The debate of whether or not to re-shore the production of goods and the provision of services has been most salient in the US, as the geographic focus of the Economist’s 2013 special report ‘Here, there and everywhere’ demonstrated. It is now being discussed in the UK too.

Research from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) found that almost a quarter of companies with offshore operations would re-shore some in the next three years while the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) demonstrates that re-shoring is accelerating. Correspondingly PwC sees potential for the creation or repatriation of 200,000 jobs in the UK over the next decade. The UK Government itself has launched a new advisory service called Reshore UK.

Whether in the US or UK, decisions concerning location are typically framed as a matter of competitive advantage and business value. Yet beyond acknowledging that a decision to re-shore could placate local (political) opinion, little attention has been given to how re-shoring might be received by consumers when the new location becomes part of the brand story, as it inevitably will.

Companies considering whether to locate production in the UK rather than keep it overseas need to know three things:

1) They need to be cognisant of the importance consumers attach to products’ social, material and environmental conditions of production, for which location is a powerful shorthand. Consumers are using resources such as GoodGuide to evaluate companies’ ethical credentials, including their sourcing policies, and companies are reacting by selectively releasing information about their supply chains through tools such as Historic Futures.

2) Countries have entrenched reputations for prowess in certain fields. Well-made watches come from Switzerland and good quality whiskey from Scotland. However, companies should keep abreast of changes in consumer perception brought by sustained shifts in the character of national economies or in exceptional instances by the efforts of individual brands. In the former case relatively new confidence in Chinese manufacturing capabilities saw Apple giving the country which assembles its products equal prominence to the quasi-country (California) that designs them on its product casings. Soon, such casings will acknowledge China’s role in design and its reputational transformation into a high quality producer of consumer electronics will be complete.

3) Finally, they need to know that the Internet and legislation such as the forthcoming EU labelling rules are forcing an unprecedented degree of transparency about products’ origins. Independent digital campaigns such as Fashion Revolution Day aim to increase the visibility of producers in the supply chain in an attempt to make disasters such as the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh less likely.

Taking a closer look at individual categories, textiles could benefit from re-shoring as the UK currently has a solid reputation as a producer in the field of fashion. However, producers of consumer electronics could actually be better off by keeping manufacture in places such as China which has a high reputation in this field.

For UK companies in fields where a stronger British association would be a liability for their brands, yet which are determined to shift more production to these shores, there is a way out. They can choose strategically which of the many aspects of provenance to emphasise so that their ‘made in’ label corresponds to consumer preferences, following the example of Paul Smith which emphasises its ‘UK designed’ credentials over where the clothes may be manufactured. But re-shoring companies must be aware that voluntary transparency pays. Nowadays, with eagle-eyed watchdogs such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) which censured lager Kronenbourg recently for over-claiming French origins, there is nowhere to hide their factory, assembly line or source of raw materials.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.