The Challenge

During a period of rapidly changing tariff policy in 2025, a beauty-products manufacturer faced significant tariff exposure across a packaging supply chain heavily dependent on China and other Asian sources.

Many packaging components had replenishment lead times of approximately 12–16 weeks, making it difficult to react quickly as trade conditions changed.

The immediate challenge was twofold: manage existing overseas commitments to minimize unnecessary tariff expense while developing alternative sources closer to home.

What We Found

Not all packaging components presented the same sourcing challenge.

Printed materials could be transitioned relatively quickly to local suppliers. Plastic bottles and jars required more qualification, but opportunities existed with North American sources. Specialty glass, sprayers, droppers and dispensing components were more difficult to source, although U.S. alternatives were available in some cases at higher unit costs.

A blanket reshoring strategy wasn't practical. Each component needed to be evaluated based on inventory, production timing, tariff exposure, lead time, availability and total landed cost.

What We Did

We reviewed inventory and production requirements against open purchase orders and planned overseas shipments. Shipments were delayed when existing inventory permitted, quantities were challenged where requirements had changed, and orders were canceled when they were no longer needed.

At the same time, we accelerated alternative sourcing.

Printed labels, cartons and displays could generally be sourced with lead times of approximately four weeks or less. Plastic bottles and jars were transitioned to North American sources with lead times of approximately eight weeks.

Specialty glass, sprayers and dispensing components required more extensive sourcing, but U.S. alternatives were identified for several components even when the quoted unit price was higher.

Sourcing decisions were based on tariff exposure, freight, lead time, inventory and continuity of supply, rather than purchase price alone.

The Result

Dependence on tariff-exposed Asian sources was reduced across several important packaging categories while a more diversified supply base was developed.

For components successfully transitioned, replenishment lead times improved from approximately 12–16 weeks from Asia to roughly 4–8 weeks from suppliers closer to home, depending on the packaging type.

The shorter replenishment cycle created benefits beyond tariff mitigation. It reduced the amount of inventory required in the pipeline, provided greater production flexibility and made it easier to implement packaging and artwork changes without having months of existing inventory already committed or in transit.

Not every component could be economically moved closer to home, and alternative sourcing didn't always produce the lowest quoted unit price. But evaluating total landed cost, lead time, inventory investment and supply risk together produced better sourcing decisions than simply comparing purchase prices.

The business emerged with less exposure to long overseas supply lines and greater flexibility to respond to changes in demand, production requirements, packaging and trade conditions.