Textile industries have traditionally been the starting point of economic autonomy. The industrial revolutions of England and United States both began with textiles. The Republic of China, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are all success stories; each has expanded its manufacturing capabilities after beginning with textile [1]. The textile industry is a good economic development starting point because it can employ unskilled workers, train them and make them skillful in a particular production process: Nigeria has a huge supply of unskilled workers due to its large population and other factors such as pervasive poverty and illiteracy. In addition to a large pool of labour, Northern Nigeria also has available land suitable for cultivation of cotton which is the main raw materials for textile industry [2,3]. Handmade traditional textiles have been produced in Nigeria for many years but real industrial production of textile is a recent activity. Textile mills in Kaduna and Kano from inception were conceived as vertically integrated mills to process locally sourced raw materials (mainly cotton) through spinning for production of yarn, weaving for the production of grey cloth, dyeing, printing and finishing for the production of finished textiles.

However, the textile industry is classified into traditional and modern textiles [4]. The traditional cloth weaving method and handmade textile is an old culture among the Nigerians in both rural and urban cities of Bida, Benin, Illorin, Iseyin, Okene, Sokoto, Borno and Kano. The study of Olatayo, Akande and Fadina assert that the traditional Nigerian communities had developed indigenous technology for their textile material production and the raw materials were also obtained from the local environment. The above assertion is also consistent with earlier study of Ojo and Afigbo and Okeke which confirms archeological findings showing that technology in carding, spinning, dyeing and weaving had been in practice of indigenous textile manufacturers in the pre-colonial era. The textile produces from locally source raw materials according to Makinde et al. [5], cited in Yusuf [3] are: cotton, local silk, bark, goat skins, wool to raffia. Moreover, Nwachukwu and Ibebabuchi, Olatayo et al., Makinde et al. [4], and Ajila, classified traditional textile product into hand woven, non-woven, patterned or dyed with different names and specifications based on the traditions and customs of people. These include; the Igbos (Akwete cloth), Yorubas (Asoke, Asoebi, or Adire), Hausas (Kura), the Nupes (Kpasa), Okene – Ebira (Ashiasha). Though, Adire cloth is of two types according to Aguiyi et al., cited in Yusuf [3], One Adire is made by stitching the design with raffia and the second system is to stenciled it, using a starchy paste produced from Cassava or Yam. Other similar products are; Ankara fabric, Aso-ebi, Buba wrapper etc. These traditional fabrics according to Makinde et al. [4], are of good quality, textual, high durability, unique characteristics and a means of identification of Nigerian people from different backgrounds and diverse regions. 

The modern textile industry in Nigeria developed to produce fiber production, spinning, weaving, knitting, lace and embroidery makings, carpet production, and printing, dyeing and finishing processes. In the recent past, textile industry was the highest employer of labour after the civil service [6]. The capacity utilization in the industry improved between the periods 1986 – 1993 with backward integration program instituted by many firms in the industry following government policy on the sector. The modern textile firms woven fabrics expanded with many designs showing better, qualitative and complicated textile products using automated power looms with yarns of various colors skillfully used in the production line [3,4]. The industry is made up of series of interrelated processes from production of fibers and items of clothing to distribution of the end product to consumers. The market for the industry according to Treball [7] is split between broad categories of products: textile for clothing, textile for home and decoration and textile for technical or industrial use. 

Furthermore, between 1970’s and early 1960’s, Kaduna, Kano, Lagos and Aba had over 100 functional textile factories but it is today a dumping ground for textile from Asian countries. Before the collapse of the industry in Kaduna, Kano and Lagos the government derives as much as N6 billion per annum from textile related taxes and levies as reported by MAN [8]. But for over a decade now, the closure of these factories and the low-capacity utilization or production capacity of existing ones is of great concern and the succeeding government had not been able to address the situation. Many of the workers that were laid off are still out of jobs, while taxes in billions derived by governments from these factories had become a thing of the past.

Njoku [9] viewed that the number of textile and garment factories after the storm fell from 175 in the mid 1990’s to less than the 25 in 2010, while employment dropped from 137,000 in the 1990’s to 60,000 in 2002 and further to 20,000 in 2010. As a consequence, this led to the decline in cotton lint production from 98,000 in 2006 to 55,000 tons in 2010 and export of cotton went down from $44 million to $31 million within the same period. Records from MAN [10] further indicated that capacity utilization in the industry reduced to 20.14 percent in 2010 from 50.75 percent in 2003 while many surviving ones are closed to extinction.

Introduction

The aim of this section is to review related literatures; conceptual foundations, empirical literature and theory underpinning the study. One of the interesting areas in the discipline of industrial management is the attempt to turnaround declining organization [11].

Trajectories of Industry Sickness, Failure and Decline

Industry sickness is a global menace that affects firms across nations among developed and developing economies. The incidence of industrial sickness is pervasive and attributed to several factors from financial and non-financial issues such as low capital base, low level of technology, deficient managerial knowhow, poor corporate strategy, Board of Directors issues etc. The number of new and established industries falling sick seems to be growing astronomically arising from competition and new technology in the market. Industry sickness according to Singh [12] is an organic process in the life of industrial units. The actions leading to sickness may take several years but the seeds of sickness can be seen at the early life cycle of an industrial unit. The Reserve Bank of India cited in Chowdhary [13] examines sick industrial unit on the basis of a mix criteria including continued cash losses, imbalances in the financial structure and determination in liquidity.

Sickness of a business does not occur without signs and symptoms. Thus, Pardhasaradhi postulated that a healthy business unit after passing through different stages ultimately becomes sick. The process of industrial sickness traces the firm’s path from health to failure and if necessary, actions are not initiated a sick unit is closed down. These signals and symptoms according Pardhasaradhi are a source of information to business owners to take necessary actions toward reviving declining industrial unit. To a lay person, a sick unit is the one which is not healthy; to an investor, a sick unit, is the one which skips dividends; to an industrialist, it is the one which is making losses and the verge of closure; to the banker, it is a unit which the incurring losses in the previous year and is likely to repeat the same financial position in the current and following year. A more comprehensive and legal definition of sick industrial unit is the one provided by SICA cited in Shodhganga, that is sick industrial unit is a registered company for not less than five years which has at the end of any financial year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth and has also suffered cash losses in previous and current financial year. 

Similarly, Ramesh and Misra cited in Jumejo et al. [14] found that a sick unit is the one which is not healthy because return on investment is not satisfactory. A healthy unit is one which ensures a minimum rate of return on the investment. Thus, returned investment according to Jumejo et al. [14] is a measuring tool to analyses the efficiency of the managers and owners of the industrial unit in the perspective of sales and profit per year. A healthy unit according to Pardhasadh passes through the state of closure. The stages or types of sickness are: tending towards sickness, incipient sickness and sick. 

Furthermore, type one (I) trajectory relates to tending towards sickness and incipient sickness; type 2 and type 3 trajectories mostly relate to the third stage sick. The process along with the causal analysis can address turnaround issues along the trajectories of failure. According to Srivatsava cited in Pardhasaradhi said, sickness in an industry is an organic process. Similar views were endorsed by Sahu and Misra. They (Sahu and Misra) emphasized that sickness in an industrial unit like in the human body is an organic process which generally passes through various parts of the system before the ailment manifest. Misra noted that industrial sickness is seen with the unit itself where the warning signals of sickness may differ from one firm to another firm depending upon the phase of its development. The warning signals of sickness for different enterprise along the three trajectories should diagnose the real cause from apparent cause for effective turnaround strategies. 

The empirical work of Singh [12] identified four stages of sickness in the life of an industry; the first stage or a healthy stage according to Bidani and Mitra is a period in which all the functional areas of the organization or firm (marketing, human resources, production etc.) are working effectively and efficiently. The second stage which is tending toward sickness arising from the constraints of the external environment. These constraints lead the firm to have cash losses in business operation and it is further characterized by decline in profit during the previous year and anticipated losses in the current year due to poor sales. The third stage enters into incipient sickness with two or more financial indicators showing poor state of firm health. The stage is characterized by determination in the current year through current ratio and anticipated debt equity ratio during previous years [12]. In the final stage, the firm becomes very sick with all the functional areas of the organization affected adversely. All financial indications (cash-profit/loss, networking capital, net worth) all are recording negative results. The features of this stage are characterized by erosion of net worth by 50% and more; units being closed for a period of 6 months to 3 years and default in payment of loan installment. 

The causes of industry sickness differ from one industry to another or one firm to another firm irrespective of the size of such organization.  Bandhu, Jumeyo, Rohra and Maitlo, Singh [12] and Gopal highlights that firm sickness can be classified into three categories: Born sick, become sick and made sick; some industrial units are born sick from the very inception owing to ill-conceived project arising from bad planning, poor appraisal, wrong choice of location and product selection, inadequate market surveys, false fixed investment decisions, mono product type of organization etc. However, Singh [12] equally noted that some firms may become sick due to internal causes which start at the stage of implementation as a result of poor management and deliberate diversion of funds. Other factors are; wrong recruitment and selection of employees, faulty management policies etc. A firm can also be made sick arising from external environmental problems such as sudden changes in government policies, technological changes, political, socio economic and cultural issues. 

Furthermore, the causes responsible for industry sickness can be internal (avoidable) or external (unavoidable). The internal causes of industry sickness according Jumejo et al. [14] and Bandha are: poor educational background; Mismanagement of resources; lack of management skills; decay in the implementation of projects (Long gestation period); poor industrial relations; outdated technology; poor marketing strategy bureaucracy in administration of firm matters; heavy advertisement cost etc. The external causes of industry decline as highlighted by Bandha are: adverse government rules and regulations, sharp competitions from rival firms; changes in technology; shortage of power supply; absence of financial support from financial institutions; changes in consumer behavior, adverse price control policy etc. Yusuf [3] noted that Nigeria economy has capacity for potential development but a number of internal and external environmental factors retard this effort towards full scale industrialization. 

Industry failure according to Pretorius [15] indicates severe problem in the contemporary business environment. Though, shepherd opined that lack of understanding of concept of failure is sometimes responsible for addressing properly the issues of corporate decline. Thus, Pretorius [15] looked at failure as a natural step in the life cycle of business ventures. Similarly, Levinthal said, failure occurs when the level of organization capital reaches zero (0). It is no longer able to meet its financial obligations to debt holders, employees or supplies and it is forced into bankruptcy or liquidation. Thus, McGrath postulated that an initiative can be said to have failed when it is terminated as a consequence of actual or anticipated performance below a critical threshold (that is, fallen short of its goals and objectives of the firm). Organizational theorist or ecology [15] affirms that the environment will automatically remove firms that are unfit and that the ability to survive in a turbulent situation is a function of both an organization’s suitability to the current environment and its ability to adapt properly if the environment functions. Though, Barron West and Hannon cited in Pretorius [15] buttressed that business operation and financial misalignment with the environment will expose firms or industries to different issues associated with failure. Finance according to Pretorius is often cited as one of the factors (or liabilities) that causes firm decline. Thus, financial causes are well described in literature and empirical review as a fundamental factor for firms’ failure and it is consistent with the works of Sherrer, Bollen et al. and Ooghe and Panicker [16]. 

Furthermore, the empirical work of Richardson et al. [17] cited in Pretorius [15] describe a number of environmental postulations that causes various kinds of industry or firm failure. These postulations are described in a form of a metaphor tagged the four (4) frog analogies. Each of this metaphor according to Pretorius suggests a configuration that will require different intervention to reverse the declining trend of an industry towards the status of profitability. The firm characteristics are explained in form of leadership personality, type and style of piloting the firm affairs. The metaphorical analogies are the “Boiled frog, Drowned frog, Bullfrog and Tadpole. The “Boiled frog” according to Richardson et al describes organizational leadership that suffers from introversion (a leader that is not bold) and rigid in the face of environmental jolts and this is also consistent with the position of Chowdhary and Lang [13]. 

The Drowned frog according to Richardson et al cited in Pretorius describes organizational leadership that is very busy and have an ambition to perform very excellently and after initial success, the top management started unnecessary expansion of business outfit leading to strategic drift. The “Bull frog metaphor” represents the leadership behavior that engages in frivolities i.e. spending the business funds on unnecessary items like using the firm money to satisfy the community interest. The ‘bull frog’ according Richardson et al also raises the ethical question of the top management saddle with the responsibility of governing the firm. The ‘tadpole’ refers to the startup venture that never turns into a proper business or a big new project in a large organization that drags it under. 

However, arrogance and prosperity seem to be the priority in the work of Richardson et al. [17] cited in Pretorius [15]. Though, the research of frog analogies portrays that the ‘boiled frog’ manager exhibits arrogant based on the belief that their longstanding position as a major market player will give them an edge over other competitors in the industry. the ‘drowned frog’ managers show arrogance based on the belief that their early and often remarkable prosperity can be reproduce at all times forgetting the different environmental turbulence that characterized business platform, where competitor bring different alternatives and superior product brands to the market. This position is attributed to chaos theory advanced by Stally and Rosehead where individual organizations are advised to operate in chaos if they are to be innovative. The ‘bull frog’ shows arrogance of different kind, feeling untouchable and extravagant while not recognizing the wrongdoing that hurts the business financially. 

Furthermore, Pretorius [15] also used the work of Bullen et al. to explain firm failure in better perspectives. Bollen et al. classified the same metaphor in analyzing the failure of selected European firms. The ‘boiled frog’ as a firm that is unable to adapt to environmental change; the ‘drowned frog’ as a firm that is over ambitious and shows extreme growth or unnecessary expansion; the ‘bull frog’ refers to management involvement in unethical and fraudulent practices and the tadpole as unhealthy firm or distressed organization. Pretorius [15] concluded that, these metaphors are significant and necessary in explaining the leadership variables of firms particularly during failure or decline conditions of firms. As a corollary, failure is a phenomenon that ventures face during all stages of life cycle and requires insight into its causes before it can be reversed [15]. Though, Starbuck et al. cited in Beeri [18] claims that most successful firms in the past becomes the most vulnerable to decline in the future due to the assumption that success raise over confidence, arrogance and preservation of traditions. Thus, Mellahi and Wilkinson [19] conclude that high flying firms in the face of competitive pressures, develops a form of cautious and perhaps arrogant disdain leading to firm decline. 

Organizations are born, develop and mature, some become prosperous other decline overtime. Industry decline and turnarounds [20-23]. However, organizational theorists [24] have proposed that folktales offer rich literature on organizational decline and turnaround because of their ability to disseminate information on human and group behavior and/or dynamics in existing threatening situations. Similarly, population ecologist argued that organization that survive declining situations possess enough resources and structural dimensions that decline enterprises do not have which led to their demise. Robbins supported the view that environment select certain types of firms/organizations that will survive and the one that will die based on the fit between structural characteristics and the peculiarities of their domain. 

The empirical work of Raina et al. highlighted the causes of industry decline along two dimensions which are internal and external to the organization. The study noted that organizations that fail to align with the environment decline. The absence of innovative idea arises due to unnecessary pressure from bureaucratic control, organizational power play politics, external restrictions and manager commitment to status quo arising from their longer tenure in the firm. Raina et al reiterated that one of the commonest reasons for industry decline is the syndrome of ‘one man rule’. Organizations which are exposed to this type of policy have a high risk of being exposed to administrative misdemeanor. Though, the study shows that firms have three broad alternatives for the future of declining industries; some firms could be closed, sold or revived without a change of ownership. Raina et al. postulated that highly integrated firms prefer to turnaround their units rather than closing or selling them. This is due to the fact that big industries have ability to provide financial, managerial and technical support for their survival and overall functioning status. Though, industries or firm respond to decline through; discouragement, reduction in quality of participation and bargaining for more favorable exchange of relationships, denigration through rumors and confrontation. These strategies enhance the chances of the firm and reverse the declining trend of a firm. Thus, management relationship with stake holder is imperative and necessary for a turnaround strategy. 

Industry declines according to Kanter [25] cited in Pretorius does not arise from a particular condition but it results from several decisions, policies, actions and commitments that becomes a tradition in the business area. A key to understanding the management of declining organizations is the sense making process described by Whetten. Faced with a decline issue, managers formulate a causal explanation that in turn dictates the domain of response alternatives they will consider. Thus, faulty problem identification procedure in the firm is mostly responsible for the declining status. Thus, every firm has performance gaps but declining firms have wide performance gaps that can endanger their survival (Pretorius). The situation analysis is absolutely important to verify the rate of gap according to Pretorius, thus if specific resources to close the gap cannot be determined or the gap cannot be closed to achieve breakeven status, Pretorius [15] noted such firm is not a viable venture and should be discarded. Thus, if a firm is in decline for reasons other than the poor implementation of a good strategy, Murmann argued that the firm or strategist needs to revisit and redefine its business model in order to transform the business concern.

According to the organizational studies and psychology school of thought, organizational decline is associated with related theories such as: industry life cycle theory, upper echelon theory, threat rigidity theory, resource-based theory, complexity theory etc. [18,19].

An industry life cycle analysis allows the firms within the industry to formulate strategies to avert potential threats as well as embrace available opportunities [26]. The analysis allows the management of the firm to study the transition through the different stages and adjust their business models according to the needs of the industry [27]. However, the relative length of each phase varies substantially among industries, the standard model of life cycle phases deals with manufactured products and the cycle traces the evolution of  a given industry based on the business characteristics commonly displayed in each phase as shown: the startup phase, involves the development and early marketing of a new product or service [28]. Meanwhile, innovators often create new business platforms to enable the production and proliferation of the new offering. Information on the products and industry participants is often limited as demand of the product is poor due to unfamiliarity with new products’ features and performance. The industry is fragmented with zero profit and high expenses incurred to develop market offering. At the growth phase, the product slowly attract attention from bigger market segment where profitability begins to rise and improvement in product features leads to easiness to use the product thereby increase value to customers.

Progressive and egalitarian Nigeria will depend upon a functional manufacturing industry than can enhance strategic advantages in the area of globalization of markets, technological up gradation, innovation, e-commerce and superlative service to the citizenry and economic growth and development.

The textile industry has been huge part of manufacturing industry in Nigeria. The industry is the largest in Africa after Egypt and South Africa and plays a significant role in the economic development of the nation and previously the largest employer of labour force in the country.

Furthermore, in the renew effort to revive the textile industry, Aremu [29] in appraising the position of Nigerian government in turning-around moribund textile industries in collaboration with National Executive Council (NEC) of the National Textile Garment and Tailoring Workers Union (NUTGWN), the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria (President Muhammadu Buhari) meet with the union leadership which further confirms the current administration disposition to the industry problems.

Policy Recommendations

The following policy recommendations can facilitate rejuvenating the moribund sector:

• Investment in technological innovation and improvements to meet up with competitive textile business environment

• The industry should set up textile industry research board. The research should be undertaken to develop superior equipment, raw materials and accessories

• Textile industry innovative features should embrace all spheres which includes product, services and technological innovations. This will help the industry to produce quality textile fabric of superior reliability at affordable prices thereby satisfying the customer needs

• The need for the establishment for comprehensive Cotton, Textile Garment (CTG) Policy or Act which aims at reviving the entire value chains of cotton growing, ginneries, spinning, weaving, printing and garment production as emphasized by Aremu [29]

• President Buhari’s initiation of Executive Order 003 on the support of local content in procurement and patronage of local fabrics is a right legislation to be used in addressing several textile industries maladies

• The uniforms of workers of government department(s) and agencies like the Nigerian Army, Air force, Navy, Police, Civil Defense, Immigration, prison, fire men, primary/post primary school’s uniform. Etc. should all be produced or manufacture by our local   textile manufacturing firms

• Complete automation of plant and machinery is a necessary prerequisite for reviving ailing textile units

• Removal of duty or levy on textile firms’ equipment, machinery for a period not less than 5 years to enable the local firms to compete favorably with foreign companies

• Curtailing of smuggling and dumping of textile materials into our major open market across the country

Banning of the importation of second and clothing (Okirika or bend down select) into Nigerian markets among others.

1. Frazer, G. "The beneficial nature of the second hand clothing trade in Sub-Saharan." African Journal of Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, vol. 2, no. 3, 2007, pp. 30–43.

2. Babadoko. "The death of northern textiles firms." Business Economic Review, vol. 3, no. 11, 2007.

3. Yusuf, A.B. Determinants of textile industry decline: a case study of selected textile manufacturing industry in northern Nigeria. MSc thesis, Department of Business Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 2015.

4. Makinde, D.O. et al. "Nigerian textile industry: a tool for actualizing economic stability and national development." European Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 14, no. 8, 2015, pp. 331–344.

5. Makinde, D.O. et al. "Aso Oke production and use among Yoruba of Southwestern Nigeria." A Journal of Pan African Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, Sept. 2009.

6. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria. Industrial Review Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 2, 2017.

7. Treball, B. Textile industry sector, report of 2013 with collaboration of Leitat, 2013.

8. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria. Industrial Review Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019.

9. Njoku, U.A. Marketability of made in Nigeria textile materials. PhD thesis, St. Clements University, 2010.

10. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria. Industrial Review Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 1, 2010.

11. O’Neil, H.M. "An analysis of the turnarounds strategy in commercial banking." Journal of Management Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1986, pp. 165–188.

12. Singh, B.K. "Industrial sickness in India: dimensions, threats and remedies." The ICFAI Journal of Managerial Economics, vol. 2, 2011, pp. 63–88.

13. Chowdhary, S.D. and J.R. Lang. "Crisis, decline and turnaround: a test of competing hypothesis for short term performance improvement in small firms." A Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 3, no. 4, 1993, pp. 8–17.

14. Jumejo, M.A. et al. "Sickness in small scale industries; causes and remedies. A case study of Sri Lanka estate area." Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 1, no. 4, 2007, pp. 860–865.

15. Pretorius, M. "Defining business decline failure and turnaround: a content analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–16.

16. Ooghe, P. and S. Panicker. "Successful and unsuccessful revival strategies of Indian organizations: a case survey." European Journal of Business and Management, vol. 4, no. 15, 2008. Retrieved 2 Nov. 2013 from www.iste.org.

17. Richardson, B. et al. "Understanding the causes of business failure crisis: generic failure types." Management Review, vol. 32, no. 4, 1994, pp. 9–22.

18. Beeri, I. Turnaround management strategies and recovery in local authorities. Unpublished PhD thesis, National University of Ireland, Ark Department of Management and Marketing, 2009.

19. Mellahi and A. Wilkinson. "Organizational failure: a critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework." Retrieved from www.org.p214600, 25 June 2018.

20. D’Aveni, R. "The aftermath of organizational decline: a longitudinal study of the strategic and managerial characteristics of declining organizations." Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, 1989, pp. 577–605.

21. Mone, M. and V.L. Baker. "Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework." Academy Management Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 1998, pp. 115–132.

22. Pearce, J.A. and K.D. Robbins. "Toward improved theory and research on business turnaround." Journal of Management, vol. 19, no. 3, 1992, pp. 613–636.

23. Baker, V.L. and I.M. Duhaime. "Strategic change in the turnaround process: theory and empirical evidence." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 1997, pp. 13–38.

24. Schneider, S.C. and R.M. Dunbar. "A psychoanalytical reading of hostile takeover." Academy of Management Review, vol. 1, no. 17, 1993, pp. 537–567.

25. Kanter, M.R. "Leadership and psychology of turnarounds." Harvard Business Review, vol. 3, no. 2, 2003, pp. 58–67.

26. Hill, C.W.L. and C.R. Jones. Strategic management - an integrated approach. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1995.

27. Consumano, M. et al. "Product process and service: a new industry life cycle model." Paper 228, http:// ebusiness. mit.edu, 2006.

28. Kenton, W. "Industry life cycle." http://www.pos/345, retrieved 5 Feb. 2016.

29. Aremu, I. "Textile revival: in praise of President Buhari." Daily Trust Newspaper, 29 July 2019, p. 55.