Patrick Van den Bossche Explains Why the Rationale Behind ‘Buying US’ Has Changed

Editor’s Note: Tariffs, supply chain, domestic manufacturing, reshoring, sustainability, EPR… All are key topics as the cosmetic packaging industry moves speedily—but thoughtfully—ahead. Our Q&A with Patrick Van den Bossche continues our deep dive on “Packaging Made in the US/NA.” Bossche is a partner in management consultant Kearney’s Strategic Operations Practice. He is also the lead author of “The Kearney 2026 Reshoring Index: Why US manufacturing imports hit a four-year high despite record investment and tariffs.” Read on.

Jamie Matusow: What are the advantages of buying domestic products? Has the situation changed over the years?

Patrick Van den Bossche: The traditional arguments for buying domestic packaging have always been shorter lead times, better quality oversight, easier communication, and lower transportation cost and risk. These benefits still exist, but I would argue that the rationale has evolved significantly over the past five years. Prior to the pandemic, sourcing decisions in beauty packaging were often driven primarily by piece-price economics. Today, brands are increasingly evaluating total landed cost, supply chain resilience, sustainability requirements, inventory reduction opportunities, and speed-to-market. The conversation has shifted from “Where can I buy this cheapest?” to “Where can I buy this most reliably?” 

 More recently, sustainability regulations, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements, and increasing demand for recycled and traceable materials have further strengthened the case for regional sourcing. Indeed, Beauty Packaging magazine recently highlighted the growing link between sustainability goals and North American packaging production. My view is that domestic sourcing today is less about cost or nationalism and more about risk reduction, responsiveness, sustainability, and brand agility. 

JM: How successful has the U.S. been in bringing back packaging for the cosmetic and fragrance industry?

PVB: Packaging has generally been more successful at reshoring than many highly complex manufacturing categories, but it has not returned wholesale to the United States. One of the key findings from Kearney’s 2026 Reshoring Index is that categories with shorter supply chains, higher transportation cost sensitivity, greater customization requirements, and stronger customer proximity advantages have shown better reshoring performance than categories dependent on large, complex global ecosystems. 

Cosmetic packaging fits many of these favorable characteristics, and unlike smartphones, packaging does not require a massive upstream ecosystem. The economics are fundamentally different. Packaging can often be regionalized more easily because freight costs, lead times, product launches, and design changes matter more. What we are seeing is not necessarily everything coming back, but rather gradually more North American production for North American consumption.

JM: After China’s dominance for many years, there has been movement toward facilities in the US, Canada, Mexico, and smaller Asian countries. Is this a lasting trend?

PVB: I believe it is. However, I would describe it as diversification rather than deglobalization, which is what it’s often referred to, mistakenly, in my opinion. One of the clearest findings from our Reshoring Index is that sourcing is moving away from an overreliance on China, but that does not automatically mean production is moving back to the United States. Imports from China fell significantly, while other Asian low-cost countries captured even more volume.

 The same dynamic is evident in packaging. What we’re seeing is more sourcing from Vietnam, India, Thailand, and Indonesia, more packaging production in Mexico and, as mentioned earlier, more regional production in North America for North American brands. But the underlying objective is resilience. Companies increasingly want multiple sourcing options instead of concentrating everything in one geography. That trend is likely to persist regardless of tariff policy because it reflects a broader reassessment of supply chain risk.  And I don’t expect that trend to reverse any time soon.

Read on, as our Q&A with Patrick Van den Bossche continues.

See also: our feature story Packaging Made in USA/NA—for Speed and Flexibility.

JM: Any information on U.S. imports dropping?

PVB: As mentioned in our 2026 Reshoring Index report, overall U.S. imports of manufactured goods increased by approximately $133 billion in 2025, while domestic output barely moved. As a result, the Manufacturing Import Ratio rose to 14.15%, and the Reshoring Index remained negative.  What did change was the origin of those imports. Imports from Mainland China declined substantially. But, much of that volume shifted to Mexico, Vietnam, India, and other Asian low-cost regions, rather than disappear entirely.  This is also true for beauty packaging specifically. Import flows were being redistributed, and the source countries were changing faster than the overall level of imports. 

 Now, a little over 6 months into 2026, it does appear that imports are starting to decline a bit. ISM recently reported a 6th month of expanding manufacturing activity, although the expansion slowed in the last 2 months. Without having all the updated data, we may see some interesting movement toward more domestic production for 2026. But it’s too early to confidently state that, given we have mid-term elections coming up.

JM: Any insights on the cosmetics and fragrance industry in general?

PVB: I think the beauty industry is a fascinating example of where supply chain strategy and brand strategy increasingly overlap. Historically, packaging was often viewed as a procurement decision. Today it has become not just a marketing decision, but a sustainability and regulatory decision (driven by EPR). And, increasingly, a supply chain resilience decision. Beauty brands face growing pressure to adopt recycled content, refillable formats, and recyclable materials. There’s also pressure to have traceable supply chains. This trend is encouraging more regional sourcing. Compliance, transparency, and material traceability are often easier to manage closer to market.

And as we’ve seen, certain packaging categories can be regionalized effectively. Others remain globally sourced because the supplier capabilities, tooling expertise, decoration capabilities, or cost structure remain concentrated overseas. That mirrors what we found across manufacturing more broadly in the Reshoring Index. Selective reshoring works better than broad reshoring since different categories have different economics.

For North American beauty brands, we’ve also seen Mexico emerge as an important manufacturing and packaging location. This is due to proximity, labor availability, favorable trade integration, and growing industrial capability. However, long-term growth there will depend on how the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) review ultimately evolves.

For the beauty packaging sector, I’d say we are moving from a world optimized for lowest-cost sourcing to one optimized for resilience, sustainability, and speed. The winners will not necessarily be the companies with the cheapest packaging. They are the ones building the most responsive and adaptable supply chains. They are also the companies meeting the changing consumer and regulatory expectations.

About Patrick Van den Bossche

Patrick Van den Bossche is a partner in management consultant Kearney’s Strategic Operations Practice and is lead author of “The Kearney 2026 Reshoring Index: Why US manufacturing imports hit a four-year high despite record investment and tariffs.” For 100 years, Kearney has been a trusted partner to three-quarters of the Fortune Global 500 and governments worldwide.