugal’s competitiveness and access to the US
market, particularly beneficial for textiles, rubber, and automotive
producers. TTIP’s progress has increasingly slowed, and a conclusion
prior to 2017 is now widely regarded as unlikely. For now, Portugal’s
comparative and competitive advantages are in import and
production costs, also discussed further in Section 6.2a. SMEs will
find that building the price (in part or in full) of tariffs into product
prices may be an effective strategy for US market access. SMEs may
also find this addition may make them less competitive and may
consider delaying this strategy for the first one to two years of US
export development. Once a market has been established, and
strategies are at a point of reassessment, adding in tariff costs to
product price can be revisited.
36 Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Moldova, Poland (two BITs), Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine.
37 Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

• 75
Beginning with textiles products and particularly bedspreads,
SMEs will face tariffs that range from 3.8% per square meter (m2),
kilogram (kilo), or number (depending on the product category) to
14.9% per kilo. On house linens, tariffs range from 2.5% to 20.9% per
number or kilo. Window dressings, which only feature five product
categories, incur tariffs ranging from 6.4% to 11.3% per kilo, and most
are 11.3%.
With metal products and particularly iron housewares, three

product categories have no tariffs, and the other four product
categories face tariffs that range from 2% per number to 8.2%
based on gross weight. Tariffs on knives are slightly more complex,
ranging from $0.03 each plus 3.7% per piece or $0.01 each plus
4.6% per number on the lower end to $0.09 each plus 10.6% per
piece or $0.16 each plus 2.2% per number on the higher end.
Finally, the only stone and glass product, porcelain tableware, has
two primary product categories (six-digit codes), and tariffs range
on the many other eight and ten-digit codes within these primary
product codes from 5.4% based on gross weight or 6% per dozen
pieces to 25% per dozen pieces. Exporters should also recall from
Section 4.2 that the process in which products are packaged and
labeled will affect how tariffs are applied. Certain products are
subject to US tax and / or user fees upon entry and that tariffs differ
from US port to port. Generally speaking, the seaport with the
lowest fees is Newark, New Jersey, while New York state has some
of the highest fees. For detailed information, exporters are advised
to contact a broker or import specialist at the port through which
products will arrive.
4.5 Distribution Structure and Channels
Home décor presents an interesting industry to assess distribution,

not only because of the wide use of such products, but also
because so many producers attempt to sell their products to US
suppliers. As such, the report parties uncovered more significant
access barriers, also referred to as “gatekeepers”, for home décor
products compared with the other reports in the Compete 2020,
Next Challenge US project (construction, agrifoods, and ornamental
rocks). Part of this, as this section will discuss, is the composition
of the US market, which is largely dominated by large chains and
competitively low prices.
The US distribution structure or composition can generally be

divided into five categories:
»» Importers
»» Distributors / wholesalers
»» Retailers / e-commerce
»» Brokers
»» “The trade”.

Beginning with importers, it is rare that a US home décor importer
is only an importer. Being an importer is usually a means to end;
simply put, few US companies make money from importing home
décor products. As one e-commerce retailer explained: “Shipping
and importing would have to make sense for us in terms of pricing.
We want a great value – a low price point for good quality.”38 The
majority of US importers obtain an import license for ease of doing
business, and possession of an import license is common among
large US and multinational home décor chains and corporations,
such as Wal-Mart, Cost Plus World Market, or Pier 1 Imports (See
Section 5.3 for more). This generalization does not apply to specialty
or regional home décor imports, such as importers of Moroccan
décor or California companies located near ports of entry. Here
importers make their money from facilitating the import process or
finding specialty goods.
The next point of entry is distributors, which now serve more of a

wholesaling role than conventional distribution. There are a handful
of traditional importer / distributors, such as Duke Imports, CTW
Home Collection, and IMAX Worldwide Home, that specialize in
home décor. However, distributors in the US market primarily serve
wholesale function as a result of the changes in the composition
of the home décor market, and a trade association executive
explained why.
Post-2008 [retailers] was cutting back on infrastructure, but now

[customers want quicker access to products ordered online]. The
combination of these two things have influenced the home décor
and design market. You have more corporate consolidation and
more e-commerce retailers that are successful because they have
lower overhead costs and better product availability.39
Because the US market is dominated by large chain stores,

importing, distribution, and retail all fall under a single company’s
mandate in this channel. The actual distribution of home décor
products – for both large chains and independent retailers – is more
often handled by trucking and general distribution companies, such
as UPS, FedEx, and JB Hunt Transportation Company, which do
not specialize in home décor, with exception to FedEx Home and
Creative Co-Op. They distribute a range of products from oil to milk
and lumber to apples, and while this change does not disadvantage
the home décor supply chain, it has presented interesting
challenges for home décor distributors’ transformation into
wholesaling. A trade association executive advised that in the US
market, the responsibility for product distribution has largely shifted
to the producer. “They have to manage the US side entirely now
because retailers are not resource-rich anymore. They push anything
they can back on the supplier… The US market looks fabulous and
easy to penetrate, but it’s a pain! It really is not a distribution-driven
market. It’s a direct to retailer, retailer-driven market.”40

• 77
Wholesale’s role in the US distribution supply chain was previously
limited to trade professionals – interior designers, hotels, restaurants,
offices, etc, referred to as “the trade” above. For example, one large US
hotel and suites chain still operates using the old model of direct-to-
buyer wholesale / manufacturing. “We actually work directly with the
manufacturers and help develop the product from its beginnings for
our needs. That’s in some of our major product categories, like linens
and terry cloth towels and for our display items”.41
Only licensed professionals had access to this part of the supply

chain, but increasingly – and perhaps as part of a post-2008
business survival tactic – wholesalers are open to the public, such as
Koehler Home Décor and A&B Home, contacted for this report. The
report found that this change, along with the increasing revenues
generated by the home décor e-commerce channel, is changing
the functionality of many of the trade.
It was common for interior designers not to charge clients; they

make their money on the commission of the products that they
specify for a design project. The client buys the furniture from the
designer, and… the designer is compensated through the retail
markup on those home décor products. They buy it at reduced or
wholesale costs, and that’s how they make their living. Some of
[the direct-to-public wholesalers and e-commerce retailers] are
accelerating the change of that model. Clients can do comparison
shopping online, and they feel cheated by what the designer
charges for home décor products. Some e-commerce retailers
have also been minimizing the discounts that designers get. I
think it was around 15-20%, but because e-commerce wants to be
more competitive with other retailers, now individual consumers
can get the same discount.42
The trade association executive referenced above believes providing

trade professionals with guaranteed shipping or reducing lead
times – time between placement of an order and delivery – is a
way Portuguese SMEs can be competitive in servicing the trade.
Reducing lead times and guaranteed shipping present another
challenge to the traditional US home décor distribution model.
Chaturvedi, Martich, Ruwadi, and Ulker (2013) noted a low ratio of
geographically dispersed distribution centers. If the US home décor
market is to continue growing – and it undoubtedly is growing
– distribution supply lines will need to be increasingly staffed,
populated, and strategically spread out.
At present US home décor distribution is concentrated in the south

and midwest US regions where land for large distribution facilities
is cheap and plentiful. This need for greater dispersal of home décor
distribution hubs is linked to increased sales through e-commerce
sites, such as Amazon, Bellacor, One Kings Lane, and Overstock.com
(Dickenson 2016).

Most US consumers go to Amazon first to find out what things
should cost, and that’s really changed the US market… [However],
Amazon does no curation; they encourage their supplier partners
to add curation. For Amazon, it’s just the item listings and the
price that matter for Amazon, and to me, that’s an indication that
every model has it flaws. Wayfair is thriving, but Amazon – even
with its extra stores – its only 30% of online retail.43
The result of Amazon’s low-price-fast-turnaround model is that

traditional retailers and retailers where e-commerce is not a
primary revenue-generator are experiencing difficulty in price
competitiveness (Chaturvedi et al 2013). “The more traditional
markets, like department stores, are closing because they aren’t
doing as well as they have in the past. Those mid-price department
stores like Sears or JC Penny’s are just dying in this market.”44
Large retailers where both brick-and-mortar and e-commerce are

primary revenue-generators, by far, make up the biggest segment
of the US home décor supply chain, and revenue is concentrated
among large, multinational chains. The biggest of which are:
»» Home Depot: $156.2B market capital

»» Lowe’s: $62.4B
»» Bed, Bath, and Beyond: $6.3B
»» Williams and Sonoma: $4.2B
»» Restoration Hardware: $1.2B
»» Ethan Allen Interiors: $823.3M
»» At Home Group: $763M
»» Haverty Furniture Company: $372.1M
»» Pier 1 Imports: $361.4M (NY Times 2016).45
Recall that these retailers (and many others) are also importers and
distributors – adding to their already impressive ability to determine
the scope of the US market and profitability – and the concentration
of the US distribution and supply chain becomes clearer.
Companies with billions in annual revenue control all elements of
the supply chain: importing, distributing, retail, e-commerce, as well
as selling to the trade.
The main things is: you’ve got to be able to have product on the
ground. Bed, Bath, & Beyond has producers ship to individual
stores; they don’t facilitate importing or distribution. The Bed,
Bath, & Beyond model is one where they are looking to ensure the
supplier does importing and distribution for them, which is why
having a US rep or US office is most often a key to success… They
push anything they can back on the supplier… That’s the future.
45 While not exclusively home décor – also furniture and, in the case of the top two,
construction materials – this list focuses on US companies that are key home décor retailers.

• 79
They are not going to do a lot to help you because they know so
many producers want access to the US market.46
Chaturvedi et al (2013) believe that home décor is in the “digital

battleground” of the US retail market – meaning that online sales
are increasing over storefront sales. E-commerce is the fastest
growing (17% average annual growth rate) source of US home
décor sales (McIntosh 2015). However, McIntosh (2015) argues that
e-commerce only makes up about 8-10% of total US home décor
market sales, and “a recent Merchant Warehouse and Retail Pro
International survey found that 62% of millennials preferred to buy
home goods in a store rather than online” (NY Now 2016). A trade
association executive further advised on the “generation gap” and
how it is affected the US online versus in-store home décor markets.
Millennials don’t have houses, cars, or driver’s licenses; what do

we do with that, and how does it impact us? [Baby] boomers are
aging, but they have good money for this industry… For home
décor, internet sales are not above 10% of total retail sales yet. The
trend line says it’s going to be 25%, but who knows! Something
else may come along and change the game… This isn’t going to
happen tomorrow; you’ll still have aging people who won’t be
active consumers forever – and their choice was Macy’s – but the
change is coming.47
The accuracy of the term digital battleground for US home décor

sales becomes not only highly accurate but also contentious. For
example, another trade association executive interviewed had
a different perspective. Rather than the shift to e-commerce
being generational, it is contingent on the individual and design
preferences. “There is a huge reliance on e-commerce [in home
décor], but we are seeing the pendulum going back the other way…
It’s about the art for [most consumers]; they still need inspiration
and to touch the product. Having a physical storefront is coming
back, even if it’s small.”48 The report parties interviewed one US
e-commerce business that has blended the two worlds – the digital
shopper and the consumer more concerned with textures. This
company targets: “individual people shopping for products… [by]
offering great quality products at a great value” through regional
showrooms and e-commerce.49
If the report takes a longitudinal view on how e-commerce came to

be such a strong US home décor market force, it would begin with
the launch of QVC – an American cable tv channel that stands for
Quality, Value, and Convenience. Launched in the late 1980s, QVC is
now present in over seven countries and offers home décor and gift
shopping through telesales (Jannarone 2014). QVC allowed home
47 Ibid.

décor products to flow through the tv and mail, the introduction
of this innovative model has paved the way for online home
décor sales through e-commerce companies like Amazon, which
accounted for about 1.5% of all US retail transactions in 2015, and
Groupon (Dickenson 2016).
Groupon is a worldwide e-commerce online and mobile platform

offering home décor – among many other products and services
– at discounted rates through online and mobile sales. A trade
association executive highlighted that Groupon’s mobile app – in
addition to other home décor e-commerce apps like Overstock.
com – are challenging the traditional retail and distribution
structure of the US home décor market. He also highlighted that
SMEs should deeply consider if they: “want a retailer [for a US
partner] that has no digital / mobile [platform] or [a partner] that
is very exclusive to develop your brand reputation, or you may
want to dive straight into Amazon and do business just on price.
The middle ground [of traditional product marketing] is rapidly
disappearing.”50 In response to the challenges from e-commerce
on US suppliers’ supply line efficiency and competitiveness, a new
model to decrease lead times and increase customer satisfaction
has emerged.
Increasingly, the US e-commerce and even retail distribution model

is shifting to what is known as “dropshipping”, where the retailers
do not take stock of products sold online; rather, when a product is
purchased by a customer, the retailer purchases it through a third
party, such as an importer, distributor, or straight from the producer
/ manufacturer who sends the product directly to the customer that
purchased online (Chaturvedi et al 2013; Youderian and Hayes 2016).
While Amazon’s model still relies on the “pick and ship” model,
Groupon and Bellacor rely almost entirely on dropshipping.
Dropshipping is expected to reduce the retailer’s role in the

increasingly complex and demanding supply chain, and interactive,
multiple-interfacing logistics software, such as Llamasoft picked up
by multinational home décor giant Wayfair, will likely play a key role
in supporting international producers’ ability to fulfill dropshipping
orders (Johnson 2014). Research suggests the true impact and
prevalence of dropshipping has yet to hit the US market in full force,
but within the next two to five years, this exception to the traditional
distribution and supply chain model could become the rule
(Chaturvedi et al 2013). “Wayfair didn’t change things, really; they just
recognized the obvious…The multiplier power they got by putting all
those companies, brands, and e-commerce sites together [through
dropshipping] was amazing. Wayfair put the e-commerce pieces
together to make products easier to reach the consumer.”51
One home décor importer and e-commerce executive highlighted

the advantage for the US supplier in dropshipping. “The website
is like a catalogue. You may not have all of [the products] in stock
and may be importing them on an as-needed basis, but the more
51 Ibid.

• 81
products you have online, the more you can sell”.52 However, a trade
association executive highlighted the disadvantages. “Dropshipping
has crumbled the traditional layers of the home décor business;
it doesn’t have to go through the supply chain. Companies find a
product, buy it up, and they sell it retail for a huge markup”.53
Bellacor advises all their producers be “dropship capable within the

US”; they also require producers have “expertise selling compelling
product assortments through the internet channel” and be “proactive
managing all facets of the business” (Bellacor 2016). This indicates the
extent that the traditional home décor sales and distribution model
is changing as a result of e-commerce. “Stores are growing their
businesses digitally – 93% have websites, more than half sell online,
and 14% of total revenue is coming from their e-commerce sales... Ten
percent of sales take place online” (Dickenson 2016).
If SMEs elect to engage in the US market via dropshipping, they

should have a dedicated customer service representative who is an
almost-native English speaker with excellent US customer service
skills, as this representative will be wholly responsible for filling
orders, not the e-commerce retailer. It would also be advantageous
if this representative was located in the US to deal with any missing
or delayed shipments effectively. “An agent or a representative can
act on that knowledge, as opposed to throwing things against a
wall and wasting your time and money.”54 Increasingly the home
décor market is shifting to producers that are their own supply
network and who can sell products effectively and efficiently online.
In the past you could ship to distributor and hoped they handled
your brand and distribution on a basis that supported you. Except
in twisted ways, this doesn’t exist in the US now, unless you partner
with a manufacturer to bring it into the US market. How do you
bridge the gap for small producers that can’t afford to do that?55
Before moving to the role of brokers in the US home décor

distribution structure, the report would also advise on the
importance of social media in US market access and success,
particularly in coping with SME-specific challenges. A buyer for a
large chain of US hotels and suites said that when sourcing new
products they look for: “what can they bring to the table not just
from a production or distribution standpoint but also an Internet /
[social] media kind of thing.”56 Dickenson (2016) argued that almost
all US home décor retailers: “use social media, spending an average
of 11 hours per week posting, updating, and monitoring.”
Section 5 will focus on how SMEs can enter the US market

through a growing social media / e-commerce mashup called
55 Ibid.

Etsy, and social media giant, Pintrest has certainly shaped the US
home décor market. In interviews the report parties learned that
importers and retailers are increasingly turning to social media to
find new products. “When we go [travel] to find things, it’s a perk;
we’ll go to Copenhagen for a week, [but] the internet brings a lot
to us... everyone does [social media]; you have to do it. It’s hard to
quantify the importance of it. In terms of e-commerce, it’s very
important to us.”57
If McIntosh (2015) was debatable about how much of US home

décor sales is conducted online, the amount of revenue generated
by brokers is likely even smaller than 10%. However, this is not to
say that brokers do not play an essential role in the US distribution
chain. While larger home décor chains will have dedicated buyers,
independent shops like Uppercase Living will utilize the services of
a broker, as well foreign producers looking to expand their market
(Klonsky 2010). Brokers are a small but essential piece of the US
distribution network, and working on a commission-basis, they can
be a cost-effective solution for SMEs looking to enter the US market
with little supplemental knowledge of US target markets or without
a US network.
Finally, building relationships with the trade can serve a unique way
for SMEs to enter the US market. The trade is composed of a wide
network of industry professionals, ranging from interior designers
to the more service-oriented businesses with need for home décor
products, such as restaurants, hotels, offices, and governments. An
importer and e-commerce executive reported that in the US: “the
real profit is in the trade, selling 60 chairs rather than one or two
here and there”58 Selling to the trade offers SMEs target markets at
the upper, middle, and lower ends of the price range.
A strong, near-native English language online presence – whether

strictly focused on SMEs’ products, vision, and values or a more
social media / Pintrest / Etsy-esque integrated design / décor,
product integration with integrated buying options – is an
increasingly integral part of selling to the trade. Social media
offers SMEs a free product advertising outlet, as more than one
US company interviewed indicated that social media affects their
purchasing decisions.
The way that an architect decides on furniture for a building is [by]

browsing on the web... [Your] website is like a catalogue, but they
aren’t going to buy like regular e-commerce. Trade people want
discounts and to know about customer service; you need to nuance
with them. Trade shows are a way to build relationships with the
trade, but in selling to the trade, the website is very important.”59
In speaking to a member of the trade who buys for a large hotel

chain, the report parties learned that home décor purchasing
57 Interview 1, Appendix 4; see also Interview 6.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid; see also Interview 6.

• 83
and distribution: “is so electronic now. Order and processing is
done online. [We look at] how sophisticated is your site? Can it do
ordering and taking on invoicing, billing, and payment? Do they
have a robust IT department? The [smaller businesses] are very
limited and that’s because of their inability to get into that IT aspect
of [the market].”60 This reinforces that to create a sustainable market
in the US SMEs must invest the resources into a reliable, high-
quality near native-English language website for product listings,
e-commerce, and distribution.
With this investment, SMEs may find that selling to the trade offers
flexibility and adaptability if there is not a strict target market, in
terms of product price. In an interview with a knives and porcelain
dinnerware buyer, he stated that his company sells: “more towards
the cooks not chefs demographic, more like your American diners or
casual restaurants. We certainly have a good segment of a customer
base that does fine dining as well.”61 For the more up-market
demographic, the buyer advised: “those customers need to have it in
their hands before they’ll commit to buying from us, and so for that
demographic we have to mail samples”.62 Selling to the trade could
be an effective way for SMEs in all product price brackets to enter
the US market. Slowly, over time as investment resources allow, SMEs
producing more middle to up-market products – be it porcelain
tableware or house linens – could work towards some of the higher
price brackets that require more advanced US marketing strategies
discussed in other sections of the report.
The same buyer offered advice for SMEs at the lower end of the
price bracket. “For foreign producers, they’ll find it very much easier
getting into the US market with [Allied Buying Corporation]. They
are the largest buying group [for the restaurant trade]. I think they
can identify the volume that they need to make it worth [Allied
Buying Corporation] and your producers’ while.”63 Relatedly, the
report parties have uncovered that for SMEs looking to partner
with the hotel trade, HD Supply and American Hotel Register are
likely the largest buying groups.64 A Google search of “hotel linens
wholesale”, also produced a range of large and small buying groups
and wholesalers that supply the hotel industry, which requires
products from all six home décor subsectors covered in the report.
The knives and porcelain tableware buyer also advised that there
is a trade resource for locating reputable, competitively priced
(middle price bracket) trade suppliers called AutoQuotes (AQnet.
com). “For certain requests, I go direct to producers’ websites,
[and] I would definitely recommend for the smaller producers a
good website... If it’s out there on a website, we may contact the
producer directly… Really, my first stop for seeing what’s out there
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.

is AutoQuotes. They have over 500,000 products from 500 sellers”.65
AutoQuotes enables trade professionals to receive product quotes
instantly, and for SMEs who cannot commit to flexible, competitive
pricing models – recommended throughout the report as a way to
building trusting relationships with US suppliers – getting products
listed on AutoQuotes may be another option for US market access
and growth.66 The buyer advised that he consults AutoQuotes for
finding new products, particularly: “if I’m looking for something
better quality”.67
Before concluding this discussion on US distribution structure and

channels, the report has discovered that the biggest market access
points and home décor markets in the US are located in New York,
New York; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Las Vegas,
Nevada; and Los Angeles, California – although San Francisco is also
a home décor hot spot. This is where the biggest trade shows occur
and hence where many large home décor chains establish their
headquarters. The biggest home décor buyers’ market is the New
York Gift Show, held twice a year.
These are giant, not-even-trade-shows because they are so big

where people who have showrooms and large catalogues bring
products, and people engage in wholesale buying...For your
producers that specialize in selling a few products... it could be
a great event, but [they] really need a good volume and be fully
ready to sell. They can’t have any issues like tariffs or outstanding
certification needs.68
4.6 Effects of Legislation
This section explores key legislation that impacts and challenges

Portuguese SMEs’ US market access and growth. Again, a broker
or trade lawyer is most suitable to provide specific guidance and
should be consulted as SMEs become export ready. However, there
are several pieces of legislation that SMEs should be aware of before
they begin the process of becoming export ready, beginning with
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
Passed in 2008 and updated in 2013, CPSIA will affect almost

all SMEs exporting home décor products. It gave the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) more authority to enforce
consumer product safety laws; every manufacturer or importer
of any product is subject to consumer product safety rules. CPSC
is the compliance agency with the authority to issue a certificate
saying that a product complies with applicable standards, including
warning of relevant choking hazards for infants and toddlers.
66 See Appendix 4, Interview 3, as the buyer gives sample competitive prices for porcelain
table products.
67 Appendix 4, Interview 3.
68 Appendix 4, Interview 4.

• 85
Some home décor products will also require compliance with
the Flammable Fabrics Act, which established standards for the
flammability of all domestic and imported fabrics. Fabric products
must receive a guaranty – “a good faith declaration that a product,
fabric, or related material conforms with applicable flammability
standards” (CPSC 2016). Conformity with flammability standards is
ensured by the US retailer, distributor, manufacturer, or importer,
and, therefore, like the ACT’s voluntary certification program,
demonstrating familiarity with this compliance legislation will
highlight SMEs’ export readiness to potential US partners. In this
regard, SMEs should understand that if the product does not
comply with the Flammable Fabrics Act, it cannot be imported into
the US. Compliance is a precursor to US market access.
Another element of CPSIA is regulations on lead content, and this

will also affect almost all home décor subsectors covered in this
study, with limited exception to knives. If home interior products
– such as certain natural and synthetic textiles, including cottons,
wools, and polyesters and certain stainless steel housewares – are
exposed to children, they will require third-party testing for lead
content. More information on the products and testing can be found
on CPSC’s “Total Lead Content” compliance page (CPSC 2016i).
For iron housewares and porcelain tableware, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) tests ceramics import shipments for lead
because products are intended for use with food. Specific guidance,
including metrics for product volume lead allowances per unit, is
available online through the FDA’s “Compliance Policy Guides”. The
FDA advises that if the tested level of lead is over the guideline, the
entire shipment will be detained (FDA 2015). This guidance is also
applied to any home décor products intended for use with food,
including cutlery / silverware, hollowware, cups and mugs, and
pitchers (FDA 2015).
Relatedly, SMEs should be aware of compliance associated

with a second piece of legislation called, the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act (FHSA), and the US Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publishes an
excellent, online guide that covers this Act, as well as all other acts
thus far mentioned in Section 4 that affect packaging, labeling,
and compliance issues for home décor imports. “A Guide to United
States Apparel and Household Textiles Compliance Requirements”
even covers specific state regulations and guidance (NIST 2013).
In this 336-page guidance document, SMEs will discover that
anything that can be deemed hazardous must have a consumer
warning label, such as window dressings strings that could pose an
asphyxiation hazard to children. FHSA defines hazards specifically,
but a general definition of hazardous would stipulate that during
regular use, a product could expose the consumer to any hazard.
The final piece of legislation SMEs should be aware of is the African

Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). AGOA does not concern
SMEs ability to import to the US or compliance or regulations;
rather, it concerns SMEs competitiveness in home décor, gifts,
and textiles products. Signed into law in 2000 as part of the Trade
and Development Act of 2000, the US incentivized economic

development for sub-Saharan African countries69 by providing
preferential US market access on certain products (ITA 2016). AGOA
has been extended several times (AGOA II-IV and until 2025), and
in essence, AGOA offers contracting parties tariff-free and quota-
free US market access on over 6,400 eligible products70 (ITA 2016).
Therefore, SMEs should be aware that along with the competitors
highlighted in Sections 2 and 3 (and to come in Section 5), an
additional 39 countries have preferential access to the US home
décor market.
4.7 Conclusion
As this section draws to a close, it is appropriate to highlight to

Portuguese SMEs that the US market is vast (this will be the subject
of the immediate and coming sections). There are many companies
of various sizes and expertise looking to gain or increase US market
access and distribution. The costs of compliance failure are great;
there can be mandatory waiting periods if compliance is not
adhered to or if products fail to be approved. In a market of this size,
where competition is extensive, second chances are uncommon.
The costs of not being “export ready” are great. To continue to
clarify the US market picture for SMEs, the next section features an
insider’s perspective of the US market.
69 Angola; Benin; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Cape Verde; Chad; Comoros;
Republic of Congo; Cote d’Ivoire; Djibouti; Ethiopia; Gabon; The Gambia; Ghana; Guinea;
Kenya; Lesotho; Liberia; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mozambique;
Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Rwanda; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone;
South Africa; Tanzania; Togo; Uganda; Zambia.
70 Products where AGOA countries are tariff and quota free are: (from bedspreads)
63049910, 63049925, 99630440; (from house linens) 63029910; (from iron housewares)
73239150, 732393, 732394, 73239930, 73239970, 73239990; (from knives) 821110, 82119120,
82119125, 82119130, 82119140, 82119150, 82119180, 82119220, 82119240, 82119290, 821193,
821119410, 821119450, 821119510, 821119550, 821119590; and (from porcelain tableware)
69111010, 69111015, 69111025, 69111035, 69111037, 69111038, 41691110, 69111052, 69111058,
69111060, 69111080, 691190).This list reflects only subsectors assessed in this report. To
examine other subsectors, the report suggests SMEs review the Harmonized Tariff Schedule,
entering a product description or 4-digit code and cross-referencing the code “D” (for AGOA)
in the special rate of duty column.

• 87
Section 5:
An Insider’s Perspective
5.1 Introduction
In this section, the report offers Portuguese SMEs a behind-the-

scenes sketch that first looks at US home subsector and product
category imports. This differs from the competition analyses of
Sections 2 and 3, as it analyzes supply and demand, rather than
import / export origin. Following, the report shifts to an exploration
of US trends that affect home décor demand by examining market
indicators. Here the report aims to refine export development
strategies and give a sense of the best US states in which to
market products.
After exploring US demand, the report turns to helping

Portuguese SMEs understand how they can supply US demand
through a series of recommendations, building on the previous
sections. This includes what Portuguese SMEs should expect when
competing in the US market, including information on trade
shows and publications that is essential to begin or enhance US
networking and relationship-building campaigns. The goal of this
fifth section is to provide SMEs with exclusive information that can
be used to gain a competitive edge.
5.2 US Home Décor Demand
This section begins by assessing US demand for home décor

subsectors included in this report and then, specifically, at US
demand at the product category level. This gives both a macro
and micro view of US home décor import demand. Production
of home décor products in the US is small in comparison to
the country’s size, and part of this is due to higher production
costs that decrease the US’ competitiveness in this industry,
particularly textiles. Where the US is highly competitive in the
textiles sector is with raw cotton, as highlighted in Section 4. Its
competitiveness is reflected in higher applied tariffs to cotton
products, compared to products produced with man-made
fibers. This is also somewhat the case with iron housewares; a
strong domestic US iron / steel industry are, to a certain extent,
protected from cheaper foreign imports.
With commodity-based home décor products, such as those that

involve cotton or iron / steel, US’ competitiveness is based in a
large internal and North American market, governmental support
/ subsidies, utilization and reliance on foreign labor, and powerful
lobbying at local, state, national, and global levels. US commodity-
based markets are not only highly protected, they also have very
specific market features, such as consumer preferences for high-
quality commodity-based home décor products at competitively
low price. As such, foreign producers of cotton, stainless steel, or

• 89
iron home décor products may find US wholesale prices lower
than expected.
In regards to cotton-based home décor product prices, specifically,

the US Farm Bill – where over twenty years almost $33B in cotton
subsidies have artificially supported US textiles competitiveness
– has been depressing and distorting international markets for
decades (Pelc 2014; Hanson 2014; Nassar 2007). In 2005, the
WTO ruled as such, against the United States, in a ten-year, high-
profile case brought by Brazil, which resulted in US taxpayers
compensating the Brazilian cotton industry $750M (Sumner
2016; Hanson 2014). The 2014 US Farm Bill somewhat reformed
direct governmental cotton support but “doubled down” on new
subsidies for US cotton farmers, which suppressed global cotton
(product) prices by six to seven percent (Sumner 2016; Clarke 2015;
Hanson 2014; Pelc 2014).
Brazil is not the only exporting country suffering from US cotton

subsidies’ effect on international textiles competitiveness. From
developed nations like France and Portugal to developing nations,
such as the “Cotton Four” – Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali
– exporting countries continue to have difficulty keeping their
cotton-based products competitive in the US and global markets
(Delpeuch, Leblois, and Shepard 2014). As a result, the US has
enacted legislation, FTAs, and BITs, such as AGOA discussed in
Section 4, that make imported home décor textiles a difficult
market for SMEs without preferential treatment to grow. This sets
the context for US home décor import demand.
5.2a Bedspreads Demand

Bedspreads was the 37th largest subsector within the textiles
sector – the sixth largest US import sector (out of 21). Imported
bedspreads was the third smallest home décor subsector market
(of six) in 2014 at $670M; this value was 7% less of the 2013 US
imported bedspreads market value, which reached $720M, the
highest value on record. In 2014, bedspreads were 0.62% of all US
textiles sector imports, and this is a decline from 2012, when they
were the 35th largest textiles subsector and .67% of textile sector
imports – a further decline from 2010 when bedspreads were
the 32nd largest US textiles import subsector. It would appear
imported bedspreads demand declines at regular intervals every
two years, but the subsector was the only 38th largest in 2008,
demonstrating that demand increased over 2009 and 2010. It also
appears US demand for imported bedspreads increased in 2015 as
well, by 4.7% (Comtrade 2016).
Bedspreads is the least lucrative of all three textiles subsector US

import markets, but in both 2014 and 2015, the most in-demand
bedspreads product categories in the US were:
1. Furnishing Articles Nes,71 Synthetic Fibers, Not Knitted or

Crocheted (synthetic furnishings)
71 Nes refers to “not elsewhere specified” and are commonly thought of as byproducts.

2. Textile Furnishing Articles Nes, Knit or Crochet (knit / crochet
furnishings)
3. Furnishing Articles Nes, of Cotton, Not Knitted or Crocheted
(cotton furnishings).72
These product categories are the three (of six) where US imports are
significant (greater than 0.0%). From 2014 to 2015, it appears that
demand for synthetic furnishings declined 2.5%, but this product
category remains the most in-demand imported bedspreads
product (Comtrade 2016). US demand for imported knit / crochet
furnishings increased 7.3% in 2015 and 5.3% for cotton furnishings
(Comtrade 2016). This is a positive development for Portuguese
SMEs looking to export bedspreads to the US because demand has
been unsteady since 2013.
Table 5.1 further demonstrates that the steadily increasing US

import demand for bedspreads product categories leveled off
in 2013, and in 2014, the US market for these imported product
categories took a heavy hit. The most affected product category
was synthetic furnishings, which declined by 7%. Though synthetic
furnishing took the hardest hit from the 2014 decline in US demand
for imported bedspreads, it is the most stable and lucrative with
$5M in average annual gains and a 1.9% average annual growth rate.
Knit / crochet furnishings has similar demand features with $4.6M
in average annual gains and a 2% average annual growth rate.
By contrast, cotton furnishings is the smallest and least stable

product market with an average annual loss of $8.3M and a 4%
average annual decline rate. Cotton is the most popular American
bedspread fabric, and the poor-performing import market for
cotton furnishings reflects how US cotton furnishings domestic
competitiveness shapes import demand (Forbes 2013). A US hotel
chain that works with foreign manufacturers for their bedspreads
and linens, said that would prefer to source cotton products from
the US, but foreign producers in China, India, and Pakistan are
increasingly competitive. However, she expressed concern for the
labor practices and political issues with importing from these
countries, which is why she prefers to try to source from the US
or other advanced manufacturing countries. “It’s a tough find. It
can be different for different items. We look at things like the cost
of cotton and things like that, where are the cotton producers
located, and stuff like that.”73
72 See Appendix 2 for HS product codes.

• 91
Table 5.1 – Select Bedspreads Product Categories US Import
Synthetic Knit / Crochet Cotton

Furnishings Furnishings Furnishings
2014 Value $208M $186M $135M
2014 Share 0.19% 0.17% 0.12%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $16M ↓ $15M ↓ $13M
2013 Value $224M $201M $148M
2013 Share 0.2% 0.18% 0.14%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $14M ↓ $7M ↑ $14M
2012 Value $210M $208M $134M
2012 Share 0.2% 0.2% 0.13%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $17M ↑ $36M ↓ $26M
2011 Value $193M $172M $159M
2011 Share 0.19% 0.17% 0.15%
Average Annual Growth / Decline ↑ $5M ↑ $4.6M ↓ $8.3M
From Table 5.1, the best opportunities for Portuguese SMEs

emerge from synthetic or knit / crochet furnishings exports. Knit /
crochet furnishings is likely the safest, most secure for SMEs’ export
development. Import demand has been highly similar to synthetic
furnishings, but from 2014 to 2015, US demand increased 7.3%
for knit / crochet furnishings while declining 2.5% for synthetic
furnishings (Comtrade 2016). The US is the second largest export
destination for knit / crochet furnishings behind Cote D’Ivoire.
China, India, Morocco, Vietnam, and Tanzania are the world’s largest
exporters of this product category.
Portugal’s competitors for knit / crochet furnishings exports are

Italy, Belgium-Luxemburg, Other Asia, and the US, globally. In 2014,
Portugal exported $2.89M of knit / crochet furnishings, and the US
exported $3.92M; Portugal was the 22nd largest global exporter, and
the US was the 19th largest – to give context to the competitiveness
of Portuguese bedspreads. Increasing knit / crochet furnishings
exports through US market access and growth could supplement
Portugal’s continued economic recovery and improvement in
global competitiveness.

Demand is highest for synthetic furnishings, but the market is slightly
less stable with a 2.5% decline in US import demand from 2014
to 2015 (Comtrade 2016). The US is the world’s largest importer of
synthetic furnishings. China, Slovenia, Tunisia, Turkey, and India were
the world’s largest exporters in 2014. Portugal’s nearest competitors
in global synthetic furnishings exports are Hungary and Slovakia
in Europe and South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Chile, worldwide.
In 2014, Portugal was the 40th largest global synthetic furnishings
exporter, and US market access and development for SMEs presents
a highly effective strategy for Portugal to increase its global trade
competitiveness. Germany, France, and the UK – Portugal’s top
export destinations – are also top global synthetic furnishings import
countries. Growth in the US market could complement SMEs growth
in other top synthetic furnishings export destinations.
While cotton furnishings have the lowest demand and least stable
market, there was a 5.3% US demand increase in the last year
(Comtrade 2016). The US is the top export destination for cotton
furnishings, followed by Germany, the UK, Japan, and France – top
export destinations for Portugal, as well. The top global cotton
furnishing exporters in 2014 were India, China, Pakistan, Germany,
and Lithuania; Portugal was the next largest global exporter, and
its nearest competitors were Poland, Turkey, and Vietnam, which
exported $10.1M of cotton furnishings in 2014. In 2014, Portugal
was the world’s seventh largest exporter of cotton furnishings,
which far exceeds its performance in the two other bedspreads
product categories. SMEs looking to export cotton furnishings to
the US should evaluate the costs of import tariffs74 to determine if,
given low US import demand, export development in this product
category is a sustainable strategy for SMEs.
5.2b House Linens Demand

House linens is the largest textiles and home décor import subsector
within the report. In 2014, house linens was the sixth largest textiles
import subsector (out of about 125) in the US with a value of $4.66B
– the second-highest value across 2011 to 2014. Value for imported
house linens peaked in 2011 at $4.76B, and since the imported house
linens US market declined $310M in 2012, it has slowly and steadily
been recovering. From 2014 to 2015, the US imported house linens
market grew a further 4.3% (Comtrade 2016). In 2014, the most in-
demand house linens product categories in the US were:
1. Toilet or Kitchen Linens, of Cotton Terry Toweling (cotton terry

toilet / kitchen linens)
2. Bed Linens, of Cotton Nes (non-printed cotton bed linens)
3. Bed Linens, of Cotton, Printed, Not Knit (printed cotton bed
linens)
4. Table Linens, of Manmade Fibers, Not Knit (synthetic table
linens)
5. Bed Linens, of Manmade Fibers, Printed, Not Knit (printed
synthetic bed linens).
74 See Appendix 3, Volume 2.

• 93
These five are the highest in-demand house linens product
categories; however, there are nine house linens product categories
with significant demand in the US, including
»» Table Linens, of Cotton, Not Knit

»» Bed Linens, of Manmade Fibers, Nes
»» Toilet or Kitchen Linens, of Cotton, Nes
»» Bed Linens, of Textile Knit or Crochet Materials.
Because of the limited scope of this report, the top five most in-
demand product categories are the focus of this section’s analysis.
Table 5.2 examines four-year US demand trends in these select
product categories.
Table 5.2 – Select House Linens Product Categories US Import

Cotton Terry Non-printed Printed Synthetic Printed

Toilet / Kitchen Cotton Bed Cotton Bed Table Synthetic Bed
Linen Linens Linens Linens Linens
2014 Value $1.87B $943M $482M $212M $188M
2014 Share 1.7% 0.87% 0.44% 0.19% 0.17%
Year-to-Year
↓ $30M ↓ $67M ↑ $196M ↓ $9M ↑ $40M
Change
2013 Value $1.9B $1.01B $286M $221M $148M
2013 Share 1.7% 0.92% 0.26% 0.2% 0.14%
Year-to-Year
↑ $60M ↓ $30M ↓ $151M ↑ $20M ↑ $75.3M
Change
2012 Value $1.84B $1.04B $437M $201M $72.7M
2012 Share 1.8% 1% 0.42% 0.19% 0.07%
Year-to-Year
↑ $40M ↓ $540M ↑ $223M ↑ $13M ↓ $30.3M
Change
2011 Value $1.8B $1.58B $214M $188M $103M
2011 Share 1.7% 1.5% 0.3% 0.18% 0.1%
Average Annual
↑ $23.3M ↓ $212.3M ↑ $268M ↑ $8M ↑ $28.3M
Growth/ Decline

Table 5.2 demonstrates that from 2011 to 2014 almost all house linens
product categories experienced overall growth, with the exception of
non-printed cotton bed linens, which has experienced persistent and
deep decline. This analysis will assess opportunities for Portuguese
SMEs in each of the five product categories by evaluating:
»» US demand
»» 2014 to 2015 changes
»» Average annual gains / losses
»» Average annual growth / decline rates
»» Top global import and export countries
»» Portugal’s nearest 2014 export competitors.
Beginning with cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens, the US is the

top import country, and from 2011 to 2014, US import demand has
been fairly steady. This product category is, by far, the most lucrative
product category within the subsector, accounting for 40% of all
2014 house linens’ US imports. From 2014 to 2015, US demand
increased by another 4.4%, which equates to only one annual
decline in a five-year period (2013-2014) (Comtrade 2016). The US
imported cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens market grows, on
average, $23.3M annually, with an average annual growth rate of 1%,
which outpaces the overall house linens US import market average
annual decline rate of 0.5%.
The top 2014 global exporting countries were China, India, Pakistan,
Turkey, and Portugal. Portugal has an average annual global export
growth rate of 3.3%, and Vietnam, which is becoming increasingly
competitive has an average annual global export growth rate
of 2.3%. Portugal has maintained its position as the fifth largest
global cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens exporter since 2006,
when it outcompeted Brazil for this position – strikingly similar to
the present competition between Portugal and Vietnam – despite
struggling to recover from losses following the 2008 financial crisis.
This product category is highly recommended for US export

development. A fairly steady and growing market, US demand for
imported cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens has reached new levels
without signs of slowing. The recent decline in imports was 0.0157%
of the 2013 market, which puts the decline into perspective. SMEs
more pressing concern in supplying US demand for imported
cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens will be competing alongside
established Portuguese producers in the US market, as highlighted
in Section 2. Section 6.2b offers advantages for SMEs to leverage
in the US market, and a core issue for US suppliers is competitive
pricing, product quality, and customer service. SMEs that are
flexible on product pricing, with quality products targeting an
appropriate US market, that provide responsive, English-language
customer service will be in a good position to compete alongside
established Portuguese businesses.
Moving to the second product category, non-printed cotton bed

linens, this product category is the only house linens product that
has failed to experience overall growth in US import demand. It is

• 95
the second largest product category, peaking in 2010 at $1.61B. The
2014 US import market for non-printed cotton bed linens was only
60% of the 2010 market value; this market has lost 40% of its value
within five years. From 2014 to 2015, demand further reduced but
only slightly by 0.5% (Comtrade 2016). The imported non-printed
cotton bed linens US market declines, on average, by $212.3M
annually, which is 23% of the 2014 market. For the last four years,
the average annual rate of decline has been 12.1%.
The top 2014 non-printed cotton bed linens global exporting

countries were China, Pakistan, India, Portugal, and Germany. On
the global market where Portugal has an average annual growth
rate of 2.8%, Portugal’s nearest competitor is only Germany with an
average annual growth rate of 0.2%. Within the US market Portugal
has an average annual rate of decline of 1.9% in the US market.
Its closest US market competitors are Bahrain and Italy; Bahrain
outcompeted Portugal in the 2014 US import market, and Portugal
outcompeted Italy. Bahrain’s average annual rate of decline is 12.4%,
far worse than Portugal, but Italy has been able to grow in this
declining US market at an average annual rate of 7.4%.
It would be tempting to attribute the negative features of this

market to competition issues with cotton-based products, but US
demand for printed cotton bed linens does not have such negative
features. The only immediately apparent difference between the
two is that the latter product category is printed. The analysis of the
printed product category is conducted below where further market
features are compared in an attempt to clarify why US demand for
imported non-printed cotton bed linens has declined since 2010
with little sign of abating. Portugal is a top US and global exporter
of this product category, but with declining US demand, SMEs will
likely face difficulty.
The third product category of printed cotton bed linens starkly

contrasts the related product category reviewed above. It is the
third most in-demand US imported house linens product category,
and in 2014, printed cotton bed linens reached the highest level of
US demand so far with a value of $482M, rebounding from a $151M
or 35% overall market loss between 2012 and 2013. Despite this one-
year decline, US demand for imported printed cotton bed linens
appears to be rising, and demand increased a further 9% from 2014
to 2015 (Comtrade 2016). The imported printed cotton bed linens
US market grows at an average annual rate of $89.3M or 22.5%. Both
of these growth markers are the highest among all five house linens
product categories reviewed; therefore, this product category offers
the most stable and lucrative opportunities for export development.
The top 2014 printed cotton bed linens global exporting countries
were China, Pakistan, Turkey, India, and Bangladesh. By comparison
the top 2014 non-printed cotton bed linens global exporters were
China, Pakistan, India, Portugal, and Germany. The US is the top
export destination for both, related product categories. In 2014,
Portugal was the seventh largest global exporter of printed cotton
bed linens, behind Germany – a slight difference with the (non-
printed) cotton bed linens product category where Germany
outcompeted Portugal. Within the 2014 US market, Portugal is also

the seventh largest exporter of printed cotton bed linens, behind
China, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Bahrain, and Israel. Israel narrowly
outcompeted Portugal by an $400K margin – a gap that Portugal
has been aggressively closing since 2012 and more steadily for more
than a decade.
Printed cotton bed linens is a highly recommended product

category for SMEs export development. The report parties have
learned that if SMEs are producing the related product category of
non-printed cotton bed linens, it may be a cost-effective solution to
explore outsourcing the printing and export the finished product.
As to why the printed product category is growing in demand
while the non-printed variety is declining, Table 5.3 compares key
product and market features that could otherwise distinguish why
opportunity is heavily weighted towards the printed variety.
Table 5.3 - Non-printed and Printed Cotton Bed Linens

Comparison
Non-printed Cotton Printed Cotton

Bed Linens Bed Linens
HS Product Code 630231 630221
US Import Tariff Range 3.8% to 20.9% per number / kilo 2.5% to 20.9% per number / kilo
Most Traded Rank 861st 1022nd
Product Complexity Rank 4414th 4114th
Four-Year US Import Market

$1.14B $355M
Average Value
Four-Year US Market Average
8.3% 24.9%
Share (of House Linens Imports)
Average Annual US Import
- $212.3M + $89.3M
Market Gains / Losses
Average Annual US Import
- 12.1% + 22.5%
Market Growth / Decline
Four-Year Average US Share of
33% 14.8%
Global Import Market
Four-Year Average US Share of
0.7% 0.34%
Global Export Market
From Table 5.3, the report finds:
»» Tariffs are slightly higher on non-printed cotton bed linens,

perhaps linked to US cotton competitiveness.
»» Non-printed cotton bed linens are more highly traded than
printed cotton bed linens.
»» Printed cotton bed linens are more complex, due to the
additional printing process.

• 97
»» The four-year US import market average value for printed cotton bed
linens is just over 30% of the value of non-printed cotton bed linens.
»» The US imported non-printed cotton bed linens market value
is, on average, declining at more than double the rate that the
printed cotton bed linens market is growing.
»» Similarly, the average annual US import market growth rate for
printed cotton bed linens is almost double the rate of decline for
the non-printed cotton bed linens market.
»» The US has higher demand (historically) for non-printed cotton
bed linens.
»» The US exports more than two-times the amount of non-printed
cotton bed linens compared to printed.
The final finding is particularly important for addressing whether

non-printed cotton bed linens are being exported to be printed
at a lower cost than possible in the US for re-export following the
finished process. It does not appear this is the case. Printed cotton
bed linens are also more complex but not more highly traded,
suggesting there is greater value in exporting non-printed cotton
bed linens. The US (and global) market for non-printed cotton
bed linens is also much more substantial than the printed variety
though it is declining at a rapid pace. If market conditions remain
constant, within two years non-printed cotton bed linens will
decline to the value of the 2014 US import market for printed bed
linens. Whereas, it would require six years for printed bed linens
(at the current, non-compounded average growth rate) to surpass
the 2014 US import market value of non-printed cotton bed linens.
The question is whether either market will continue their rates of
decline and / or growth, respectively.
This in-depth assessment suggests that printed cotton bed linens are
where US import demand is growing, and the demand shift appears
to be consumer and / or trend driven. Utilizing this knowledge,
SMEs have clear opportunity to gain a competitive advantage in
their house linens export development. Before shifting to the fourth
product category, the report makes one final note for non-printed
cotton bed linens producers. Though not apparent in Table 5.3 due to
reporting the average, the US’ global share of imported non-printed
cotton bed linens has declined consistently, indicating that the US is
scaling back its imports of this product category, from 40% in 2011,
34% in 2012, 30% in 2013, to 28% in 2014. This further emphasizes that
SMEs producing non-printed bed linens may benefit from in-house
printing or outsourcing printing and exporting the printed product,
in the short on long-term for US export development.
Synthetic table linens is the fourth and second smallest house

linens product category assessed within the scope of this report. US
demand for this product peaked in 2013 at $221M; however, 2014 US
demand levels were only 4% less than 2013, indicating there is still
good opportunity for export development. This 2014 decline was
the only year since 2009 where US demand for imported synthetic
table linens did not increase. From 2014 to 2015, US imports for this
product category fell again slightly but only by 0.5% (Comtrade 2016).

The imported synthetic table linens US market reflects an average
annual gain of $8M and average annual growth rate of 3% – the
lowest average annual gain rand second lowest average annual
growth rate among the four house linens product categories that
are not in decline. US demand for synthetic table linens appears
steady with relatively small declines associated; it is not one of the
most lucrative, but for Portuguese SMEs producing this product, the
report recommends export development.
The top 2014 synthetic table linens global exporting countries were
China, Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan, and India. Portugal ranked 14th in
2014 for global synthetic table linens exports; it was outcompeted
by Other Asia but outcompeted Slovakia. Within the US import
market – the largest global import market for synthetic table linens
– the top 2014 exporting countries were China, Mexico, Pakistan,
Cambodia, and India. Portugal ranked 27th (of 43), outcompeted
by France, Italy, Germany, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Austria, and
Belgium-Luxemburg.
Portugal exported less than $10K of synthetic table linens to the US

in 2014, and the report repeats the recommendation that if SMEs
are currently producing this product category, export development
via the US market is recommended. Product marketing, US industry
networking, and reliable export volume and customer service will
likely be key features for success, as SMEs will not have recognized
product origin to work from in establishing their products’
reputation – the case with some of the other markets where
Portugal exported greater volume. A trade association executive
offered advice to SMEs on how distribution changes – discussed in
Section 4.5 – have affected product marketing.
The challenge foreign producers have is there’s still plenty

of business to be done in the US, but the nature of how that
business is done has changed. Twenty years ago many decisions
were made in a store, and that’s no longer the case. Any brick-
and-mortar retailer is moving online, which means they no longer
have the opportunity to sway consumer opinion by having them
walk down the aisle. There are six to eight seasonal times where
you can drive sales in-store. The retail landscape is so different
now; there’s a great story from a woman who retired from a major
US retailer who had been in the business 40 years. A couple
walked up to her and asked how she knew every year what the
woman wanted to buy. She said: “Darling I told them what to
buy.” We continue to trust certain retailers that way – such as
independent kitchen retailers, gift stores, or some department
stores because they know how to curate product; there are still
places that do that, but for the most part, everything is targeted
for the masses / massified.75
US import demand for the final product category, printed synthetic

bed linens, continues to grow, following a 30% market decline in
2012; since 2012, US demand has increased $115.3M or 158%. From

• 99
2014 to 2015, US demand for imported printed synthetic bed linens
grew by a further 7.5% (Comtrade 2016). This market is showing
considerably high growth rates, which can be unsustainable;
however, the rapid average annual growth rate for this market
(16.2%) does not mean that the market will decline in the coming
years. Rather, it is likely that the high level of average annual value
gain for imported printed synthetic bed linens ($28.3M) may slow.
Both the average annual growth rate and value increase are the
second highest of the five house linens product categories.
In 2014, the top global synthetic bed linens exporting countries

were China, Pakistan, India, Germany, and Turkey; the US was the
top global export destination, though the UK imported only slightly
less than the US. Portugal ranked 13th, outcompeted by Egypt and
the Netherlands by approximately $1.75M. Within the US, 89% of
2014 synthetic bed linens originated from China; following, top
US exporting countries were Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, and India.
Portugal ranked 12th (of 33), outcompeted by Japan and Austria by
a smaller, $10K margin.
Portugal is highly competitive in synthetic bed linens exports, and

following the analysis of US demand, the report recommends this
product category for SMEs’ export development. US demand is
growing rapidly, but SMEs should expect this growth and demand
to taper off at some point, although it would be impossible to
suggest when this might be. In developing synthetic bed linens
exports, SMEs should also recall that the UK – one of Portugal’s
top trading partners – is also a top export destination. Both the US
and UK are English-language markets, and a similar marketing
strategy could be used to develop exports in both destinations.
The report recommends that this marketing strategy should focus
on emphasizing superior quality of Portuguese synthetic bed
linens, among other competitive advantages – possibly in direct
competition with Chinese products.
Assessment on US House Linens Demand

This analysis featured five product categories – the most of any
subsector assessed in the report – and the report went into such a
detailed assessment because this is the largest textiles and overall
home décor product market in the US. There are considerable
opportunities for SMEs to supply US demand in this (and related)
subsector(s) because of Portugal’s competitiveness across the textiles
sector. There is much to gain for SMEs, and the report imparts
detailed knowledge to encourage SMEs to develop targeted textile
exports for the US market. This includes information from a trade
association executive that: “In textiles, there’s a growing market, but
you should sign up for a permanent [US] presence because there are
loads of shows and events in New York for textiles.”76
The most lucrative opportunities for SMEs’ export development is

cotton terry toilet / kitchen linens; with high average annual gains
and slow but steady average annual growth, the most significant

challenge to SMEs will be competing alongside top Portuguese
producers that are established in the US market. The report also
recommends export development in both printed cotton and
synthetic bed linens; with impressive average annual gains and
growth rates, Portugal is competitive globally and in the US market
in both product categories.
Export development for the synthetic table linens product category

was also recommended for SMEs. With an average annual growth
rate of 3% and gains of $8M, SMEs have a growing and fairly stable
US demand to fill. Since 2013, US demand has fallen slightly by 4.5%,
and as such, there are some challenges to SMEs that are unable to
invest substantially into US network and relationship development.
The report would recommend that SMEs looking to export
synthetic table linens cross-market this product category with
related products that US suppliers may be looking for in a bigger
order, such as porcelain tableware or cotton table linens. Most US
suppliers prefer to place larger order for an array of products, rather
than smaller orders for a single product.
The report advised that SMEs not invest in export development

of non-printed cotton bed linens – the only house linens product
category where US demand is declining. Average annual losses
for this product category are $212.3M, astoundingly high, and the
average annual rate of decline is 12.1%. In less than three years – if
market conditions persist – US demand for non-printed cotton bed
linens will decline by half a billion dollars. However, if SMEs are
producing non-printed cotton linens, the best opportunity for them
in the US market would be to evaluate if diversifying into printed
cotton bedsheets is possible through in-house, local, or outsourced
printing. This leaves SMEs with the option to transition back to non-
printed cotton bed linens should the US market restabilize.
Overall, imported house linens are highly demanded in the

US, particularly after continued, restorative growth after the
market peaked in 2011. The assessments discussed marketing
recommendations and advised that high levels of growth in these
product category markets are likely unsustainable. SMEs should
manage export development by planning for one to three years of
high growth, expecting demand to slow within five to seven years;
this degree of planning would minimize investment costs, and
should US demand continue to grow, SMEs can adapt more easily.
5.2c Window Dressings Demand

Imported window dressings was the third largest home décor
subsector in 2014 at $1.14B; this value was 4% less of the 2013 US
imported window dressings market value, which peaked at $1.19B.
Window dressings was the 22nd largest textiles subsector (out of about
125) in 2014 or 1.1% of all US textiles imports. Prior to 2014, window
dressings was the 23rd largest textiles subsector, demonstrating recent
increases in US import demand. Demand continued to increase from
2014 to 2015 by 12.9% (Comtrade 2016). The most in-demand window
dressing product categories in the US were:

• 101
1. Curtain Drapes Blinds Valances, Synthetic Fibers, Not Knitted
(synthetic window dressings)
2. Curtain Drapes Blinds Valances, Cotton, Not Knit (cotton
window dressings).
These product categories are the two that are significant US window
dressings imports (0.0% or greater). On average, synthetic window
dressings comprise 80% of the overall window dressings subsector
imports. Low demand for imported cotton window dressings is
likely linked to US cotton product competitiveness and high tariffs
on imported cotton products.77 Table 5.4 shows US import demand
distribution for these two product categories from 2011 to 2014; the
table also includes data at the subsector level.
Table 5.4 - Window Dressings Subsector and Product

Categories US Import Demand Levels (2011-2014)
Overall Window Synthetic Cotton

Dressings Window Dressings Window Dressings
2014 Value $1.14B $898M $178M
2014 Share 1.1% 0.82% 0.16%
2013 Value $1.19B $936M $176M
2013 Share 1.1% 0.85% 0.16%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $160M ↑ $124M ↑ $23M
2012 Value $1.03B $812M $153M
2012 Share .99% 0.78% 0.15%
2011 Value $1.09B $827M $200M
2011 Share 1.1% 0.8% 0.19%
Average Annual
↑ $16.7M ↑ $23.7M ↓ $8.7M
Growth/Decline
Table 5.4 demonstrates that both product categories follow general

subsector import demand trends, which has been intermittent;
77 See Appendix 3, Volume 2.

however, the value of average annual gains / losses are not weighted as
expected. For example, because synthetic window dressings comprises
80% of US window dressings imports, it would be expected that when
the overall subsector declines, this product category suffers more
extensive loss. However, this is not the case, as clearly demonstrated
from 2011 to 2012 losses. From 2013 to 2014, when the subsector
declined by $50M or 4.2%, synthetic window dressings dropped by
4% while cotton window dressings declined by 1.1%. From 2012 to
2013, the subsector increased by $160M or 15.5%, and both synthetic
and cotton window dressings increased 15%. Finally, from 2011 to 2012,
the subsector declined by 5.5%; synthetic window dressings imports
decreased 1.8% and cotton window dressings by 23.5%. This implies
that US demand for imported window dressings is more related to
the fabric composition than general subsector trends, and this is an
important finding for SMEs.
Synthetic window dressings experienced, on average, annual gains

of $23.7M and 2.1% annual growth from 2011 to 2014; by contrast,
cotton window dressings experienced an average annual loss of $8.7M
and 2.9% average annual decline. These findings confirm that with
substantially greater US import demand, average annual gains, and
positive growth, export development in the US synthetic window
dressings market is highly advisable for SMEs. While imported cotton
window dressings have consistently declined in US demand, from 2014
to 2015, US imports increased 7.2% (Comtrade 2016). There is a market
in the US for imported cotton window dressings, and the report has
unpacked the challenges that SMEs face in this market. The most
secure recommendation would be to slowly establish export readiness
(over a six-month to one-year period) and approach the US market
with a focus on product quality and price competitiveness.
Focusing on synthetic window dressings, the US is also the largest

export destination for this product category. China, Germany, Mexico,
Turkey, and Poland were the largest 2014 global synthetic window
dressings exporting countries; Portugal was ranked 31st of 109 global
exporting countries, outcompeted by Indonesia and Bangladesh,
highlighting that price competitiveness is likely key in this product
market. Within the 2014 US market, China, Mexico, Other Asia, Pakistan,
and Turkey were top exporting countries; Portugal was ranked 49th
of 51 exporting countries, outcompeting Finland and Saudi Arabia.
From 2011 to 2014, on average, Portugal was the 42nd largest exporting
country out of 53 countries. Though this may appear discouraging, this
finding is particularly exciting because of the wealth of opportunities it
presents for SMEs.
First, with only $1,100 of synthetic window dressings exported to

the US in 2014, it is unlikely SMEs will face competition from deeply
established Portuguese competitors. SMEs have the opportunity to be
some of the first Portuguese producers on the US market. Second, the
analysis of internal (US) competition (Section 2.3) found that though
Portugal had performed well in the overall window dressing sector,
competitiveness was inconsistent, which reflected overall market
characteristics (see Figure 2.16). The analysis recommended SMEs
conduct cost-benefit analyses and consult other sections of the report
focusing on window dressings to determine their level of investment
into US export development. The analysis of external (global and

• 103
European) competition (Section 3.3 and 3.4) found Portugal was a
significant global exporter of window dressings when Europe was
isolate but not within the greater, global market. This analysis supports
previous sections by directing SMEs towards export development in
synthetic window dressings to improve competitiveness.
The first challenge for SMEs going forward will be to establish

Portuguese product reputation with US suppliers by building
relationships, attending trade shows, and demonstrating quality
and service over other, high-volume US exporting countries. The
report would recommend that SMEs price their synthetic window
dressings competitively for the initial (1-2) years of US market entry;
once a market has been established, the report would suggest
building in the costs of market access. This facilitates SMEs market
entry, competing with low-cost synthetics exporting countries while
building their market.
The cost of this strategy for market entry would be offset over time
by setting and meeting progressive higher export volume targets
with slightly increased product price, which US suppliers will likely
expect to keep pace with market changes. The report makes this
recommendation because findings suggest considerable opportunities
for SMEs exporting synthetic window dressings to the US but also
reflects on the high costs of market access, US compliance, and
competition with countries with lower production costs than Portugal
(Bangladesh, Indonesia).
5.2d Iron Housewares Demand

In 2014, iron housewares was the second largest home décor
subsector assessed in the report at $2.01B; similar to window
dressings, this value was 3.8% less than the 2013 value, which
peaked at $2.09B. In this year, iron housewares was the 19th largest
US metals import subsector (out of about 140) or 1.6% of all US
metals imports, but US demand for imported iron housewares
has been intermittent (see Figure 5.1). Over twenty years, iron
housewares averages as the 18th largest metal subsector. Metals
is the fourth largest US import sector, one position above of the
textiles sector, which has been the case since 2010 when metals
overtook textiles for this position.
Figure 5.1 - US Imported Iron Housewares Demand (2004-2014)

US demand for imported iron housewares, as shown in Figure
5.1 above, was growing prior to a drop in consumer spending
following the 2008 financial crisis; import demand was restoring
until it peaked in 2011. Demand levels remain below both the 2011
peak and pre-2008 crisis levels. Comtrade (2016) indicates that
demand for iron housewares has increased 11.6% from 2014 to
2015. Throughout declines and peaks, the most in-demand iron
housewares product categories in the US were:
1. Table / Kitchen Articles, Parts, Stainless Steel (stainless steel

kitchen articles)
2. Table / Kitchen Articles, Parts, of Iron or Steel, Nes (iron / steel
kitchen articles).
Table 5.5 details US import demand levels from 2011 to 2014 in the
overall iron housewares subsector and the two product categories.
Table 5.5 - Iron Housewares Subsector and Product Categories

US Import Demand Levels (2011-2014)
Iron Stainless Steel Iron / Steel

Housewares Kitchen Articles Kitchen Articles
2014 Value $2.01B $1.06B $728M
2014 Share 1.6% 0.83% 0.57%
2013 Value $2.09B $1.07B $785M
2013 Share 1.8% 0.92% 0.67%
2012 Value $1.96B $977M $761M
2012 Share 1.6% 0.8% 0.63%
2011 Value $1.85B $941M $694M
2011 Share 1.6% 0.8% 0.59%
Average Annual Growth ↑ $53.3M ↑ $39.7M ↑ $11.3M

• 105
Table 5.4 highlights that US demand for imported iron housewares
has been fairly steady. Values from 2014 were down across the
subsector, but examining four-year trends demonstrates fair to
highly lucrative product markets. From 2014 to 2015, US demand
for imported iron housewares increased by 11.6%, and the same
is true for its product categories of stainless steel kitchen articles
(8.8%) and iron / steel kitchen articles (12.9%) (Comtrade 2016). At
the subsector level, the average annual gains from 2011 to 2014 were
$53.3M, and growth rate was 2.1%. Stainless steel kitchen articles
experienced average annual gains of $39.7M and 3% average annual
growth. Iron / steel kitchen articles had average annual gains of
$11.3M and 1.2% average annual growth.
Looking at these figures, both product categories (stainless steel

or iron / steel kitchen articles) are recommended for SMEs’ export
development. The finding that the overall subsector is growing
steadily indicates that export development in other product
categories would also be recommendable for SMEs, although US
demand is not as high (less than 0.0%). US demand is highest for
stainless steel kitchen articles, and this product category is also the
most lucrative and fastest growing product market.
Further, in Section 2.3d it was highlighted that Portuguese iron

housewares exports to the US declined by 50% from 2014 to
2015, and the analysis suggested global iron ore commodity
price increases may be responsible. The analysis in Section 3.3d
confirmed that Portuguese global iron housewares exports
declined by 25% from 2014 to 2015 that confirm – among some
other possible explanatory factors – that increased global iron ore
commodity prices could be responsible for the decline. Section
2 highlighted that the only other significant explanatory factor
for the 50% 2014 to 2015 US iron housewares decline would be if
Portugal was not exporting products that were in high demand in
the US. Upon reflection of the analysis presented here and a further
investigation of the iron housewares product categories Portugal
exported to the US, it is confirmed that Portugal is exporting the
two most in-demand iron housewares product categories: stainless
steel and iron / steel kitchen articles. Therefore, it is likely that iron
ore commodity prices influenced Portugal’s US and global iron
housewares 2014 to 2015 export decline.
Similar to window dressings, the market values, average annual

gains, and positive growth rates indicate that US demand is more
linked to product composition; stainless steel is preferred to iron
/ steel among American consumers. However, this could also be
indicative of US domestic industry competitiveness, iron / steel
product dumping, international disputes, and higher-tariff levels on
commodity-based products.
The top global exporting countries for both product categories in

2014 were China, India, Germany, Italy, and Turkey. For stainless
steel kitchen articles, Portugal was ranked 22nd (out of 152) for this
year, and its nearest competitors were Denmark and Japan. In the
US market – also the largest export destination for stainless steel
kitchen articles – the top 2014 exporting countries were China, India,

Other Asia, Thailand, and Italy, which narrowly outcompeted South
Korea; Portugal was ranked 17th (out of 77) in the US for this year,
and its nearest competitors were Denmark, Belgium-Luxembourg,
and Japan. Therefore, the analysis finds that Portugal is more
competitive in the US stainless steel kitchen articles market, where
there are fewer competitors, compared to the global market.
Because Portugal is performing so well on the US market for this

product category, SMEs will face similar challenges as in other
markets assessed above, such as competing alongside established
Portuguese producers. However, in a market where preference is
perhaps most based on product composition, SMEs should find
advantages in reputation for the quality of Portuguese products
in the US. SMEs should also be aware that other top export
destinations for this stainless steel kitchen articles were Germany,
France, Japan, and the UK – some of Portugal’s top trading partners.
For iron / steel kitchen articles – where top global exporters were
the same as with stainless steel kitchen articles – Portugal was also
ranked 22nd (out of 150) in 2014, but unlike with the stainless steel
variety, Portugal was outcompeted by Japan rather than the other
way around. In the US market, the top 2014 exporting countries were
China, India, Other Asia, Mexico, and Indonesia. Portugal was ranked
36th in the US for this year – considerably lower than with stainless
steel kitchen articles – and its nearest competitors were New Zealand,
Chile, and Malaysia. The top export destinations outside the US, the
largest importer, Germany, the UK, Iran, and Japan.
There are select similarities and dissimilarities between these two

product categories that could shape which product categories
SMEs target for US export development. Stainless steel kitchen
articles appears to present the best opportunities for SMEs, with
a stronger US market and also more adaptability in cross-export
development with other top export destinations, which are also
Portugal’s top trading partners. Iron / steel kitchen articles offer a
steady US market where Portugal has not performed as well as it
has globally, which could indicate good opportunities for SMEs to
expand in the US market or could present more of a challenge due
to lack of Portuguese product recognition.
Because there is good opportunity for SMEs in both iron housewares

product categories and because there are two other metal
subsectors that are closely related, the analysis turns to explore
if there are also opportunities for SMEs in aluminum and copper
housewares. Though these subsectors are also commodity-based, the
base materials are less protected and political on the US and global
markets. The aluminum housewares subsector was the 43rd largest
within US metals sector imports in 2014 and copper housewares was
the 25th smallest (or 115th largest) out of about 140. Table 5.6 aims
to provide a product performance and US market overview for both
subsectors to explore possibilities for SMEs export development.

• 107
Table 5.6 - Aluminum and Copper Housewares US Import
Aluminum Housewares Copper Housewares
2014 Value $865M $122M
2014 Share 0.68% 0.096%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $98M ↓ $2M
2013 Value $963M $124M
2013 Share 0.83% 0.11%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $112M -
2012 Value $851M $124M
2012 Share 0.7% 0.1%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $12M ↓ $5M
2011 Value $863 $129M
2011 Share 0.73% 0.11%
Average Annual Growth / Decline ↑ $667K ↓ $2.3M
China China
Italy Germany
Top Global Exporting Countries (2014) France India
Thailand Italy
South Korea Other Asia
China China
Thailand Other Asia
Top US Exporting Countries (2014) India India
Italy Mexico
South Korea Germany
US US
Japan Germany
Top Global Export Destinations (2014) Germany UK
France Australia
Canada Japan

From Table 5.6, it appears that the most advisable subsector for
housewares – beyond iron housewares – is aluminum housewares.
Aluminum housewares featured an average annual gain of $667K
and growth rate of 0.06%. US demand has been intermittent,
but from 2014 to 2015, there was a further 13.3% demand increase
for imported aluminum housewares (Comtrade 2016). Contrast
this profile with that of imported copper housewares, which
experienced an average annual loss of $2.3M and decline of 1.4%.
However, Comtrade (2016) reports a 11.4% increase in US import
demand from 2014 to 2015.
With a comparatively smaller market value, fewer possibilities to

expand export development with other top importers that are also
Portugal’s top trading partners, and considerably less US demand,
the report advises export development in aluminum housewares
over copper housewares. Recommendations for SMEs exporting
copper housewares are similar to those made in cotton window
dressings: slowly establish export readiness (over a six-month to
one-year period) and approach the US market with a focus on
product quality, service, and price competitiveness.
5.2e Knives Demand

US demand for imported knives was the second smallest subsector
assessed, and in 2014, US market value for imported knives was
$584M, up 3% from 2013. Knives are the 58th largest US metal
import subsector (out of about 140) or 0.5% of all metal sector
imports in the same year. US demand for knives has been fairly
consistent, and there are two product categories that are in
significant demand (greater than 0.0%), which are:
1. Butcher’s Knives, Hunting Knives Etc (butcher’s knives)

2. Pocket / Pen / Other Knives with Folding Blades (folding knives).
Because the report examines home décor exports, it is more likely

that Portuguese SMEs will be exporting the first product category;
however, due to variance in HS code indication and compliance,
it is possible that home décor knives could fall under the second
product category as well.

• 109
Table 5.7 - Knives Subsector and Product Categories US Import
Knives Butcher’s Knives Folding Knives
2014 Value $584M $256M $138M
2014 Share .46% 0.2% 0.11%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $16M ↓ $14M ↓ $3M
2013 Value $568 $270M $141M
2013 Share 0.49% 0.23% 0.12%
2012 Value $508M $246M $133M
2012 Share 0.42% 0.2% 0.11%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $3M ↑ $3M ↑ $6M
2011 Value $511M $243M $127M
2011 Share 0.43% 0.21% 0.11%
Average Annual Growth ↑ $24.3M ↑ $4.3M ↑ $3.7M
The imported knives subsector and two product categories

continued to experience increased demand from 2014 to 2015 –
knives by 6.7%, butcher’s knives by 1.9%, and folding knives by 4.2%
(Comtrade 2016). At the subsector level, knives had an average
annual gain of $24.3M and growth rate of 3.4%, which makes
this subsector – as highlighted in previous sections – an excellent
opportunity for SMEs’ export development.
Examining butcher’s knives, demand increased every year except for

2014, including 2015. Average annual gains for imported butcher’s
knives were $4.3M with a 1.3% growth rate. The top 2014 global
butcher’s knives exporting countries for 2014 were China, Germany,
Switzerland, Japan, and the Netherlands; Portugal ranked 13th out of
109, and its closest competitors were Finland and Italy. In the 2014 US
market, the top exporting countries of butcher’s knives were China,
Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Other Asia; Portugal ranked 15th
out of 52, and its top competitors were South Africa, Hong Kong, and
France. The US was the top global export destination, followed by
Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and the UK.

US demand for folding knives is similar to butcher’s knives, though
about half the size. Naturally, average annual gains were not as
substantial as butcher’s knives at $3.7M, but considering the market
size disparity, this average annual gain is impressive. The average
annual growth rate was 2.1%, higher than butcher’s knives. The
top global folding knives exporting countries in 2014 were China,
Switzerland, Germany, Other Asia, and Japan; Portugal’s rank was
31st out of 93, and its most similar competitors were Canada and
Norway. In the US market – the top global export destination – the
top 2014 exporting countries were China, Other Asia, Switzerland,
Japan, and Germany; Portugal was ranked 24th of 48 and its top
competitors were Vietnam, Brazil, and the Czech Republic.
The report recommends both knives product categories for SMEs’

export development, with slight advantages and challenges varying
between the two. Beginning with butcher’s knives, this product
category has double the US demand compared to folding knives,
annual average gains are higher but only by approximately $500K.
There is good growth, and the market is fairly steady. Portugal
is highly competitive globally and only slightly less so in the US.
Similar to other product categories examined in this section, SMEs
will face challenges of competition with established Portuguese
producers but, at the same time, have the advantage of product
reputation in the US market.
Export development in this product category would assist Portugal

in becoming more competitive with its European counterparts, and
three of the four other top export destinations for butcher’s knives
exports were also Portugal’s top trading partners. Because SMEs will
be competing with producers with a strong reputation for quality
on the US market, marketing should focus on value for money in
top quality products. SMEs should also ensure that products are
marketed to hotels, resorts, and food service distributors, in addition
to home décor importers, distributors, and retailers.
Comparatively, folding knives has lower US demand, but average

annual gains are almost equivalent to butcher’s knives; average
annual growth is also higher with folding knives. With steady growth
and demand in the US, Portugal is more competitive in the US than
globally, and there are two key advantages to this finding. The first
is that SMEs will find the same positive production reputation in
the US with folding knives as with butcher’s knives, and the second
is that Germany, France, Canada, and the UK are other top folding
knives export destinations behind the US. SMEs can leverage US
market access and growth with these other top export destinations,
three of which are Portugal’s top trading partners. Such a strategy
will facilitate increasing Portugal’s US and global competitiveness in
folding knives, as well as a minute impact on their World Economic
Forum Global Competitiveness Index ranking presented in Section 1.
5.2f Porcelain Tableware Demand

The final subsector of porcelain tableware also features the lowest US
import demand – at $400M in 2014 – of the six home décor subsectors
reviewed in the report. Imported porcelain tableware demand
declined 10% between 2014 and 2013; however, this was only of two

• 111
years in recent history (2010-2011) that imports declined in the US (see
Table 5.8). Even before the 2008 financial crisis, US imported porcelain
tableware demand has remained almost entirely consistent: the 13th
most in demand stone and glass import subsector.
At the product category level, however, US demand shows more

variance. Before the 2008 financial crisis, there were two product
categories with significant (greater than 0.0%) US import demand:
»» Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain or China (porcelain /

china table and kitchenware)
»» Household and Toilet Articles Nes of Porcelain or China (porcelain
/ china household and toilet articles)
However, since 2008, the latter product category has declined

to less significant import levels, and from 2008 to 2014, import
demand has continued to decline. Table 5.8, therefore, examines
porcelain tableware at the subsector level and product category
level to support the report’s recommendation that this product
presents good opportunity for SMEs’ export development.
Table 5.8 - Porcelain Tableware US Import Demand Levels

(2011-2014)
Porcelain Porcelain
Porcelain / China Table / China Household
Tableware and Kitchenware and Toilet Articles (Prod-
(Subsector Level) (Product Categor Level) uct Category Level)
2014 Value $400M $388M $11.7M
2014 Share 2.2% 2.2% 0.065%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $46M ↓ $49M ↑ $2.9M
2013 Value $446M $437M $8.8M
2013 Share 2.6% 2.5% 0.051%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $32M ↑ $34M ↓ $1.6M
2012 Value $414 $403M $10.4M
2012 Share 2.6% 2.5% 0.066%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $23M ↑ $22M $100K
2011 Value $391 $381M $10.3M
2011 Share 2.6% 2.5% 0.069%
Average Annual Growth ↑ $3M ↑ $2.3M ↑ $467K

From Table 5.8, it is clear that subsector demand is almost entirely
from the porcelain / china table and kitchenware product category,
which is a strong indication of the product that SMEs should
develop for US export. This product category features a US market
with average annual gains of $2.3M and a 0.5% average annual
growth rate – a stable, secure, albeit small market well suited for
SMEs. From 2014 to 2015, US demand for imported porcelain / china
table and kitchenware continued to increase at an impressive rate
of 12.1%; again, this product category comprises the majority of the
porcelain tableware subsector, which grew at an impressive but
slightly lower rate of 11.9% (Comtrade 2016).
Demand for imported porcelain / china household and toilet

articles – the less significant product category – has shown minor
improvement from 2013 to 2015. This product category may slowly
be returning to pre-2008 levels of import demand, featuring
average annual gains of $467K and an average annual growth
rate of 3.2%. Prior to 2013, US import demand for porcelain / china
household and toilet articles had an average annual growth rate
of only 1.5%. While it will take some time for this market to recover
– and it is still uncertain whether it will – the report would not
dissuade SMEs from export development in this product category.
Similar to iron housewares, there is a subsector related to porcelain

tableware that warrants examination: ceramic tableware. Table
5.9 provides a subsector performance overview for this related
subsector to explore whether export development in this related
subsector, also a stone and glass sector export, is recommended for
SMEs. Contrasting porcelain tableware, imported ceramic tableware
demand has grown continuously since a 13% decline in 2012. From
2011 to 2014, the average annual gain from this import market is $13M,
and the average annual growth rate is 3.2%. From 2014 to 2015, this
subsector experienced further 8.5% growth (Comtrade 2016). There is
only one product category within the subsector (ceramic tableware
except of porcelain or china), and it appears that export development
in ceramic tableware is highly recommended for SMEs.

• 113
Table 5.9 - Ceramic Tableware US Import Demand Levels
(2011-2014)
Ceramic Tableware
2014 Value $326M
2014 Share 1.8%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $1M
2013 Value $325M
2013 Share 1.9%
Year-to-Year Change ↑ $43M
2012 Value $282M
2012 Share 1.8%
Year-to-Year Change ↓ $5M
2011 Value $287M
2011 Share 1.9%
Average Annual Growth ↑ $13M
China
Thailand
Top Global Exporting Countries (2014) Portugal
UK
Germany
China
Portugal
Top US Exporting Countries (2014) Thailand
Mexico
Italy
US
UK
Top Global Export Destinations (2014) Germany
France
Canada

The core issue that SMEs will face exporting ceramic housewares to the
US is that which is similar to bedspreads, house linens, and porcelain
tableware. Portugal is a top global and US exporting country. SMEs will
have the likely advantage of Portuguese-made product recognition
but the challenge of competing alongside established Portuguese
companies in the US market. The next section discusses a particular
trend in finishes that may provide SMEs with the competitive edge
necessary to compete alongside other Portuguese competitors on
the US market. As was the case with other subsectors, three of the
other four top global export destinations for ceramic tableware are
Portugal’s top trading partners, enhancing prospects for SME export
development and growth.
Assessment of US Home Décor Demand

The results of this analysis are encouraging, as the majority of the in-
depth product category analyses continues to confirm the previous
subsector-level recommendations. The textiles sector of home
décor – bedspreads, house linens, and window dressing – featured
similar US import demand market characteristics, such as lucrative
markets, high levels of US import demand, and good, albeit
intermittent, growth.
US demand for imported bedspreads offers a good-size market for

SMEs at 0.62% of all US textiles imports in 2014; there was a brief
decline at the subsector level in 2013 but a general increase in 2015.
The most recommended product for SMEs’ export development
was knit / crochet furnishings, as it offers the safest, most secure
market. Synthetic furnishings offers a market for SMEs’ products
with the highest US import demand, but recently US imports
have declined by 2.5%. Cotton furnishings has the lowest demand
among bedspreads product categories and is the least stable of
the product categories assessed; however, there was a 5.3% import
demand increase in 2015. The report advised that because this is a
commodity-based product where US competitiveness is greater,
SMEs should weigh costs of export investment, particularly US
import tariffs.
House linens feature the largest home décor and textiles subsector
US import demand levels, but this subsector market is in recovery.
Almost all product categories were recommended for SMEs’
export development with the exception of non-printed cotton bed
linens, where the report went to into great detail to determine
why demand for this product category was declining so rapidly in
comparison to the smaller market for the related printed cotton
bed linens product category. The most lucrative house linens import
market with steady growth was found to be cotton terry toilet /
kitchen linens, followed by the printed variety of cotton bed linens.
The findings suggested that at the rate of decline for non-printed

cotton bed linens, SMEs may find it advantageous in the short-
term to outsource printing of bed linens until US demand for
the non-printed variety levels out. The analysis also found strong
opportunities for SMEs to boost market access in synthetic
table linens, through a combination of targeted marketing, US
networking and relationship-building, and consistent export volume

• 115
and customer service will boost market access efforts. Finally,
printed synthetic bed linens – where Portugal is a global and US
leading exporting country – is currently witnessing rapid import
demand growth, but the report cautioned that growth this rapid is
likely unsustainable. SMEs should enter this market expecting high
growth to taper off within the coming years.
The window dressings subsector was the third largest and 1.1% of all
US textiles imports. Within this subsector, synthetic window dressings
represent 80% of imports – a highly recommended product category
for SMEs. The other product category, cotton window dressings,
appears to suffer from similar commodity-based US market
challenges. The report advised that market access would come with
competitively low product prices. After one to two years of SMEs
exporting to the US, the report advised that prices would increase
to recoup short-term losses from lowering prices to access the US
market, if any, once SMEs’ products gain recognition and reputation.
US demand for iron housewares – another commodity-based

product – was the second largest for US imported home décor and
1.6% of all metal sector US imports, the fifth largest US import sector
(of 21). This subsector was growing prior to the impact of the 2008
financial crisis and recently peaked in 2011. However, Comtrade
(2016) indicated a 11.6% import demand increase between 2014 to
2015; overall, the US iron housewares import market is fairly steady.
The most recommended product category for SMEs was stainless
steel kitchen articles, followed by iron / steel kitchen articles. Both
were recommended, but SMEs may encounter more challenging
market access barriers with iron / steel kitchen articles due to global
commodity oversupply and higher US import tariffs, though there is
steady growth in this market.
The findings suggested that SMEs build their product quality

reputation with US suppliers. This section also examined aluminum
housewares, a related subsector, and found that US import demand
is slow; however, there are signs of growth. US demand for copper
housewares, another related subsector, was much lower with
declining demand levels. SMEs looking to export in this subsector
should be aware of more prevalent market barriers when compared
to aluminum or iron housewares as US consumer preference
appears to be material-based (more on this in the next section).
Knives were the second smallest home décor subsector for US

demand, occupying 0.5% of US metal sector imports in 2014. The
market has been fairly consistent, and the most recommended
product category for SMEs’ export development was butcher’s
knives, which has good growth due to increased demand each year
except 2014, including 2015. The other product category – folding
knives – may not be a particularly high-demand home décor
product, but HS codes feature strange overlap; some home décor
knives may fall into this product category. US demand for folding
knives has also shown good growth, and the findings advised that
marketing should focus on product quality and value for money,
expanding target markets to hotels and other foodservice outlets
for both product categories in addition to US importers, distributors,
and retailers.

The final subsector, porcelain tableware, is one where Portugal
is a leading US and global exporting country, but US demand is
the lowest for all home décor products. Good growth remains in
this import subsector, although demand fell in 2014. The report
focused on porcelain / china table and kitchenware – 97% of all
porcelain tableware subsector US imports – which reflects a steady,
secure market for SMEs, particularly good for businesses with low
risk tolerance. The other product category of porcelain / china
household and toilet articles has shown minor improvement but
has yet to recover since falling to less significant demand levels (less
than 0.0%) following the 2008 financial crisis’ impact on global
trade and luxury home goods.
This section also examined US demand for ceramic tableware

that features slightly less US import demand compared to the
porcelain variety but also where Portugal is a leading global and
US exporting country. There are good growth opportunities for
SMEs in this market, and the findings suggest SMEs market towards
trends discussed in the following section. The report emphasizes
that timing is key in the US market, and the section now turns to
analyzing US trends as part of an insider’s perspective of how to
supply this US demand effectively.
5.3 Trends Affecting US Supply and Demand
This section focuses on giving Portuguese SMEs an idea of how

to supply demand in the US market by examining trends that
affect supply and demand. Trends in the US, in general, are
much stronger market forces compared to Europe. For example,
while Europe tends to rely on tradition and craftsmanship, the
US embraces trends, and home décor is subject to complex and
varied trends – from do-it-yourself to seasonal preferences. A trade
association executive highlighted that there are also “macro” and
“micro” trends that shape US home décor demand and gave the
example of pour-over-coffee makers as a micro trend; whereas,
the importance of design is a macro trend.78 SMEs should monitor
US market and industry trends in timing the arrival of exports. This
section will explore four key trends: in materials, luxury on a budget,
with bathrooms, and origin stories. These trends also reflect on US
consumer spending and preferences.
5.3a Materials
For all consumer product categories, it is critical to know the
current product trends while, at the same time, cultivating a
sense of coming trends in order to respond to the needs of the
market. There are three general product trends in the US home
décor market related to materials; matte finishes, stainless steel,
and marble, which are all trending upwards. In Section 5.2d, the
report advised that stainless steel iron housewares presented good
opportunities for SMEs’ export development and that American
consumers appeared to indicate a specific materials preference

• 117
(stainless steel) in this subsector. SMEs exporting other subsector
products, such as textiles, should consider how their products
correspond to this trend in materials. For example, a SME looking to
export bedspreads, for example, may look to approach US suppliers
with more swatches of cooler colors that will correspond with the
matte, stainless steel, and marble materials trends.
Similarly, because marble is trending upward and granite is

trending downward, SMEs exporting house linens, window
dressings, or porcelain tableware may benefit from following
this trend. The report advises that SMEs consult color trends that
are released by Pantone each year at the International Home +
Housewares Show – also available on Pantone’s “Trend Forecasting”
website – to gain a competitive edge and subscribe to the top US
housewares trade and consumer publications to monitor trends.
Additionally, Americans’ love of color – discussed in-depth below
– also applies to iron housewares, with colored stainless preferred
by two-thirds of one home décor magazine’s readers over the
conventional, silver variety (Parker 2015). Demonstrating knowledge
of US consumer and market trends gives SMEs the advantage of
tailoring their products to US suppliers needs, rather than expecting
the US market will purchase products SMEs make available.
Another materials trend that leaves more room from creativity in

marketing to US suppliers is a mixed materials trend. Good news
for SMEs looking to export copper housewares, a mixture of copper
and stainless steel housewares, are trending upwards in the US
– particularly those with a high metallic sheen or shine – as are
brass finishes in bathrooms, kitchens, and lighting fixtures (House
Beautiful 2015). One e-commerce retailer emphasized that: “Gold
accents are also huge right now for home décor.”79 US design
catalogues are also showcasing natural wood and marble flooring
finishes used collectively, brick and granite, and ceramic tile and
unfinished wood. A combination of modern materials, finishes,
colors, textures, and design are trending upwards in US home décor
(Parker 2015). The same e-commerce retailer referenced above said
they are buying: “more transitional to modern-type looks.”80
One home décor company interviewed highlighted that the scope

of the materials trend is not confined to traditional materials like
metal, wood, stone, and ceramic. “There’s a company we’re working
with right now that comes to mind in Holland, using PET (recycled
water bottles). They are doing really unique things with new
materials, and that’s interesting to us.”81 From here there are limitless
possibilities for the SME with a creative and customizable design
eye, and the mix-and-match trend does not end with materials; it
applies to bed linens as well. The report also suggests the creative
home décor and design SME cross-market their products with
an online (social) media site, giving design tips and blending
Portuguese and American design culture.
80 Ibid.

In speaking to a buyer for a large US hotel chain, she reflected on
Americans’ perceptions of European design and trends. “There
are trends over in Europe that give us insight. There are some
similarities over there that would give us that competitive edge [if
we purchased their products]. It’s the same in hospitality as it is
in fashion — [Europe is] three to five years ahead of us on trends.
We try to pattern ourselves after them.”82 Additionally, a trade
association executive highlighted that one competitive advantage
European SMEs have in the US market is an eye for good design. “If
you look at the ascendency of design, 12 years ago, we interviewed
legendary designers in the industry, and the key ones said their
industry used to be a desert. What’s happened now… design has
become so important in the ability to differentiate [products].
Differentiation is almost as important as it has been for years in the
European market.”83
Design magazines and US suppliers interviewed indicated that

the US consumer has fallen out of favor with plain fabrics. Printed
fabrics, especially in bed linens, are selling in considerably higher
numbers in 2016. This trend not only confirms the import demand
shift assessment of non-printed and printed cotton bed linens in
Section 5.2b, but it also reveals that Americans crave uniqueness
in home décor – a theme carried through these four trends. US
consumers are also willing to combine luxury finishes with more
economical options. One e-commerce retailer interviewed said
they are seeing an increase in velvet and linen. “We’re interested in
everything new and trending. In terms of fabric, velvet and linen are
really big right now.”84 The vastness of the US market indicates that
SMEs producing both high-quality, upmarket home décor compete
in the same market demographic as SMEs producing more cost-
effective products, which is typically unusual.
Within the materials trend, color and unique patterns continue

to be highly popular in the US, as in Portugal, giving SMEs an
advantage highlighted by a trade association executive familiar
with Portuguese ceramic and porcelain tableware. “This will help
your producers in Portugal if they get that casual [as opposed to
formal tableware] and color are the ways in.”85 Another example of
this trend – applied to SMEs exporting house linens and window
dressings – is in fabric wall art and decorative window appliques.
Following the 2008 financial crisis and a general decline in
homeownership in the US – particularly among the millennial
generation, those reaching adulthood in 2000 and after – the US is
witnessing an increase in renters, which tend to change residences
frequently (JCHS 2013). This demographic presents a potential
target market for SMEs able to keep pace with the materials trend.
Because renters’ accommodations are often temporary, they search

for temporary ways and innovative materials to decorate or add

• 119
color to their walls or windows – alternatives to painting or installing
wall-damaging curtain rods. The renter’s home décor market is
particularly dynamic and heavily reliant on trends. One US retailer
catering particularly to this market said their purchasing process
varies. “There are so many factors, but definitely fashion… What we
offer mainly goes by trends.”86
Fabric wall art and appliques are examples of fashionable, on-

trend home décor that continues to be popular with this rental
demographic. Rather than an installed or permanent home décor
fixture, wall art and appliques are backed by a paper-based, sticky,
non-permanent adhesive. Some upscale fabric shops are now offering
to adhere this backing material for a flat fee to any of their textiles. This
indicates that the market for SMEs exporting house linens and window
dressings can range – from chain stores like JC Penny, Kohl’s, Macy’s,
Target, and Bed, Bath, and Beyond to more upmarket, boutiques, such
as Arhaus, Birch Lane, and Schweitzer Linen. Texture-rich and technical
fabrics and designs are trending upwards, as are expressive prints
ranging from owls and foxes to art deco. Art deco, in general, is making
a strong return to US home décor.
SMEs exporting window dressings should also consider how to

innovate products for the increasing majority of US citizens living
in urban areas, as is the case with many countries. The US has a
high demand for “black out curtains”, which subdue city light and
noise; however, rarely does US demand for black out curtains marry
with consumers’ preferences for uniqueness, colorfulness, and
customization – discussed further below. Décor options for black
out curtains are sparse with most options being plain colors and
non-printed. The report suggests that SMEs producing black out
curtains with the ability to cater to American décor preferences may
find a vast and growing market in urban areas. The report would
suggest that both calming patterns and bright, expressive colors are
in demand in the US, and when marketed well, home décor chain
stores would be particularly interested in offering more window
dressing options to US consumers.
A highly popular avenue for addressing the materials trend in home

décor is through splashes of color. Brightly colored and expressive
designs add a touch of individuality that US consumers search for.
Though white kitchens and bathrooms remain popular, design
catalogues are suggesting colorful, highly decorative ceramic
products to add color to white rooms. To give an example of this
eclecticism in the US market, one home décor magazine suggested
“17th century Holland” pottery is highly coveted (House Beautiful
2016). From window dressings to house linens and from porcelain
tableware to ceramic housewares, Portugal’s rich tradition of
ceramic tiles could present an exciting opportunity to respond to
this trend by reflecting these tiles on wall coverings or other fabrics.
By transferring colorful beauty and highly-recognized patterns of

Portuguese ceramic tiles to these home décor subsectors, SMEs
can utilize an existing trend to create US demand for specifically

Portuguese home décor products. The report found US customized
home décor sites – where individuals can create or upload a
design to a manufacturer and have a customized product created
– that featured products with colors and designs emblematic of
Portuguese ceramic tiles, such as HomeStyler or WeaveUp. Some
sites, such as Etsy, eBay, and Luulla, even offer Portuguese tile
“decals” (self-adhesive vinyl products) that can be temporarily fixed
to existing tiles, windows, floors, wood finishes, cabinets, ceilings,
doors, appliances, mirrors, or walls. Flooding the US market with
colorful designs inspired by Portuguese ceramic tiles is one way
SMEs could not only supply this US trend demand but also create a
lasting market for Portuguese imported home décor.
While US consumer preferences and the mixed materials trend

reflect that the US home décor market is eclectic and highly
individualistic, the report has also found that exporting varied home
décor products with a similar theme, such as colorful patterns
inspired by Portuguese ceramic tiles, allows the US consumer create
a holistic interior design. For example, the design magazine that
coveted 17th century Dutch pottery suggested that the traditional
blue and white porcelain design can serve as a design focal point,
and many similar patterned products can be found to complement
this décor. The supply and subsequent fostering of a Portuguese
ceramic tile trend in US home décor has the potential to not only
open the US market to Portuguese SMEs but also pave the way for
continued product growth and US consumption.
5.3b Luxury on a Budget

Luxury on a budget represents not only that US consumer spending
on home décor is steadily increasing – discussed in detail at the
end of the trends section – but also that the US market presents
highly lucrative opportunities for SMEs to increase their profitability.
Upmarket home décor products have always been popular in the
US, and because Portugal possesses a number of comparative and
competitive advantages – discussed in Section 6.2b – it is highly
likely that SMEs are producing high-quality products that can be
priced effectively to supply this US trend. There are three central
points that outline this trend: high-quality finishes, do-it-yourself
(DIY), and idea-sharing.
Beginning with high-quality finishes, this element of the luxury

on a budget trend evokes the idea that home décor products
can look more expensive than they are. The epitome of this idea
is reflected in the growing US demand for imported synthetic
home décor products, from synthetic house linens and window
dressings to stainless steel housewares. Synthetic fabrics are less
costly than natural, such as cotton. Stainless steel housewares are
less costly and easier to maintain than their copper counterparts.
The popularity of cost-effective materials also reflects the growing
mixed materials trend; rather than decorate exclusively in expensive
copper, marble, or natural wood, US consumers are combining
these luxury materials with lower cost finishes to create an aesthetic
that appears more expensive than reality.

• 121
For bedspreads, house linens, and window dressings, mercerization
– treating fabric to increase durability and luster – can add high-
quality finishes. Bedspreads, particularly, have varied options for
luxury on the budget by combining luxurious fabrics like cashmere,
virgin wool, cotton, and silk with more cost-effective poly fabric
filling. For porcelain tableware or ceramic housewares, glazing
serves a similar purpose to mercerization and gives products a
luxurious appearance. Polishing iron housewares, while at odds
with the matte materials trend, also offers that luxury touch. High-
quality finishes demonstrate to consumers that product durability,
craftsmanship, and value is higher than those without such finishes.
However, the “distressed” home décor trend is a unique twist on this
trend. Contra high-shine, luxury protective finishes, distressed home
décor is considered luxury because it is chic, charming, not mass-
produced and considered better aging (Flanagan 2015).
The distressed finish or “shabby chic” home décor trend also reflects
a small but growing popularity in US home décor DIY, which also
connects to the idea-sharing element of the luxury on a budget
trend. Since the 2008 financial crisis, most Americans have had
less disposable income for luxuries, such as interior designers,
decorators, or antiques. In a market where antique European home
décor was once a trend benchmark, DIY and “the Ikea generation”
now reign (Grahame 2015). With photo and video tutorials on
popular social media sites, such as YouTube, Instagram, and Pintrest,
US consumers are able to pursue home décor luxury on a budget.
“DIYers are becoming more empowered, and HGTV phenomenon
are making it look easy to be a proper interior designer.”87
The rise of DIY in US home décor, while deeply linked to the post-
2008 economy, is also connected to a decline in US craftsmen, which
is where SMEs have considerable opportunity in the US market
(Cusato 2016). The New York Times (2012) referred to this transition
as “the Home Depot approach to craftsmanship” – “simplify it, dumb
it down” – and it has strong implications for the decline of US home
décor manufacturing and competitiveness. Marketing the high-
quality of Portuguese craftsmanship as a supply solution to the
decline of US craftsmanship and those without time for DIY provides
SMEs with a niche position among US suppliers. US consumers want
high-quality and luxury – something rare among low-cost imports
from exporting countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, and those
from Southeast Asia – but they also want affordability in home décor.
Again, Portugal’s comparative and competitive advantages position
SMEs in a niche position to supply this market demand.
As a general rule of thumb, an excellent marketing and relationship-

building technique with US consumers and suppliers is to address
a problem before it becomes a problem – to provide the answer
without being asked the question. This level of foresight, ambition,
and resourcefulness is key in accessing and growing in the US
market. Offering US suppliers and consumers luxury on a budget
through high-quality craftsman products – declining in the US
mass market – that are competitively priced is an innovative
demonstration of Portuguese SMEs competitive advantage.

The increase in idea-sharing across the US home décor market has
not only given rise to DIY but also to enhanced diversity in products
and styles. As was the case with mixed materials, US consumers are
getting luxury on a budget by idea-sharing through social media,
particularly Etsy – a peer-to-peer e-commerce site where individuals
across the world can sell handmade, vintage, or craft items – the
micro market of US craftsmanship. US consumers visit sites like Etsy
or Instagram for design inspiration and have the enhanced ability
to purchase unique products that inspire them. For SMEs with
low export development investment budgets, this may be a cost-
effective strategy for US market entry.
The biggest secret is this: [Producers] who have what it takes

to succeed – a good product, a good marketing plan, a pricing
structure that compensates everyone in their supply chain fairly –
don’t really need Etsy for long… Successful [producers] of a certain
size eventually move to e-commerce platforms that give them
much more flexibility and control for fewer fees (Dobush 2015).
Stories abound about the self-made Etsy millionaires, and perhaps

more advantageous for SMEs, the Etsy buyer typically pays import
tariffs, which allows producers to keep prices low. Portuguese
producers would pay a 20-cent listing fee, a 3.5% transaction fee, and
any additional payment processing fees (Dobush 2015). Etsy began as
a haven for crafters to fund their hobbies, it has: “grown from a close-
knit subculture to a giant economy that influences trends in big box
[chain] stores”; it is the fifth most-visited online US e-commerce site
following Amazon, Best Buy, eBay, and Walmart (Dobush 2015).
In February 2013, the site developed partnerships with upscale US

retail giant, Nordstrom – contacted for this report – as well as other
home décor brands, retailers, and even museum stores through the
launch of Etsy Wholesale where “professional buyers for boutiques
and other retailers can connect with juried artists, designers, and
vintage vendors who offer wholesale” (Folan 2013). Etsy shoppers
typically search for high-quality, boutique products that are
unavailable in conventional stores, which offers SMEs opportunities
to grow their brands and product popularity in the US market with
low investment costs.
As with the materials trends, the report suggests SMEs cross-

market their Etsy product listings through guest posts for US design
magazines or websites and a consistently updated, well-run, near-
native English language social media décor site. The report parties
interviewed a US e-commerce retailer whose site features an
extensive product listing, along with recommendation posts and
room-by-room “idea” suggestions. Idea-sharing sites like Etsy, Big
Cartel, or Shopify – which have lower selling fees and can offer added
benefits over Etsy for sellers with higher volumes or price points – can
serve as a US market gateway for Portuguese SMEs offering unique
and luxury home décor products on a budget (Dobush 2015).

• 123
5.3c Bathrooms
The US bathroom has been transformed to a room for function into
a “living space”; temporary wallpaper, statement lighting pendants,
colorful motifs, excessive designs, and decorative furniture are time-
tested US home décor trends (House Beautiful 2015; Parker 2015). This
trend also has connections with the materials and luxury on a budget
trends. Beginning the materials trend and a positive opportunity
for iron (or other metal / alloy) housewares producers, iron lighting
fixtures and brass and copper hardware accents are highly popular
with US designers and consumers. Again, US consumers do not
consistently decorate in one material; mixes of stainless steel, dark
iron, marble, and bright copper are fairly common.
In bathroom décor, US consumers are looking for high-quality,

stylish, and elegant fixtures to pair with other individualistic
décor items. Popular lighting choices across décor magazines
in recent years showcase items that serve as the focal point for
the room’s décor rather than traditional and simple chandeliers
(House Beautiful 2015). Those that prefer more modern and
sleek décor have showcased statement mirrors, such as simple
glass surrounded by Portuguese ceramic tile. A single tiled wall
or a highly contemporary tiled wall runner (as opposed to a fully
tiled bathroom) also serve as a focal point (Parker 2015). Colorful,
expressive tiles and DIY mosaics are increasingly popular with the
individualistic style of US consumers.
Connecting with the luxury on a budget trend, a deftly decorated

bathroom is a cost-effective strategy for US consumers to acquire
high-cost appearances without spending exorbitant amounts on
new and upmarket white goods. Because of the plumbing costs, US
consumers look to the small touches in decorating their bathrooms.
Iron housewares producers can benefit from this trend; iron fixtures
– such as lighting, mentioned above – is an on-trend answer to a
luxury redecoration on any budget. One home décor design site
advises adding rods, hooks, cabinet fittings, iron shelving, or unique
hardware to transform a bathroom (Trudeau 2016).
For house linens producers, upmarket bathroom rugs are a

contemporary décor solution, and in this case, comfort, such as
memory foam, is just as essential as style and theme. Ceramic
housewares producers should also know that adding ceramic tile
– as an accent or in larger areas – is a trendy and more expensive
mechanism for bathroom décor, which could help SMEs market
to resorts and hotel chains in addition to retailers and wholesalers.
One large hotel chain interviewed said: “We look at trends, and we
definitely look at the studies that are done about what travelers’
thoughts and needs and wants are. We look at those and try to
incorporate that information about what they want as much as we
can into the guest experience. [However], it’s really the costing. That’s
the biggest thing. It’s always a costing issue.”88 Decals are marketed
as a less expensive way to achieve this luxury appearance, and SMEs
should highlight the numerous advantages Portuguese ceramic tiles
have over the “peel-and-stick” tiling option with US suppliers.

SMEs producing house linens and window dressings could
interpret this trend by utilizing simple product modifications to
cross manufacture shower curtains, if not already doing so. Using
high-quality linens and fabrics to produce luxury shower curtains
allows SMEs to reach a broader US market with more products.
US suppliers often look to fill diverse supply needs from a single
producer to minimize costs, which often creates market challenges
for SMEs. Producing more, related products improves SMEs’
competitiveness, and luxurious shower curtains remain one of the
most cost-effective mechanisms for upscale bathroom decorating.
SMEs should also ensure that they research common shower
curtain rod types in upscale US rental accommodations, such as the
increasingly common longer, curved rods, to effectively supply this
luxury on a budget bathroom trend.
5.3d Product Origin Stories

The last US home décor trend affecting supply and demand is not
unlike food or fashion products; US suppliers and consumers want
home décor products with a story. Increasingly, the consumption
of products reflects individualistic expressions and personal experi-
ences. One company executive described his buying process. “The
romantic version is that we travel and discover products.”89 Just as
someone in an upmarket or ethnic grocer is more likely to buy ba-
calao if they have eaten it on holiday in Portugal, US home décor
consumers want throw pillows reminiscent of a trip to Paris, house
linens of traditional, Guatemalan weave, and Hungarian or Chinese
lanterns. Despite global supply chains, many US home décor con-
sumers want the product to reflect the country of origin authenticity.
This trend originates from the sentiment that an American’s home is

an expression of who they are. In entertaining, Americans enjoy tell-
ing stories about their home décor, such as: “this rug was traditionally
hand woven in Turkey”, “these coffee mugs were made by a little old
Italian man outside a gelateria”, or “I found these brass faucets in a vil-
lage in the Philippines”. One US importer, River of Gods, is dedicated
to exploring the globe in search of the most geographically-distinct
home décor products, such as Tiffany lamps and Moroccan wool rugs.
The products themselves are an expression of the individual, and as
such, SMEs should be able to craft origin stories in pitching their
products, whether to US partners or through their English-language
e-commerce sites. Origin stories allow consumers to create their own
brand identity rather than a house filled with LL Bean products, and
even large chain retailers, such as Anthropologie, have caught on to
using origin stories as a marketing trend.
As well as being an expression of an individual, products with

origin stories are hallmark of a shift to more conscious capitalism
in the US. Recall the home décor company importing Dutch PET
(recycled water bottle) home décor from Section 5.3a. The executive
described his interest in this unique way of using materials as:
“more of what we look for in a product with a story.”90 This is also
90 Ibid.

• 125
where Portuguese SMEs have advantage over competitors that
can produce higher volumes of low cost home décor products.
Increasingly, US consumers demand market diversity in durable
goods – the not-made-for-mass-market products. Whereas in the
past Portuguese SMEs would have had greater difficulty competing
with French ceramic cookware giant, Le Creuset, the US market
is beginning to open up to “off brands”, newly discovered high-
value products, and home décor products that speak to a sense of
originality. The majority of SMEs have these qualities in plenty.
Therefore, when marketing their products, SMEs should aim to

create a “moment” for US consumers to make a conscious decision
and connection with not only the product and its story but also
the company. This marketing fosters consumers’ ability to tell the
company’s and product’s origin story, and in this regard, investing
in a US consumer market specialist or someone with a firm
understanding of US consumer psychology may be particularly
worthwhile for SMEs looking to market to the service industry and
millennial demographic that has or wants to travel to Portugal.
As best as SMEs can, they should aim to develop a sense of the
American perception of the Portuguese lifestyle.
Assessment of Trends Affecting US Supply and Demand

This section has explored four trends affecting US home décor
supply and demand: materials, luxury on a budget, bathrooms,
and origin stories. The objective of the section is to provide SMEs
with a better characterization of the US home décor market. There
are some regional preferences, additionally, that SMEs should be
aware of when marking products and conducting partner searches.
For example, the east coast of the US tends generally to favor more
patriotic (red, white, and blue) and nautical themes and cleaner,
more European designs. The south and midwest also favor the
patriotic motif, as well regional points of pride, such as desert or
cowboy / western themes, and shabby chic or rustic design. The west
coast has a strong east Asian and Latin influence; bright colors and
contemporary, highly individualistic designs are common. These
regional preferences also apply to fabrics and materials. “[Regional
preference] varies a bit, but not too much that I’ve seen. Definitely in
the south, they’re not going to go with heavy warm fabrics as they do
up north.”91 However, in the US, there is always a market for a good
product with a strong story at a competitive price.
For Portuguese SMEs to have a clearer idea of their target market

and future trends in the US home décor market, the report provides
an overall consumer market assessment before transitioning to
the next section. This assessment aims to help SMEs understand
the most appropriate products and demographics for marketing
purposes, what US states / regions to target potential partners,
and potentially how to develop short and longer-term sustainable
export strategies utilizing projected growth analysis on US
consumer spending on home décor. Using the information below,
SMEs should keep pace with where these consumer markets are

growing, ie: where are service industries growing or declining using
US government and industry data. Resources for keeping pace with
this data can be located in Section 5.4.
From 2014 to second-quarter 2016, Americans working in service-

producing industries – ranging from foodservice to aerospace
– earned almost 400% more annually than those working in goods-
producing industries, such as manufacturing (BEA 2016i). The
highest salaries and wages among service industry workers were
concentrated among those in:
»» finance and insurance

»» real estate and rental and leasing
»» professional, scientific, and technical services
»» company and enterprise management
»» administrative, support, waste management, and remediation
services
»» educational services
»» health care and social assistance
»» arts, entertainment, and recreation
»» accommodation and food services (BEA 2016i).
Over this time period, earnings for those working in these service
industries have grown the most at 1.1%, and earnings for those
working in trade, transportation, and utilities services have grown at
a slightly reduced pace. Earnings for those working in manufactur-
ing and government grew at half the rate as those in services (BEA
2016i). Within these demographics, consumer spending from 2014
to July 2016 continued to rise (Susssman and Leubsdorf 2016). US
consumer spending on durable goods rose 5% from 2014 to the
second-quarter of 2016, and within the category of “furnishings and
durable household equipment” consumer spending rose 5.7% in
this period (BEA 2016ii).92 This indicates that US consumer spend-
ing on home décor is outpacing spending growth in the overall cat-
egory of durable goods – items with a duration of three years, such
as motor vehicles and parts and recreational goods.
From 2014 to 2015, on average, US consumers collectively spent

$340.15B on home furnishings and equipment; between 2014 and
2015, there was an average annual gain of $22.9B, and through
the first half of 2016, spending on home furnishings has increased
another $17.6B, on average (BEA 2016iii). The US Bureau of Eco-
nomic Analysis provides more details data on consumer spending
on home furnishings. From 2011 to 2015, US consumer spending on
“furniture and furnishings” rose 5.1%, 5.8% on “glassware, tableware,
and household utensils”, and 6.2% on “household textiles” (BEA
2016iv; BEA 2016v).
92 These increases are based on increases from 2014 to the second-quarter of 2016, using
2009 as the baseline year.

• 127
These categories represent the majority, if not all, of the subsectors
and product categories assessed in this report. Consumer spending
is predicted to continue growing at an average annual rate of 1.7%
through 2020, with high concentrations of growth located within US
retail chain stores (Trading Economics 2016). An example of how SMEs
could use this information on US consumer spending on home décor
is as follows. Marketing to US consumers in the services industries and
knowing that consumer spending on home décor – predicted to con-
tinue through 2020 – is outpacing increases in overall durable goods
spending, SMEs should aim to gain US market access by targeting the
most appropriate channel depending on their product, pricing, and
positioning. Product price increases should be built in every two to
three years to keep pace with consumer purchasing power, product
recognition objectives, and projected increased demand by catering to
American home décor trends and consumer preferences.
This strategy will, in the long-term, help some of the SMEs exporting
higher volumes offset the initial costs of US market access and keep
product prices competitively low to gain partnerships with large,
chain stores that typically acquire products from producers in Chi-
na, India, and Bangladesh. This is a particularly sound recommenda-
tion for SMEs partnering with designers or exporting home décor
on-trend products with high growth, such as bedspreads, house
linens, and window dressings (“household textiles”) and iron house-
wares, knives, and porcelain tableware (“tableware and household
utensils”). For SMEs who cannot afford to reduce product prices to
competitively low levels, upmarket chains, such as Crate and Barrel,
Wayfair, and Williams and Sonoma, or independent boutiques may
present more lucrative, albeit perhaps slower growing, market entry
point. A trade association executive advised on strategies that may
be more effective with these retailers.
If your products are high quality, price isn’t so much as issue… You
have to have a point of differentiation. The Williams and Sonoma-
type retailers have become really tough on suppliers… They all
want differentiation. At the upper end, design differentiation is
what matters, but that doesn’t always guarantee success. For
example, there was a French cookware company called Cristel;
they came to the US market a couple years ago. They sell at the
very top end, and they have a design difference – really high
quality. They’ve had trouble finding a spot in the US market
because, to be meaningful, they have to hold their price point and
still be price-reasonable.93
The overall finding of the section is that US demand for imported

home décor is growing, and the target demographic with the
most opportunities for SMEs are in the service industry. SMEs must
evaluate their export development investment capacity and ability
to market products to American tastes. As one buyer familiar with
Portuguese home décor products explained: “Well, they’re from
Europe, and we look at what goes on in Europe. Some of what
they do won’t translate over here. Europe can be different, but it’s

also very similar.”94 This will further refine the products, US states /
regions, and strategies for future partner searches in the US market.
Before continuing, it is worth pausing to emphasize the

recommendations made so far that will help SMEs keep pace of
US trends. The importance of keeping pace cannot be overstated;
in the US, succeeding at any level of business requires being at
the right place at the right time. A trade association executive
highlighted an example. “There’s a Spanish silicon company who
has tried about five different approaches to get on the US market;
they have demonstrated that you have to feel your way through
the process to make sure you’re doing it right.”95 This means being
ahead of the curve when it comes to US trends, but trends change.
By the time Portuguese SMEs digest this report and begin to form
an action plan for sustainable export development, some of these
trends may have less potency.
5.4 Understanding How the Competition Responds to Trends
Becoming a top US exporting country requires strategy development

and enhancements, some of which are outside the scope of this
report. Consistent sustainable export development that is supported
– financially and with other resources – by the European, Portuguese,
and local business community, such as AEP and the Agência para
o Investimento e Comércio Externo de Portugal (AICEP), puts
US market access and growth opportunities within SMEs’ grasp.
Before concluding, this section will help SMEs understand how the
competition responds to US market trends and how this gives them
the competitive edge that facilitates their success.
Some96 of the top US home décor companies – including chains

and independent, brick-and-mortar and online only stores – are:
»» Ikea: multinational chain, world’s largest brick-and-mortar and

online furniture retailer since 2008, $35.7 billion in global revenue
in 2015 (Ikea 2015)
»» Bed, Bath, and Beyond: multinational North American chain,
brick-and-mortar and online home décor retailer in Fortune 500
and Forbes Global 2000, acquired Cost Plus World Market and
One Kings Lane (other major US home décor retailers), $11.88B in
2015 revenue (NASDAQ 2016)
»» Crate and Barrel and CB2 (corporate name: Euromarket Designs,
owned by Otto Group, Hamburg): 170-store US chain, brick-and-
mortar and online home décor retailer, $1.53B in 2014 revenue
(Sweeney 2015)
»» Pier 1 Imports: multinational chain and e-commerce retailers
with over 1,000 brick-and-mortar stores, $1.88B in 2015 revenue
(NASDAQ 2016i)
95 Ibid.
96 Others worth mentioning that were contacted for this report include: Wayfair, Overstock.
com, Hayneedle, A+R, H&M Home, Lulu & Georgia, Dot & Bo, HomeGoods, and TJ Maxx.

• 129
»» Williams and Sonoma: multinational chain with over 600 brick-and-
mortar stores, one of the US’ largest e-commerce retailers, owns
seven other store brands, $4.7B in 2015 revenue (NASDAQ 2016ii)
»» Uncommon Goods: New York-based e-commerce retailer, not
publically traded – no revenue data – but popular employment
verification website lists between $10M and $25M per year;
excellent example of the eclectic, individualistic, non-traditional
home décor US market
»» Mod Cloth: multi-regional US e-commerce and “pop-up”
retailer, not publically traded – no revenue data – but popular
employment verification website lists between $100M and
$500M per year; excellent example of US trend towards printed
bedspreads, house linens, and table and kitchenware, as well as
eclectic, individualistic, non-traditional lighting, iron housewares,
window dressings, and porcelain and ceramic tableware.
Top US trade associations (no particular order) for Portuguese SMEs’

networking are:
»» International Housewares Association
–– Assists in facilitation of global home décor commerce

–– Publishes industry market data
–– Facilitates industry standards
»» American Home Furnishing Alliance
–– Previously the American Furniture Manufacturers Association,

now represents importers as well as US manufacturers
–– Focus on:
• Government and regulatory affairs

• Standards
• Knowledge
• Public relations
»» Home Furnishings Association
–– Started in 1920, North America’s largest organization of home

furnishings retailers, more than 1,400 members with 7,000
storefronts in North America
–– Assists with networking to improve industry relationships and
market strategies
–– Advocates for members’ interests and issues in federal and
state legislatures
»» American Society of Interior Designers
–– Consolidates and assists designers, industry representatives,

educators, and students in the home design and décor
community
–– Since 1975, more than 25,000 members, including 2,000

industry partner companies, and 47 national chapters
–– Focuses on providing resources for education, advocacy,
community building and outreach, and relationship-building
»» Gift and Home Trade Association
–– 300-member non-profit association formed in 2000 to

encourage sales agencies, vendors, industry affiliates, and
retailers to collaborate on networking and business-to-business
development
–– Hosts annual conference and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing
and idea transfer through social media.
Trade associations offer excellent online and offline resources for

foreign SMEs looking to access and grow in the US market. For
example, one executive interviewed suggested joining a trade
association can help Portuguese SMEs: “establish trust that leads
to doing business and even do product demonstrations. It’s a great
way to make connections. Businesses don’t buy from businesses;
people buy from people. It’s that old cliché about developing
individual relationships in doing business here.”97
Some98 of the top US trade shows that Portuguese companies may

be interested in attending are:
»» International Home and Housewares Show
–– Features more than 2,100 exhibitors and education sessions on

US trends and insight into business practices
–– Sponsored by the International Housewares Association
–– Held March 18-21, 2017 in Chicago, Illinois.
»» NY Now
–– Features more than 1,000 exhibitors that focus on innovation

– especially in furnishings and home textiles, interior decor,
tabletop, and gourmet housewares
–– Held February 4-8, 2017 and August 19-23, 2018
»» Maison & Objet Americas International Trade Fair for Home

Collections
–– Features over 300 brands, based off the success of the Maison
& Objet Paris show
–– Targets upmarket products for hospitality, food and beverage,
major retailer, and spa and wellness buyers
–– Held May 10-13, 2017 in Miami, Florida.
98 Others worth mentioning are the Dallas Total Home & Gift Market; NY Now Market for
Home, Lifestyle, and Gift; AmericasMart Atlanta; Casual Market Chicago; Kitchen and Bath
Industry Show; Cincinnati Remodel and Design Show; Architectural Digest Design Show;
and Brevard Home and Garden Expo.
• 131
»» New York Market Week
–– Focuses on home textiles directed at volume retailers

–– Access to Home Fashion Products Association members
–– Fall and winter show dates available from 2017 to 2019.
»» Las Vegas Market
–– Advertised as the most comprehensive furniture, home décor,

and gift market in the western US, fastest growing gift and
home décor market in the nation, and the national bedding
market
–– Over 3,000 exhibitors in 5 million square foot venue
–– Two annual shows (winter and summer) with dates from 2017
to 2020
»» ASD Market Week
–– Most comprehensive B2B trade show that allows importers,

distributors, wholesalers and large retailers to buy wholesale
goods from producers from 88 countries in Las Vegas
–– Advertises that buyers spend over $80K per show in hundreds
of product categories
• March 19-22, 2017

• July 30-August 2, 2017
Several retailers and distributors interviewed said they attended

trade shows, including some of the above, and they are an invaluable
source of market access knowledge sharing. When a trade association
executive was asked for his advice to Portuguese SMEs, he replied:
“They need to come to the US market, walk a trade show, or walk retail
locations. They need to see who is selling what for what.”99 Rather than
a forum for selling / buying products, trade shows are opportunities to
build relationships, particularly off the show floor at social functions
when there is less pressure to buy and an environment for networking
and face-to-face, trust-building conversations.
Trade shows are a way to build relationships with the trade and
network with vendors you already know and/or work with. When
we go to trade shows – global trade shows, like International
Contemporary Furniture Show in New York and Milan, Maison &
Objet in Paris, or the Stockholm Furniture Fair – it’s more about
cementing those relationships and dealing with issues.100
Other objectives can be achieved, such as building product or

company awareness and reputation, lead development, product
positioning, and networking. Trade shows are excellent sources

for information on US compliance and product launching. For
example, one US retailer said they would not be interested in
receiving any Portuguese home décor products to determine if they
would be interested in purchasing the product. “We don’t typically
do that, but if they were showing at a market, we would definitely
take a look.”101 Trade shows help build relationships towards future
sales, but they are also opportunities to observe how competitors
take advantage of US trends.
It is also essential for SMEs to stay current with industry news and
trends so they can best respond to trends, dumping news, and
supply issues affecting the US home décor market. Some102 of the
industry’s leading publications include:
»» Better Homes and Gardens

»» Martha Stewart Living
»» Elle Décor
»» House Beautiful
»» Traditional Home
»» Dwell
»» Architectural Digest
»» Interior Design Media
»» Interiors & Sources
»» My Domaine
»» Home Furnishings Business.
Understanding of how competition responds to US trends is

essential in establishing a competitive advantage in the US. As
highlighted in Section 5.3, one of the most effective mechanisms for
being competitive in supplying US demand is to respond to supply
gaps or issues that have not yet become critical.
This section argues that an insider’s perspective on how the

competition responds to US home décor trends is essential in
mastering the knowledge necessary to establish a competitive
advantage. At some junctures, the most effective mechanisms
for being competitive in supplying US demand is being import
compliant / export ready, understanding US distribution structure
and channels, differentiating products from the competition, and
developing clear product positioning and strategy. The US home
décor market is vast, and the US remains the top export destination
for all subsectors in this report. As a result, it can be tempting for
producers to expend resources without building a long-term,
sustainable US market. It is, therefore, critical for SMEs to understand
US market structure, regulatory compliance, and the essentiality of
trends for export investment to deliver consistent returns.
102 Though not publications, SMEs should note popular sites such as Pinterest, Etsy, Goop,
Preserve, and other “lifestyle”, all in one design / e-commerce platforms, such as Modenus.

• 133
5.5 Conclusion
Global trade is currently in a precarious position. Increasing

protectionism in G20 markets, Brexit, and commodity and currency
fluctuations put Portuguese SMEs in a challenging position.
WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo believes 2016 will be
the fifth consecutive year with sluggish global trade growth, the
“weakest sustained level of trade growth for 30 years” (WTO 2016i).
Nonetheless, this report – and the WTO – has a positive outlook for
trade growth in 2017 and 2018, and using the contents of this report,
SMEs developing export strategies for the US market will be well
positioned for the more lucrative years ahead.
Section 5.2 highlighted the importance of SMEs’ ability to recognize

and prepare to supply future trends. SMEs’ export readiness will
be paramount in their ability to respond to trends and building
relationships with US suppliers. This can be accomplished a variety
of ways from dropshipping to working with large US chains to Etsy.
Even if SMEs rely on trade shows for networking and relationship-
building, sales on the show floor are unlikely (though several
shows advertise this). It is more likely that a representative would
need to be present in the US to ensure import compliance and
communicate and network with US suppliers. “Trade events are
meaningful events, and there are number that could be helpful…
[However], if you can’t afford to watch the market, you need an
agent with a thorough understanding of [US suppliers’] target
market, products, and business model.”103
In contacting Crate and Barrel, the report parties uncovered that

they only work with foreign suppliers that have an agent, but they
continue to buy Portuguese home décor, as a US trade association
executive highlighted (see page 106 be sure accurate in final
draft). “We currently feel that our needs are being met [purchasing
products this way], but we would be happy to take a look at the
items that you are offering from Portugal.” A representative would
also have access to industry pricing knowledge for specific products
that are outside the scope of this report.
Section 5.3 examined trends that affect US home décor supply and
demand, including materials, luxury on a budget, bathrooms, and
product origin stories. The analysis targeted ways SMEs can seek to
develop their target market in the US, as markets, supply, demand,
compliance, and regulations vary by state or region. Most critically,
differential product positioning and pricing is key; products will
not sell simply by being present on the market. SMEs will require
targeted marketing strategies and revisions of those strategies
pending developments, as well as possible re-branding – for
example fabric wall art from house linens or luxury shower curtains
from window treatments. Section 5.4 examined how Portugal’s
competitors respond to US trends by presenting top US home
décor trade associations, trade shows, and publications. Using these
resources, Portugal’s competitors are able to gain a competitive
edge over other foreign suppliers. Being connected to a wide variety

of product and industry-specific resources helps exporters better
prepare to fill US supply needs before the market is flooded with
on-trend products.
The following section provides a summary of the report and

highlights where Portuguese SMEs have the greatest opportunities
to be competitive in the US market, noting the challenges that
mark the path ahead. The conclusion also provides benchmarking
information to enable SMEs to know when goals traverse market
access to market development and growth, where strategy
reassessment may be necessary. The conclusion also offers advice
for sustainable growth once SMEs become more established US
home décor producers.

• 135
Section 6:
Conclusion
6.1: Introduction
This report has analyzed, evaluated, and recommended strategies

for export development and growth in the US home décor market.
The report’s analysis of internal (US) competition (Section 2) found
overall growth across all subsectors, though commodity-based
markets are subject to global price volatility. The best opportune
markets for Portuguese SMEs are in knives and porcelain tableware.
Portugal has performed best in the US with textiles, especially
bedspreads and house linens, and porcelain tableware. However, its
competitiveness in some of these US markets has declined in the
most recent years, but with varied market advantages to leverage
in establishing contact with US suppliers, SMEs can contribute to
increased Portuguese export competitiveness.
The majority of the top competitors in the US market are within

Europe (Italy, France, Germany, UK, and Spain), and they are also
Portugal’s main export destinations and sources of foreign direct
investment. Improving Portugal’s competitiveness within Europe
would also have a positive effect on its World Economic Forum
Competitiveness rating. Outside Europe, Canada and Mexico
dominate many US subsector markets. Key competitors for Portugal
in the US market are:
»» Nicaragua and Pakistan (bedspreads)

»» Bahrain, Bangladesh, Italy, Mexico, and Turkey (house linens)
»» Denmark, the UK, and Vietnam (window dressings)
»» the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK (iron
housewares)
»» Canada, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and Norway (knives)
»» Bangladesh, Japan, and Sri Lanka (porcelain tableware).
Key strategies to improve internal competitiveness in the US market

include:
»» Leverage Portuguese export growth, volume, and consistency, in

addition to product quality and reputation
»» Determine competitive advantage(s) against key competitors
and build marketing campaigns around these focal points,
endeavoring to keep pace with overall market growth rate
»» Monitoring developments in US and key competitors’ markets
through 2018, especially window dressings and iron housewares
»» Develop relationships and build industry contacts.

• 137
By examining external, global and European competition (Section
3), the report uncovered the top global and European home
décor exporters (pg 38, ensure correct in final draft). The analysis
confirmed findings from Section 2.3 that China, India, Pakistan,
and Turkey are both US and global export leaders in home décor
products. Italy, however, is only a US home décor export leader;
it is much less competitive on the global market. Portugal’s
house linens exports are the only home décor subsector that
presently makes a significant contribution to GDP (greater than
0.0%). Portugal holds a significant portion of the global market
for bedspreads, house linens, and porcelain tableware but global
exports of bedspreads, window dressings, and knives are in decline.
Portugal is not a significant exporter of window dressings, iron
housewares, or knives, globally, but within Europe, Portugal is a
significant exporter of all of six home décor subsectors.
This section’s objective was to translate complex “dialectical”

relationships that shape global, European, and US trade in home
décor. The strategy recommendations that emerged from this
section’s analysis confirm the findings from Section 2:
»» Develop targeted markets and marketing campaigns for the US

market based on assessments of competitive advantage against
key competitors in key markets (see above)
»» Ensure export levels stay consistent through quarterly monitoring
and setting sales targets to respond to declining export volume
»» Build relationships as part of a longer-term strategy to access and
grow in the US market, emphasizing Portugal’s increased global
competitiveness, product and origin recognition, product and price
competitiveness, product quality, availability, and customer service
»» Use US competitiveness to increase global competitiveness and
vice versa
»» Capitalize on short and long-term successes in global markets
by highlighting where Portugal has outcompeted large global
competitors, such as Bangladesh, Germany, and Sweden in
developing a US network.
Section 4 provided general guidance for SMEs in complying

with US legal regulations and guidance with particular focus on
labeling and packaging, tariffs, and distribution structure and
channels. US distribution research yielded interesting results, and
the report suggests that SMEs will face the greatest difficulty in
the US market not in compliance and regulation but in contacting
potential partners. The report parties encountered more consistent
gatekeepers compared with the other three reports that are part of
the Compete 2020, Next Challenge USA project.
The US market is one of the most highly sought after markets for
global producers, and the best opportunities for market access
are in consistent, long-term relationship-building networks and
excellent product marketing that includes relatable origin stories
and competitive pricing. Potential partner searches can be most
economically directed through phone and email correspondence.
A more effective search would be through a US consultancy like

those contracted in this report, a broker, or active engagement
through trade shows and industry publications. Above all, the
report relayed the scope of the US market, the challenges of
compliance and the importance of being export ready before
approaching potential US partners.
Finally, the report offered an insider’s perspective of competition

and opportunities to supply US home décor demand (Section 5).
Assessing US import demand within each of the six subsectors
revealed that US demand for imported home décor presents
positive opportunities for SMEs with exception to a small minority
of product categories (non-printed bed linens, cotton window
dressings, and copper housewares). However, between reduced
global trade flows, dumping, protected US industry, and distaste for
certain foreign products, Portuguese SMEs will find it challenging
to develop sustainable strategies for US market development and
growth. Some of these product markets present greater challenges
than others, and others must be assessed as a case-by-case basis
with intimate knowledge of SMEs’ goals and resources. SMEs
must be creative and persistent in growing their export market.
A constant theme throughout the report is that there is always a
market for a good home décor product in the US.
To succeed in the US, SMEs must have:
»» quality products with competitive prices and accurate labeling

and, if relevant, certifications,
»» clear understandings of US regulations and compliance,
»» a target market (at the state or regional level) supported by a
unique story and customized marketing strategy
»» strong relationships and industry connections,
»» knowledge of US trends,
»» understanding of how to utilize resources to gain a competitive
edge, and collaborative, resourceful short and longer-term
strategies.
The simplest way to emphasize the scope and potential for develop-
ment and growth in the US market is to compare the GDP of Euro-
pean countries to specific American states. From largest to smallest:
»» the UK’s GDP is comparable to California;

»» Italy’s GDP is equivalent to that of Texas;
»» Poland’s is similar to Virginia or Massachusetts;
»» Portugal’s GDP is most similar to Alabama or South Carolina;
»» Greece’s GDP is between South Carolina and Kentucky; and
»» the Czech Republic’s GDP is akin to Oklahoma’s (BEA 2016; World
Bank 2016).
6.2 Portuguese SMEs’ Strengths and Challenges
In this final section, the report explores what it sees as Portugal’s

strengths and challenges in the US home décor market. Intended

• 139
to complement the insider’s perspective (Section 5), this summary
may give Portuguese SMEs critical insight into how to market their
products effectively in the US market. The summary draws the re-
port to a close by bringing together internal and external competi-
tiveness, legal regulations and compliance, and supply and demand
analysis.
Beginning with challenges, this final section examines:
»» critical resources SMEs need to increase their competitiveness and

respond to opportunities to supply US demand;
»» difficulty SMEs may encounter when building Portuguese product
visibility and recognition;
»» outcompeting European competitors who have been leveraging
their competitive advantage(s) and exporting in higher or more
consistent volumes in the US market for several years.
Following a discussion of these challenges, the report closes by

highlighting strengths that should motivate SMEs to seek access or
export growth to the US market via:
»» a comparison of Portuguese SMEs’ export potential to that of their

European (and/or global) competitors
»» assessment of competitive advantages that Portuguese SMEs
possess
»» underscoring how strategy-led growth can help SMEs work
towards recommendations from previous sections, such as:
»» consistent export volume
»» establishing brand recognition through marketing and
partnerships
»» building relationships and establishing a US presence / industry
network
»» utilizing momentum in other foreign markets and goodwill
towards US-EU trade relationships
»» building a model for sustainable export development and growth.
6.2a Challenges
The challenges Portuguese SMEs face in the US market are
significant; the report parties are similarly SMEs and know first-
hand the challenges of developing and growing in the dynamic
US business environment. The most well-developed export
development and growth strategies can easily go wrong. In Section
5.3, this report repeated the caveat that succeeding at any level of
business – in the US, Portugal, or globally – requires being in the
right place at the right time. This requires persistence and skill, and
the best way to prevent unforeseen events from disrupting export
development strategies is to be resourceful and flexible.
The most critical resource SMEs require to succeed in the US market

will be financial; the report has repeated that import and compliance
costs pose market (tariff and non-tariff) barriers to exporters but

particularly SMEs. A good anecdote to help SMEs realize the financial
burden of growing their export market in the US is looking back at
the US market around or before 1995. With growing financial security,
Americans craved the decorating style of places they had visited (or
might want to visit) from China to Peru, and a plethora of small and
medium-sized importers and distributors provided the market with
highly demanded foreign products.
Fast forward twenty years, and foreign-made home décor

dominates the US market. A trade association executive interviewed
commented that a few years ago only 8% of the vendors at the
International Home + Housewares were international. “Now, it’s over
50%. That represents the changes the industry has been through –
the huge percentage of international suppliers trying to access the
US market. Our industry has dramatically spread itself around the
world.”104 Large multinational and national companies that produce
cheap home décor products that US consumers demand flood the
market with goods, which creates a scenario where it is difficult for
Portuguese and other SMEs to compete.
With Groupon’s dropshipping and Bed, Bath, & Beyond’s ability to offer
a plethora of choices in any home décor product the US consumer
could want, smaller companies without established US supply
networks face increasing difficulty accessing the US market, despite
a slow but apparent desire for craftsmanship and unique products,
as evidenced by “the Etsy millionaire” and e-commerce retailers like
ModCloth. “The Bed, Bath, & Beyond model is one where they are
looking to ensure the supplier does importing and distribution for
them, which is why having a US rep or US office is most often a key
to success”.105 Another US e-commerce retailer, At Home – contacted
for this report – requires the foreign producer not only does all the
importing and distribution but also offer no resources or assistance on
the related bureaucratic (paperwork) process.
The lack of positive opportunities for SMEs without trade financing

available for resources, such as a broker, import specialist, US
representative, or trade office, is affecting trade, economic
development, and sustainability to the extent that trade and SME
financing are now top priorities for the WTO. Though Portugal has
made great headways in meeting the terms of their IMF and EU
economic and financial readjustment deals, Portuguese SMEs
are unlikely to receive any further financial assistance from the
European Commission (European Commission 2016). SMEs can
look for loans to finance their export development, but Portuguese
banks are unlikely have resources or lending capability following
the announcement of suspension of EU Structural and Investment
Funds. Even if Portuguese or foreign banks could offer financing for
SME trade development, banks often require resources that SMEs
lack to guarantee loans.
The International Trade Centre – an institution that ensures coherence

between the WTO and the United Nations’ trade and economic
105 Ibid.

• 141
development agencies – published How to Access Trade Finance: A
Guide for Exporting SMEs in 2009, and it remains a vital source for
SMEs engaged in international trade. The guide opens by conceding
that banks are no longer a viable source of financing for SMEs before
providing information on other financial instruments that may be
better suited to SMEs’ needs, including application advice.
In applying for other sources of trade financing, SMEs may find it

beneficial to highlight Portugal’s strong track record of satisfied
foreign direct investment (FDI) customers. “FDI, in net terms,
registered an amount close to €5.4B in 2015, [down] 5.2% in relation
to 2014. The highest value in the last five years was registered in
2012, when FDI reached €6.9B and in 2014 with €5.7B” (AICEP 2016i:
8). Portugal’s top sources of FDI in 2105 were the Netherlands and
Spain (with 24.9% and 22.6% of the total respectively), Luxembourg
(18.5%), the UK, and France (7.3% and 4.9% respectively). FDI from
non-European countries reached 11.8% of total FDI in 2015, and key
contributors were Brazil (2.3%), Angola, Switzerland and the US
(with 1.6% each) and China (1.2%) (AICEP 2016i).
Collaboration among SMEs is also a second line of defense should

Portuguese SMEs be initially or ultimately unsuccessful in their
endeavors to enhance their financial resources. Establishing
a US network, following dynamic trends, employing a market
consultancy, broker, or export monitoring specialist, supplying
diverse product needs in the US, and building relationships are all
expensive and complex tasks for a single small or medium-sized
business. Often small producers form export clubs where they can
pool resources, such as those necessary to show a wider array of
products to big importers or retailers, such as Wayfair, contacted for
this report. For example, a trade association executive highlighted
that: “there’s a group of Portuguese iron housewares producers that
wants to bring Portuguese cookware to our [International Home +
Housewares} show, and they have taken a pavilion approach to US
market entry. They are bringing four or five suppliers to get a taste of
the market.”106
Another trade association executive interviewed suggested

she would be willing to establish an “export club” consortium
membership for Portuguese SMEs that would give SMEs access
to enhanced association resources such as an e-magazine
introduction to the association’s’ members or e-blasting – an email
direct marketing tool. Such a degree of collaboration requires
resource allocation, trust, mutual goal-setting, and, most likely, a
series of legal agreements. For example, the report parties learned
of: “a cluster of Germany and Swiss companies who have shared
warehouse and distribution company in North Carolina, and that’s
worked well for them. Cooperation can help.”107
Should SMEs feel uncomfortable collaborating with competitors,

trade associations that work with foreign producers may provide
supplementary resources to SMEs. Resources like the AEP-Chamber
107 Ibid.

of Commerce and Industry of Porto and AICEP can also help
SMEs better understand the US market and competitiveness and
facilitate business-to-business exchanges. Financial support for
trade liberalization is the most critical resource that will help SMEs
juggle the many elements that contribute to coherent and cogent
export strategies, and for the first time in a long time, this issue is
starting to draw the attention of major institutions with the power
to assist SMEs.
A second challenge Portuguese SMEs face in developing or growing

in the US home décor market is building brand recognition and
increasing Portuguese products’ visibility. Section 2.2 highlighted
subsectors where SMEs can benefit from country of origin
recognition, and one trade association executive advised: “Crate
and Barrel used to look for Portuguese suppliers; a lot of their
private products came from Portugal. I think there’s long been a
long-standing order with buyers at Crate and Barrel to buy up any
Portuguese ceramic tableware or iron housewares.”108 While some
importers, distributors, and / or retailers have preferred sources for
particular products – be that Pakistani textiles or Chinese porcelain
tableware – it is becoming less common that US buyers will come
to producers for products with an ever-increasing supply of foreign
producers approaching buyers first.
US suppliers source new products in various ways, such as through

existing relationships, online research, or product submission, and
US suppliers’ preferences for new products are not always clear
to producers. In contacting Williams and Sonoma, the report
parties discovered that they: “only accept new product submissions
from suppliers who have an existing relationship with one of our
buyers.” Attending trade shows to develop relationships is likely the
strongest mechanism for meeting with US buyers. Additionally, an
e-commerce retailer said that new products: “have to be something
new to our catalogue or to the consumer.”109
A strong US presence may help SMEs better understand US

suppliers’ needs, as well as ease burdens US suppliers face
in doing business in Portugal, whether the presence is a US-
based representative, US trade office, or consistent trade show
attendance with an extended period in the US to conduct follow-up
relationship-building.
Foreign producers need help getting on the market. Even with

a powerful European brand, there are significant challenges.
The producer’s challenge is to construct a meaningful market,
and that can be done by hiring US rep, a distribution company.
[However], You really have make the investment and just hiring
someone to manage your brand can be disastrous if you don’t
manage them.110
Despite a concerted effort by Portuguese government and business
108 Ibid.

• 143
officials, one importer reported that: “in the past, I have had
difficulty doing business with the Portuguese. There are a lot of
things you have to work around.”111 When the report parties inquired
for further detail, the US supplier said that they did not want to
get into a blame game, but a trade association executive offered
advice on some commonly experienced issues her members have
had in doing business with foreign – but not Portuguese – suppliers.
“Certain things they have to have and that’s to increase the ease of
doing business with US suppliers. They have to know, for themselves,
what the price is, what the specifications are, and if and how you’re
flexible. If you require US buyers to jump through hoops to buy the
item, it’s probably not going to happen.”112
Once presence and product visibility have been established, the

goal is to improve Portuguese product recognition. The same
importer referenced above also said: “[Portuguese] products are
good, and the price is very good.”113 However, SMEs must understand
that with the vast scope of the US market, product quality and
price must be better than “good” and “very good” in US suppliers’
perception. The objective is to place Portuguese home décor in the
front of US consumers’ minds, and this can be achieved through
targeted marketing. US marketing firms will be infinitely more
experienced in reaching US consumers than Portuguese marketing
firms will be, though the latter may offer more value for money and
be more familiar to SMEs. Networking with US firms will also expose
SMEs to a much larger customer base, including potential partners.
For SMEs in the home décor industry, networking should be

viewed as a cost-effective strategy for short and longer-term sales
development and growth. For example, gaining access to US
distributors may not result in direct sales, but SMEs may be able to
network their way into accessing highly-specialized trade associations
or other resources that can assist with large-scale challenges, such as
supply chain optimization and other operationalization.
After establishing a presence, the most important variable in building

brand and product recognition is consistency, in both export volume
and continued presence. Having contacted over 100 US importers,
distributors, retailers, trade associations, and trade representatives
(hotels, office, restaurants, etc) the report can attest that SMEs must
demonstrate tenacity. In this experience, the report parties learned
that email is not the most effective way to make contact with
potential partners in the US. Phone contact is better; however, often
companies have a series of automated menus and messages, some
of which simply end in an unknown voicemail box. Person-to-person
contact is the most advisable method for SMEs to grow their exports
in the US, but gaining access is easier said than done.
SMEs should ensure they are fully informed about all their products’
particulars as well as how their products fit in the US business’
model and brand. “If you’re coming into the market you need to
identify the most efficient and most profitable way in. You’ve got

to pick your brand position and ensure that it also supports the US
supplier’s brand.”114 This information should be readily available prior
to any email, phone, or face-to-face meetings with US suppliers.
One buyer advised that SMEs should provide full scope information
on: “their products, the specifications, maybe samples, availability,
pricing, and flexibility”.115
In developing a competitive price, the report recommends SMEs

explore their competitors’ (listed in Section 6.1) retail prices and work
backwards, ensuring prices still cover import and production costs.
The report would advise that SMEs have three tiers of pricing options
prepared when approaching US suppliers – their preferred price, their
negotiable price, and their bottom line price. SMEs should recall that
the report has suggested that to be competitive in price in some
subsectors, the bottom line price may help them gain market entry,
but a plan to increase prices in one to two years could help SMEs
sustain any losses encountered through this strategy.
Where Portugal is currently an exporter to the US, the goal must

be consistency. Portugal was outcompeted by its European
competitors because it has, in several subsectors, failed to export in
consistent volumes. For example, Portugal was a top US porcelain
tableware exporting country, but in recent years, export volume
declined, which negatively affected competitiveness. While this can
be related to demand, home décor demand is driven by consumers,
and if Portuguese products are unavailable, US consumers will
simply replace it with a comparable product. Consistent presence
in the US can help ensure export levels remain as consistent as
possible despite sluggish trade growth.
A final challenge SMEs face in the US market is outcompeting their

European competitors or differentiating themselves from other
European producers. A British-American home décor executive
described his perception of European goods on the US home
décor market. “In general, we do a lot of work with Scandinavian
companies; they are the biggest in home décor, them and Italy,
but we work with Portuguese, Spanish, all over Europe.116 Some
of Portugal’s European competitors (such as Bulgaria, Estonia,
and Lithuania) have only recently joined the EU. Various domestic
conditions — such as low labor costs, taxation, and momentum
around development in the newly industrialized, capitalist
economies — have helped these countries to establish an advantage
in the US market that makes them more competitive against high-
volume exporting countries like Chile, compared to Portuguese SMEs.
Additionally, the US may have FTAs or BITs with many of Portugal’s

competitors where market access and trade facilitation are better
funded and focused and tariffs are lower or non-existent. Within
Europe, the US has BITs with Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland (two
BITs), Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Some of these countries have

• 145
been Portuguese competition targets in Sections 2 and 3, and some
are Portugal’s overall (global) competitiveness targets. The majority
of the US’ preferential trading agreements are with its North,
Central, and South American partners and a few Asian and Asian-
Pacific nations.
Here, SMEs should focus on understanding their competitive

advantage through high-quality products that are typically
not available in this market. As a trade association executive
highlighted, for specialty products in specialty products, the
competitive advantage is in product differentiation, not price. “I
don’t know that it’s sustainable, [but] I was in one of these shops
working with the retailer, and in 2 hours, they sold two sets of $800
cookware. That’s their point of differentiation, and even the chain
retailers have to find that.”117
Portuguese home décor products can be positioned as more

up-market, quality, and sustainable option – with or without
the voluntary certifications discussed in Section 4.3 – for hotels
compared to the cheaper, thinner, and possibly made with child
labor varieties coming from China or Ukraine (Sandler, Travis, and
Rosenberg 2016). “There was a great story in the Saturday Journal
about what’s happening in China – exploding factories closing
and moving to other countries; they talked about Portugal as an
alternate sourcing country. Where will manufacturing go if and
when China turns to a consumer economy? Geopolitically, it should
be Africa, but they don’t have the political stability.”118 Portuguese
SMEs are well positions to seize a market where consumer
consciousness is increasingly driving purchasing decisions.
AICEP (2016i) reported that Portuguese goods and services exports

to the US have doubled in the last five years because of bilateral
relations and export development cooperation. However, with no
forward progress or foreseeable conclusion to TTIP, many export
countries receive preferential treatment or investment priority
over Portugal. SMEs must mobilize all aforementioned resources
and strategies to outcompete foreign producers in the US market,
including networking, consistent export volume, and creative, clever,
and perceptive marketing. Many exporters with FTAs or BITs will
have an already established and consistent export presence in the
US home décor market, compounding the challenge.
6.2b Strengths
Confronting these challenges – rather than attempting to avoid
them – is instrumental to SMEs’ success, as is leveraging strengths.
When comparing Portuguese SMEs’ export potential to that of
their European or global competitors, it’s important to consider
comparative advantage. A comparative (economic) advantage is
the ability of one country or company to produce a product more
efficiently, using fewer resources, given all the other products that it
could produce. Comparative advantage is one variable in a complex
118 Ibid.

formula that country and company leaders use to assess costs and
benefits of production. At the global trade level, this is how trade
deficits / surpluses are configured, and why it is good business for a
country to import products that they also produce for domestic and
foreign markets – essential in the success of large trading nations,
such as the US, Germany, and China.
Obvious reasons for utilizing comparative advantage are to supply

diverse needs, cope with dynamic markets, negotiate BITs and
FTAs (lower import costs), and respond to consumer demands and
preferences. Several US companies contacted for this report simply
said they were not interested in working with new producers, and
if they were, they would locate the products themselves using in-
house resources. In consideration of these challenges to Portuguese
SMEs, what comparative advantages can be leveraged?
Foremost, many US companies prefer to work with SMEs. For

example, one importer, retailer, and e-commerce home décor
executive said they: “look for small brands that are not well
represented in the US that meet our modern esthetic.”119 SMEs can
also be comparatively effective at delivering small or urgent orders,
for example to interior designers who often deal with substantial lead
times in putting together entire room or home décor projects. One
trade association executive provides extensive advice on this subject.
A lot of times [interior designers] find beautiful things in

catalogues, especially textiles, but the producers wait until they
have a big order to [send] it. It’s especially a big problem with
importers… Being clear and upfront with designers is advice
that’s important for helping Portuguese producers. A lot of time
producers or importers will give shorter estimates than what is
possible. They said what they needed to make the sale, but doing
this sort of thing will ensure it’s a one-time sale and not a recurring
relationship. If Portuguese producers can get products to designers
within a short amount of time, be accurate in their estimates, and
be honest and communicative, they’ll have an edge.120
Another US buyer recommended that SMEs work with not only

individual interior designers but also design firms that sell to the
trade in developing their US market. “Try to contact some of those
design companies. They’re very involved with new builds. These
design companies sell their ideas to our designers, and they’ve done
most of the work. Maybe if these Portuguese companies can pursue
some partnerships with these design companies. Maybe that can
open the door for them.”121 Well networked SMEs can work their way
into the design and trade circles, establish a small partnership, and
become recognized for playing an instrumental role in reducing
lead times due to low communication and labor costs.
120 Interview 2, Appendix 4; see this interview for a further resource coming in January 2017
from this trade association called: “How to Sell to an Interior Designer”.

• 147
A trade association executive provided an example of how
Portugal’s Italian competitors are reducing lead times through air
shipping small orders.
Recently at a trade show, I was talking to a custom luxury

wallpaper company. They were showing me their product, and I
was asking them about lead time and distribution centers they
had in the US. They were saying it was handmade at factory in
Italy, and they could get to me here in [Washington] DC in 2 days.
They were air shipping in 2 days! They looked at their model, re-
evaluated how they could get into the US market, and that got
them competitive on the market – 2-day shipping from Italy; can
you believe it!122
Portugal is 8 hours by air and 9 days by sea to Newark, New Jersey –

one of the US’ busiest ports – and 11 hours by air and 20-40 days by
sea to Houston, Texas, another very large port. Networking to discern
retailers or importers’ distribution network could place SMEs in an
advantageous position to reduce lead times or cover any potential
supply issues, as highlighted in Section 5.3.
Portuguese SMEs could also demonstrate reliability to US suppliers

by sending an initial order of products via air cargo and a larger
supply immediately following by sea, and the costs – in terms of
shipping time and transportation – would be comparatively lower
than by air alone. Portuguese SMEs also have access to a national
shift towards more advanced and technologically innovative
modes of production, supply, and exporting, which hold potential
comparative advantages. Additionally, the costs of exporting heavy
materials — such as large orders of iron housewares or porcelain
tableware — is a much larger concern for distant exporters that are
currently top competitors on the US market like China or Chile,
giving Portugal an enhanced comparative advantage.
Portugal also avoids paying tax to use the Panama Canal in

accessing east coast US ports, which is a consideration for US
suppliers in selecting new products. Portugal’s trade infrastructure
(road, rail, air, sea, and broadband networks) is also already well
established, and this existing infrastructure, combined with high
levels of English language proficiency, will contribute to further
comparative advantages for Portuguese SMEs (AICEP 2016i). In all
subsectors reviewed in the report, Portugal has established thriving
domestic and European industries; the comparative advantage is in
understanding the extent to which these export industries can be
expanded to the US.
Second, competitive advantage, as opposed to comparative, is

the ability of a country or company to produce products more
effectively by offering better value, quality, and service; the goal is
to establish competitive advantage that is sustainable. Portuguese
SMEs can offer added value by being more competitive on cost,
though interviews suggest that cost is not as much as market entry

barrier in the US for high quality and up-market products. A strategy
that builds on the distribution concept of dropshipping, discussed
in Section 4.5, that could help SMEs get their products into large
chain stores or with popular on-trend e-commerce retailers would
be to offer US retailers discounts for special orders and / or US
holiday sales. This would allow US suppliers to introduce Portuguese
products into their catalogue without committing to a substantial
order and is a form of relationship-building “trial by fire”.
A large North American home improvement and décor importer,

retailer, and distributor, Home Depot, offers customers up to
15% discounts on catalogued products that are not available in
store, making a special order that is entirely based on consumer
demand. The only consideration is that SMEs must ensure there
is almost no lead time, which requires shipping via air cargo and
complete export readiness. If products are detained or delayed at
the US point of entry, it is likely to sour the relationship with the
large chain store; however, many of these large North American
retailers are themselves importers and distributors, and excellent
communication with them can reduce or eliminate delays. From
window dressings to more general industry context, this report has
offered competitive pricing recommendations that will help SMEs
in determining range of prices for US supplier negotiations, as the
US supply line has many added costs.
SMEs should expect cost to be added to their product every time it

changes hands through the US supply and distribution network. SMEs
should carefully understand what US importers and distributors are
paying for their products. This assessment has two core benefits; the
first is that products should not be offered on the US market until
prices are at the very least comparable to products — basic or up-
market — currently on the market. The second is that this assessment
will also help SMEs determine if there is greater competitive value
in hiring US consultancies or brokers, investing in a trade association
membership (and at what level), or establishing a US presence should
they find themselves priced out of the US market.
In addition to the resources highlighted in Section 6.2a, SMEs

should also be savvy in the acquisition of financial resources,
including grants and opportunities to participate in nationally
and EU-funded research. For example, several universities and
research institutions receive European Research Council funding
to investigate barriers to SME growth, and the WTO and United
Nations are focusing on SMEs as part of their new agendas.
Some newly developed SMEs may find that they are eligible
for Portuguese or EU start-up investment tax credits, local tax
and stamp duty exemptions, or research and development
opportunities funded by tax. Participation in seminars and
workshops, such as those held by the report parties and trade
associations, are also cost-effective investments for SMEs.
The combination of quality home décor products at comparatively

low prices has helped Portuguese companies succeed in the past.
Flexible labor laws, high education standards, a highly skilled
labor force, low minimum wages, and existing US partnerships in
business and research all create advantages that SMEs can leverage

• 149
to increase their US market access. SMEs also tend to have more
flexibility in supplying demand with the ability to do customized
orders, tailor products to consumer demands, and negotiate on
price. They can replicate successes they and other larger companies
have had in the European and African markets to US markets. SMEs
can also devote resources to deep relationship-building leading to
a partnership with one US state or large company. Becoming the
primary supplier for a top hotel distribution company’s silverware
or of picturesque blue and white Portuguese ceramic tile is an
effective way to establish a competitive advantage. As shown in
Section 2.3f, Portugal could move from the tenth to seventh largest
US exporting country of porcelain tableware simply by maintaining
or fractionally increasing its US exports. The resulting millions of
dollars in export value will benefit each producer able to increase
Portugal’s US market share.
Third, Portuguese SMEs can overcome the difficulty of

implementing the recommendations in this report by
“operationalizing” – dividing a complex process into actionable
steps. Strategy becomes a process of development, assessment,
revision, analysis, and achievement. For example, the process of
exporting in consistent volumes involves:
1. gathering subsector or product category export volume data

and analyzing five to ten year trends123
2. conducting a series of statistical analyses to determine average
export volume124
3. assessing how competitive advantage could help improve
export volume consistency125
4. using forecasting models to predict irregularities in export
volume, and applying predictive modeling to production cycles
to fill supply gaps before they present a problem; this not only
ensures that export volumes stay consistent, but also establishes
SMEs as industry leaders
5. applying predictive modeling to benchmark consistent export
volume to know when to launch new US relationship building
campaigns to advance from development to growth.
As indicated in the fifth step, relationships can be built through

campaigns, and it is essential that campaigns target the most
appropriate importers, distributors, retailers, trade associations, and
foodservice and hospitality states, and regions for SMEs’ specific
products. Through operationalization, challenges appear more
manageable, and markets that seemed unattainable to SMEs
open up via a series of revisable step-by-step actions. With limited
123 The report does not advise analyzing trends beyond 2008, as the export volume and
trade data will not be consistent with continued post-recession economic patterns and
trade flows.
124 The report would recommend conducting a “box and whisker plot” analysis to see
means, medians, and outliers of export volume.
125 The report suggests a highly complex “multivariate regression analysis” to indicate what
variables likely contributed to irregular export volume and to incorporate supply and value
chain analyses.

exception, all export businesses began as SMEs, and the challenges
presented in Section 6.2a are not unique to Portugal or the home
décor industry. They have been overcome in the past and can be
overcome again, even in the world’s second largest single-nation
import market.
Fourth, SMEs can become large exporters by capitalizing on

momentum in other foreign markets. Textiles and stone and glass
are two of Portugal’s fastest growing export sectors, and in large
part, the success of Portuguese home décor can be witnessed in
Portugal’s export volume in high consumption European, African,
and Latin American countries, such as France, Germany, Angola,
and Brazil. SMEs should also capitalize on their success with these
top export destinations when approaching US companies, as
knowledge of Portuguese innovation, product quality, and legacy
in global trade may not be as prevalent in the US as it is in western
Europe. However, knowledge of French and German production,
quality, and export-led growth is common in the US. SMEs should
embrace Americans’ preferences for these western European
exporters’ quality and reliability while exploiting their lack of
differentiation among European exporters. For example, one buyer
for a large hotel chain who was familiar with European home décor
products – but not specifically Portuguese – said: “If you’re a player
in any way in the hospitality side in Europe, we’d like to look at
you… that would give us a reason to look.”126 Portuguese SMEs may
find, for example, that associating their products with those of Italy,
rather than Greece, provides better leads in the US.
In making presentations at trade shows or in face-to-face sales calls

or networking events, Portuguese SMEs should introduce their
companies and products with images and stories about large-
scale successes of the Portuguese home décor industry. The US
is a large market, and first impressions are essential; SMEs must
make a lasting impression on US buyers and decision makers.
Any association that SMEs can make with these large-scale
successes and their products – such as the Home From Portugal
series of global trade shows and Portuguese home décor brands,
showrooms, and product catalogues, where appropriate – should be
heavily featured.
On the contrary, SMEs should also know how and when to

distinguish their products to demonstrate superiority — for example,
how Portuguese towels, silverware, and tableware are perceived as
superior in western Europe and other parts of the world. As many
US importers, distributors, and retailers emphasized – and this is
particularly true for US chain retailers and hotels that emphasize
environmental and labor-consciousness – a product with a good
story almost always sells in the US. This is why marketing is so
essential to SMEs looking to gain US market access. Finally, SMEs
are also encouraged to utilize work that local and national business
chambers and trade associations have done to support Portuguese
development and growth. For instance:

• 151
»» Portugal is better: 3-minute video showcasing Portugal’s strengths
in technology, infrastructure, investment, trade, product quality,
quality of life, and business opportunity
»» Choose Portugal: 6-minute video about Portuguese natural and
human resources and continued capacity for development and
growth in various sectors
»» Invest in Portugal: 35-page PDF featuring Portugal’s competitive
advantages, including information on correction of structural
imbalances and implementation of reforms and support services
»» Web summit 2016: conference event that featured 21 sector
summit meetings, 500,000 international guests that gained
global press, including coverage by Bloomberg, the New York
Times, CNBC, and the Guardian and participation by Google,
Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Tesla and SpaceX.
Finally, Portuguese SMEs have many report recommendations,

resources, and strengths that contribute towards building a model
for sustainable development and growth. To build a suitable
and sustainable model, this report suggests that SMEs examine
conditions that led to the following:
»» Portugal’s World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Index Rankings:
–– 2015-2016: 38th
–– 2014-2015: 36th
–– 2013-2014: 51st
–– 2012-2013: 49th
–– 2011-2012: 45th
–– 2010-2011 46th.
»» Portugal’s exports outcompeting:
–– Croatia
–– Finland
–– Ireland
–– Belgium-Luxemburg.
»» Portuguese exports being outcompeted by:
–– Bulgaria
–– Estonia
–– Latvia
–– Lithuania
–– Slovakia.
»» Portugal’s exports being similar to:
–– The Czech Republic

–– Greece
–– Poland
–– The UK.

The core competitiveness issues that SMEs should consider in build-
ing this model are:
»» Ensuring export volume consistency to improve competitiveness

»» Understanding why:
–– Countries with considerably lower GDPs outcompete Portugal;

Portugal is consistently outcompeted by countries with an
average GDP of $45.3B;
–– In consideration of the above: Portugal, with $199B GDP,
outcompetes countries with an average GDP of $143.5B; and
–– Portugal exports in similar volumes to countries with a much
higher average GDP of $925.4B (IMF 2015).
This report has taken an in-depth examination to Portuguese

SMEs’ opportunities for export development on the US building
stone and ornamental rocks and has found excellent prospects.
The projections for SMEs that are able to quickly become export
ready, develop sustainable relationships with US suppliers, and offer
quality products at competitive prices while also giving consistent
consumer and product service are overwhelmingly positive for
business growth. SMEs’ sustainable US export development will
not only serve their own interests but will also enhance Portuguese
competitiveness and GDP. In turn, Portuguese export levels will
continue to rise rapidly to pre-2008 levels, demonstrating the
extensive role SMEs play in Portugal’s continued economic recovery
and independence.

• 153
References
ACT (2012), “NSF/ANSI 336: The Basics - A Sustainability
Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric”, published by
the Association for Contract Textiles in September 2012, available
at: http://www.contracttextiles.org/uploads/images/banners/pdf/
act_nsf_ansi_336_121212.pdf.
ACT (2014), “Colorfastness to Light: ACT Voluntary Performance

Guidelines -Test Method Descriptions”, published by the
Association for Contract Textiles in August 2014, available at:
http://www.contracttextiles.org/uploads/images/banners/pdf/AC_
colorfastness_080714_2.pdf.
ACT (2014i), “Flammability: ACT Voluntary Performance

Guidelines and Test Method Descriptions”, published by the
Association for Contract Textiles in August 2014, available at:
http://www.contracttextiles.org/uploads/images/banners/pdf/AC_
flammability_080714.pdf.
ACT (2014ii), “Physical Properties: ACT Voluntary Performance

Guidelines - Test Method Descriptions”, published by the
Association for Contract Textiles in August 2014, available at: http://
www.contracttextiles.org/uploads/images/banners/pdf/AC_physical_
prop_080714.pdf.
ACT (2014iii), “Wet & Dry Crocking: ACT Voluntary Performance

Guidelines - Test Method Descriptions”, published by the
Association for Contract Textiles in August 2014, available at: http://
www.contracttextiles.org/uploads/images/banners/pdf/AC_wet_dry_
crocking_080714.pdf.
AICEP (2016), “Home”, published on October 8, 2016, available at:

http://www.portugalglobal.pt/EN/SourceFromPortugal/prominent-
clusters/home/Pages/home.aspx.
AICEP (2016i), “Portugal – Basic Data March 2016”, available at:

http://www.revista.portugalglobal.pt/AICEP/informacao_portugal/
ficha_pais_ING/.
AMS (2016), “National Organic Program”, published by the USDA,

available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/
national-organic-program.
AMS (2016i), “Organic Regulations”, published by the USDA,

available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic.
Banco de Portugal (2016), “Projections for the Portuguese

Economy: 2016-2018”, March 2016, available at: https://www.
bportugal.pt/en-US/EstudosEconomicos/Projecoeseconomicas/
Publications/projecoes_e.pdf.
Bellacor (2016), “Become A Vendor”, available at: http://www.

bellacor.com/becomeavendor.htm.

• 155
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016), “Gross domestic product
(GDP) by state (millions of current dollars)”, published by the
US Department of Commerce, updated July 27, 2016, available at:
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=11&
AreaTypeKeyGdp=5&GeoFipsGdp=XX&ClassKeyGdp=NAICS&Comp
onentKey=200&IndustryKey=1&YearGdp=2015Q2&YearGdpBegin=-
1&YearGdpEnd=-1&UnitOfMeasureKeyGdp=Levels&RankKeyGdp=1&D
rill=1&nRange=5.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016), “Table 2.2B. Wages and

Salaries by Industry”, published by the US Department of
Commerce, updated August 26, 2016, available at: http://www.bea.
gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=1&acrdn=2#reqid=9&step=3&isu
ri=1&903=60.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016i), “Table 2.3.3 Real Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product, Quantity
Indexes”, published by the US Department of Commerce, updated
August 26, 2016, available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?r
eqid=9&step=1&acrdn=2#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=63.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016ii), “Table 2.3.6. Real Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product, Chained
Dollars”, published by the US Department of Commerce, updated
August 26, 2016, available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?r
eqid=9&step=1&acrdn=2#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=66.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016iii), “Table 2.4.6. Real Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Type of Product, Chained Dollars”,
published by the US Department of Commerce, updated August 26,
2016, available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&ste
p=1&acrdn=2#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=71.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016iv), “Table2.5.6. Real Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Function, Chained Dollars”,
published by the US Department of Commerce, updated August 26,
2016, available at: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&ste
p=1&acrdn=2#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=75.
CBP (2004), “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should

Know About: Textile and Apparel Rules of Origin”, published
by US Customs and Border Protection in April 2004, available at:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Apr/
icp006r3_3.pdf.
CBP (2006), “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should

Know About: Fiber Trade Names and Generic Terms”, published
by US Customs and Border Protection in June 2006, available at:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Apr/
icp040_3.pdf.
CBP (2006i), “Importing into the United States: A Guide for

Commercial Importers”, published by US Customs and Border
Protection in November 2006, available at http://www.cpsc.gov//
PageFiles/113831/iius.pdf.

CBP (2010), “Cross Ruling: H089781”, published on March 16, 2010,
available at: http://rulings.cbp.gov/detail.asp?ru=h089781&ac=pr.
CBP (2010i), “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should

Know About: Household Articles of Base Metal”, published by US
Customs and Border Protection in January 2010, available at: https://
www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/icp079_3.pdf.
Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) (2014), “Quantifying

the Impact of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(T-TIP) Agreement on Portugal”, project report led by Francois, J
and Manchin, M, published July 2014.
Chaturvedi, N, Martich, M, Ruwadi, B, and Ulker, N (2013), “The

Future of Retail Supply Chains”, published by McKinsey and
Company in February 2013, available for download at:
http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_
service/retail/articles/future_of_retail_supply_chains.ashx.
Chilton, A S (2016), “The Political Motivations of the United States’

Bilateral Investment Treaty Program”, published in the Review of
International Political Economy, Vol 23, Iss 4, pp. 614-642.
Clarke, M (2015), “US Corporate Cotton Vs African Farmers at the

WTO”, published by the Huffington Post, on December 17, 2015,
available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marie-clarke-brill/us-
corporate-cotton-vs-af_b_8818258.html.
Comtrade (2016), “UN Comrade Database: Trade Data”, published

by the United Nations, annually, available at: http://comtrade.un.org/
data/.
CPSC (2016), “Continuing Guaranties”, Flammable Fabrics Act

guidance available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws-
-Standards/Statutes/Flammable-Fabrics-Act/Frequently-Asked-
Questions-for-Continuing-Guaranties-under-the-Flammable-
Fabrics-Act-and-Filed-with-the-Commission/.
CPSC (2016i), “Total Lead Content”, guidance available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Lead/
Total-Lead-Content#tl_04a.
Cusato, M (2016), “The Skilled Labor Shortage: Where is the Next

Generation of Craftsmen”, published by the HomeAdvisor Insights
Forum in February 2016, available at: http://www.homeadvisor.
com/r/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Skilled-Labor-Report.pdf.
Delpeuch, C, Leblois, A and Shepherd, B (2014), “Cashing in on

Cotton: Can West Africa Ever Compete with US Subsidies?”,
published by the Guardian, on June 19, 2014, available at: https://
www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2014/jun/19/farming-us-subsidies-west-africa-cotton.

• 157
Dickenson, S (2016), “From Galleries to Google: Three Decades
of Selling Home Décor”, published by Home Accents Today on
September 21, 2016, available at: http://www.homeaccentstoday.
com/article/535703-galleries-google-three-decades-selling-home-
decor.
Dobush, G (2015), “How Etsy Alienated Its Crafters and Lost Its
Soul”, published by Wired, on February 19, 2015, available at: http://
www.wired.com/2015/02/etsy-not-good-for-crafters/.
The Economist (2007), “A New Sick Man of Europe: Portugal

Comes Bottom of the European Economic Growth Table”,
published on April 12, 2007, available at: http://www.economist.com/
node/9009032.
European Commission (2016), “Stability and Growth Pact: update

on the fiscal situation of Spain and Portugal”, published on July 7,
2016, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2375_
en.htm.
FDA (2015), “Compliance Policy Guides: CPG Sec. 545.450 Pottery

(Ceramics); Import and Domestic - Lead Contamination”,
updated on March 20, 2015, available at: http://www.fda.gov/
ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/
ucm074516.htm.
Flanagan, T (2015), “Do You Like the Distressed Look?”, published

by Houzz, on May 27, 2015, available at: http://www.houzz.com/
discussions/3098139/do-you-like-the-distressed-look.
Folan, K (2013), “Etsy Going Mainstream With Collection For

Nordstrom Bridal”, published by Racked on June 10, 2013, available
at: http://www.racked.com/2013/6/10/7665969/etsy-nordstrom-bridal.
Forbes (2013), “How to Choose the Perfect Bedsheets”, contribution

from Houzz, published on July 10, 2013, available at: http://www.
forbes.com/sites/houzz/2013/07/10/how-to-choose-the-perfect-
bedsheets/#5d9d11cdeee1.
FTC (2014), “Threading Your Way Through the Labeling

Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts”, published by the
Federal Trade Commission in July 2014, available at: https://www.
ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/threading-your-way-
through-labeling-requirements-under-textile#covered.
Grahame, A (2015), “Can the IKEA Generation Buy Into Vintage

Furniture”, published by the Guardian on June 17, 2015, available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/17/ikea-
generation-buy-antique-vintage-furniture.
Hanson, C H (2014), “Obama Administration Cuts Expensive

Deal With Brazil Over Cotton Subsidies”, published by Forbes,
on October 16, 2014, available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/
realspin/2014/10/16/obama-administration-cuts-expensive-deal-with-
brazil-over-cotton-subsidies/#51ca07e73b1e.

House Beautiful (2015), “16 Interior Design Trends You’ll Definitely
See in 2016”, published on November 22, 2015, available at: http://
www.housebeautiful.com/design-inspiration/g2883/interior-design-
trends-2016/.
IMF (2016), “Report for Selected Country Groups and Subjects”,

part of the World Economic Outlook Database, published in April
2016, available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/
weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=58&pr.y=19&sy=2015&ey=2015&scsm=1&ss
d=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=001%2C998&s=NGDPD&grp=1&a=1.
ITA (2016), “African Growth and Opportunity Act”, published by the

US Department of Commerce, available at: http://trade.gov/agoa/
index.asp.
Ikea (2015), “IKEA Group Reports Solid Sales Growth for Financial
Year 2015”, published on September 10, 2015, available at: http://
www.ikea.com/us/en/about_ikea/newsitem/091015_IKEA-solid-sales-
growth-fy15.
Jannarone, J (2014), “Long Before Amazon, QVC Ruled Home

Shopping: Its Stock is Coming Back”, published by CNBC on
February 19, 2014, available at: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/02/19/
long-before-amazon-qvc-ruled-home-shopping-its-stock-is-coming-
back.html.
Johnson, E (2014), “Home Decor Retailer to Use LLamasoft for

Supply Chain Design”, published by American Shipper on April 4,
2014, available at: http://americanshipper.com/Main/News/Home_
decor_retailer_to_use_LLamasoft_for_supply_ch_56927.aspx#hide.
Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) (2013), America’s Rental

Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs, published by the Harvard
Graduate School of Design, Harvard Kennedy School, available
at: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_
americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf.
Klonsky, E (2010), “How to Work With Independent Sales Reps”,

published by Inc on September 15, 2010, available at: http://www.
inc.com/guides/2010/09/how-to-work-with-independent-sales-reps.
html.
McIntosh, J (2015), “E-commerce Channel Growing in Home

Furnishings: But How Important Will It Be to Industry?”, published
by Furniture Today on January 18, 2015, available at: http://www.
furnituretoday.com/article/515439-e-commerce-channel-growing-
home-furnishings.
NASDAQ (2016), “Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Revenue & Earnings Per
Share (EPS)”, updated September 7, 2016, available at: http://www.
nasdaq.com/symbol/bbby/revenue-eps.
NASDAQ (2016i), “Pier 1 Imports, Inc. Revenue & Earnings Per Share
(EPS)”, updated September 7, 2016, available at: http://www.nasdaq.
com/symbol/pir/revenue-eps.

• 159
NASDAQ (2016ii), “Williams-Sonoma, Inc. Revenue & Earnings Per
Share (EPS)”, updated September 7, 2016, available at: http://www.
nasdaq.com/symbol/wsm/revenue-eps.
Nassar, A (2007), “Trade-Distorting Domestic Support: Alternatives

for Product-Specific Disciplines”, published by International Centre
for Trade and Sustainable Development on May 1, 2007, available at
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/trade-distorting-
domestic-support-alternatives-for-product-specific.
NIST (2013), “A Guide to United States Apparel and Household

Textiles Compliance Requirements”, published by the US
Department of Commerce in October 2012, updated in August 2013,
available at: http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/apparel_guide.pdf.
NY Now (2016), “Home Décor Market Offers Myriad of Product,

Opportunities”, available at: http://www.nynow.com/industry-
insights/home-decor-market-offers-myriad-of-product-
opportunities/.
NY Times (2016), “Business Markets: US Markets: Home

Furnishing”, checked on October 16, 2016, available (updated daily)
at: http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/markets/usmarkets/
industry.asp?industryStartRow=21.
OEC (2014), “The Economic Complexity Observatory”, licensed by

Alexander Simoes, available at http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/.
Parker, M (2015), “25 Design Trends Coming to Homes Near You

in 2016”, published by Houzz, on December 29, 2015, available at:
http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/58454857/list/25-design-trends-
coming-to-homes-near-you-in-2016.
Pelc, K J (2014), “Why the Deal to Pay Brazil $300 Million Just to
Keep US Cotton Subsidies is Bad for the WTO, Poor Countries, and
US Taxpayers”, published by the Washington Post, on October 12,
2014, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-
cage/wp/2014/10/12/why-the-deal-to-pay-brazil-300-million-just-to-
keep-u-s-cotton-subsidies-is-bad-for-the-wto-poor-countries-and-u-
s-taxpayers/.
Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg (2016), “Global Efforts to Eliminate

Worst Forms of Child Labor See Mixed Results in 2015”, published
in Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg Trade Report on October 14, 2016,
available at: http://www.strtrade.com/news-publications-worst-
forms-child-labor-trade-benefits-101416.html.
Singh, Y (2015), “Innovation Drives Portugal’s Economy to New

Heights”, published in Portugal, on December 15, 2015, available at:
http://embportugal-uae.com/media/embaixada/dados/post/files/
PortugalMap-Dec.pdf.

Sumner, D A (2016), “Congress Needs to Cut Ties With the Cotton
Lobby”, published by US News and World Report, on January 28,
2016, available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-
intelligence/articles/2016-01-28/congress-should-stop-promoting-
cotton-subsidies-to-benefit-the-cotton-lobby.
Sussman, A L and Leubsdorf, B (2016), “US Consumer Spending

Rose in July”, published by the Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2016,
available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-consumer-spending-
rose-in-july-1472473898.
Sweeney, B (2015), “Here’s What Crate & Barrel’s New Chief Is

In For”, published by Crain’s Chicago Business, on July 10, 2015,
available at: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150710/
NEWS07/150709815/heres-what-crate-barrels-new-chief-is-in-for.
Trading Economics (2016), “United States Consumer Spending:

Forecast 2016-2020”, updated on August 31, 2016, available at:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-
spending/forecast.
Trudeau, A (2016), “Tips for Renovating Your Bathroom on a

Budget”, published by MyDomaine on June 22, 2016, available at:
http://www.mydomaine.com/renovate-bathroom-on-a-budget.
Uchitelle, L (2012), “A Nation That’s Losing Its Toolbox”, published

by the New York Times on July 21, 2012, available at: http://www.
nytimes.com/2012/07/22/business/what-happened-to-the-
craftsmanship-spirit-essay.html?_r=0.
World Bank (2016), “GDP at Market Prices (Current US $) –

Portugal”, available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.
MKTP.CD/countries/PT?display=graph.
World Bank (2016i), “World Bank Country and Lending Groups”,

published by the World Bank Group, available at: https://
datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.
WTO (2015), “Dispute Settlement: Dispute DS449: United States —

Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products
from China”, last updated September 8, 2015, available at: https://
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds449_e.htm.
WTO (2015i), “Dispute Settlement: Dispute DS471: United States

— Certain Methodologies and their Application to Anti-Dumping
Proceedings Involving China”, last updated December 3, 2015,
available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/
ds471_e.htm.
WTO (2015ii), International Trade Statistics 2015, published by the

World Trade Organization, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/
res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/its2015_e.pdf.

• 161
WTO (2016), “Standards Can Help to Ease Trade in Energy Efficient
Products and Reduce CO2 Emissions”, published by the World
Trade Organization on June 16, 2016, available at https://www.wto.
org/english/news_e/news16_e/tbt_14jun16_e.htm.
WTO (2016i), “DG Azevêdo calls on G20 trade ministers to boost

trade growth”, published by the World Trade Organization on July
9, 2016, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/
dgra_09jul16_e.htm.
Youderian, A and Hayes, M (2016), “The Ultimate Guide to

Dropshipping”, published by Shopify, available for download at:
https://www.shopify.com/guides/dropshipping.

• 163

Market Report - Home Decor - EN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Market Report - Home Decor - EN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE US MARKET FOR HOME

AND DÉCOR AND OPPORTUNITIES

Produced by Marq Consulting Group and CH Academy

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

4 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

Section 1 introduces the report, report parties, and report focus

Section 2 assesses US import competition, top exporting countries,

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

8 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

Figure 2.1 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume One: 16

Figure 2.2 - US Bedspreads Imports Market Value Volume One: 17

Figure 2.3 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:

Figure 2.4 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:

Figure 2.5 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:

Figure 2.6 - Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume One: 19

Figure 2.7 - US House Linens Imports Market Volume One: 19

Figure 2.8 – Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume Two:

Figure 2.9 – Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume Two:

Figure 2.10 – Top Ten Countries Exporting House Volume Two:

Figure 2.11 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Window Volume One: 22

Figure 2.12 - US Window Dressings Imports Volume One: 22

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

Figure 2.14 – Top Countries Exporting Window Volume Two:

Figure 2.15 – Top Countries Exporting Window Volume Two:

Figure 2.16 - Inconsistency in the US Imported Volume One: 24

Figure 2.17 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume One: 25

Figure 2.18 - US Iron Housewares Imports Market Volume One: 26

Figure 2.19 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume Two:

Figure 2.20 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume Two:

Figure 2.21 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Iron Volume Two:

Figure 2.22 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume One: 30

Figure 2.23 - US Knives Imports Market Value Volume One: 30

Figure 2.24 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume Two:

Figure 2.25 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume Two:

Figure 2.26 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Knives Volume Two:

Figure 2.27 - Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume One: 33

Figure 2.28 - US Porcelain Tableware Imports Volume One: 33

Figure 2.29 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:

Figure 2.30 – Top Ten Countries Exporting Volume Two:

12 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE

Figure 5.1 - US Imported Iron Housewares Volume One: 75

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

Table 2.2 - Inconsistencies Among Top Ten US Volume One: 27

Table 2.3 - Inconsistencies Among Portugal and Volume One: 28

Table 2.4 - Portugal’s Most Similar and Target Volume One: 31

Table 5.1 - Select Bedspreads Product Volume One: 65

Table 5.2 - Select Bedspreads Product Volume One: 67

Table 5.3 - Non-printed and Printed Cotton Bed Volume One: 69

Table 5.4 - Window Dressings Subsector and Volume One: 73

Table 5.5 - Iron Housewares Subsector and Volume One: 76

Table 5.6 - Aluminum and Copper Housewares Volume One: 78

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR

Table 5.8 - Porcelain Tableware US Import Volume One: 81

Table 5.9 - Ceramic Tableware US Import Volume One: 82

16 • USA NEXT CHALLENGE

1.1 Report Parties

This report offers guidance on how Portugal can enhance home

1.2 Report Focus

This report reflects on general and specific issues that shape

THE US MARKET FOR HOME AND DÉCOR