The Age Of Volatility: What Tariffs Reveal About Fashion’s Resilience

Trade news came thick and fast last week, and much of it pointed in different directions. The end of the US de minimis exemption finally arrived, closing off a highly used cost saving path many brands had relied on for many years. Courts in the US, meanwhile, moved the other way, ruling large swathes of existing global tariffs illegal, the kind of decision that looks like relief on the surface, but in actual fact, when looked at with a more cynical slant, just adds yet more levels of uncertainty. The ruling has already been appealed and will now climb its way to the Supreme Court, which means fashion can expect months of waiting rather than immediate clarity.

Elsewhere, other stories followed the same pattern of contradiction. India is exploring African production hubs in search of tariff workarounds, while Mexico has stepped into footwear protectionism alongside the United States. Such is the nature of global trade at this juncture.  

This kind of volatility, and these perspectives that vary depending on which way you look, are now the basic shape of fashion. Every perceived win can come loaded with a hidden cost, and every apparent reprieve or semblance of stability can carry fresh uncertainty if you shift your stance a little bit. The throughline today is not whether tariffs rise or fall, but the very fact they remain in flux, months after businesses (and counterpart governments to the US administration) expected to see stability. That volatility has become the defining condition of global trade as fashion heads into the second half of 2025: while each development is important, the larger point is that none of it is controllable.

That lack of control and stability is what makes the tariff environment dangerous, because it represents a threat hanging over an already slippery slope for many companies. The bankruptcy of Canadian luxury e-retailer SSENSE was a reminder of that fact. The company explicitly cited tariff pressure as a factor in its collapse, and there’s no doubt that’s true in the proximate sense but the more important truth is that SSENSE was already under strain, and had been in trouble, along with several other notable multi-brand retailers (Matchesfashion and Net-a-Poter) since before the tariffs came into effect. High operating costs, a narrowing customer base and fragile margins had left it, and others like it, exposed. 

Tariffs, here, were the final push that amounted to unsustainable pressure.And the role tariffs play in the complex makeup of “fashion business headwinds”, in other words, is as an amplifier – especially for brands that are already struggling. They magnify whatever shape a business is already in and they do it most prominently where planning, sourcing and compliance aren’t digitised enough to absorb shocks. A fragile model collapses more quickly, while a stronger one has the potential to stay standing, albeit slightly more precariously than before. 

European luxury groups, for example, are better-insulated from collapse, and it feels almost inconceivable that they might fall like SSENSE did (they have robust balance sheets and brand equity that give them far more room to manoeuvre) but tariffs still register on their bottom lines. Duties on handbags and apparel reduce margins and force regular adjustments in pricing. Consumers notice when those adjustments become frequent, and that creates tension in markets where growth has already slowed. 

These companies are resilient, and built to withstand storms like the last year has provided, but the need to constantly recalibrate strategy shows how volatility works its way into even the strongest positions. The difference is that many of these groups now lean on advanced planning platforms to model outcomes before they happen, which makes recalibration possible at speed.

The further up the scale one looks, the clearer the principle becomes. Switzerland’s watchmakers have been drawn into the tariff conversation as well, who are now facing a 39 percent tariff on exports to the United States, one of their biggest markets, and the responses show how volatility intrudes even into sectors that pride themselves on stability. Larger groups have raised prices and passed on the cost. Smaller independent makers, with less margin to spare, have been forced to absorb it. Others have rushed to ship inventory ahead of the tariff deadline or even adjusted their corporate structures to ease the blow. None of this points to an industry in crisis – Swiss watches have weathered greater upheaval in the past – but it does highlight the way volatility forces movement. 

What makes Swiss watchmaking interesting in this particular context is that it is not entirely unprepared. Recent studies point to steady progress in digital adoption. That foundation doesn’t neutralise volatility entirely, but it gives brands the tools to adapt faster than their traditional swiss-watchmaker image might suggest. Tariffs may have created new challenges for the sector, but it’s also likely they have merely accelerated the timetable for decisions that were already on the horizon (with some brands seeing a slow down in sales pre-tariffs), and made digital readiness more valuable in absorbing the shocks.

What makes this all so frustrating for planners, is that the legal and political backdrop offers such a bleak outlook. Courts may rule tariffs illegal one week, only for appeals to keep them alive the next. With the Supreme Court now involved, the only outcome we can bet on in the short term is a period of prolonged uncertainty. Policy moves faster than litigation, and in the meantime companies are rooted in terms of their ability to plan, but also left dealing with increased costs. What this demonstrates is that volatility is no longer an interruption. It is now embedded in the system itself, institutionalised through the very processes that are supposed to provide stability.

All of which leads to the question of where control actually lies. Tariffs cannot be managed directly, this much we’ve already established. They are too unpredictable, shaped as much by politics and courts as by economics. What can be managed are the internal systems that determine whether volatility is manageable. Margins can be made more disciplined, supply bases more flexible, compliance more robust, and planning more sophisticated. Those levers decide whether tariffs are a frustration or, in the most extreme cases, a fatal blow.

And in 2025, most of those levers are digital. Planning platforms can model multiple scenarios with a depth and speed that manual tools cannot match. Compliance systems can provide defensible proof of origin when regulators tighten their grip, as we’ve seen happen this year already. Sourcing intelligence can widen the field of options so that an issue  in one region does not cripple an entire chain. None of these tools insulate fashion from volatility. What they do is absorb some of the impact, turning a stress test that might otherwise be terminal into one that is merely uncomfortable.

That is the real lesson of the past week. Tariffs are the headline, but volatility is the condition. Policy swings back and forth, sometimes in ways that look helpful, sometimes in ways that clearly are not, but always in ways that make planning an additional consideration. Fashion has no way of controlling the external environment. What it does have is the ability to build resilience into the structures that sit beneath it.

The collapse of SSENSE, the pressure on European luxury, the recalculations in Swiss Watchmakers, and the theatre of the American courts all point in the same direction. Tariffs themselves cannot be managed. The only question is whether businesses are in a position to absorb them when they arrive, in whatever form they arrive. For some, the answer is already no. For others, the answer will depend on how quickly they strengthen the parts of the system that are still in their hands. And increasingly, that strength comes from the technology that allows volatility to be endured rather than survived by chance.