For a collaborative public-private partnership to work, the individual interests of the private sector must be brought into alignment with the requirements of the collective good.
Karl Buschmann is a strategic advisor for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. He works with the executive leadership team on key business development initiatives, such as the Executive Inner Circle, the development of private/public partnerships, and brand building. He acts as an ambassador, influencer and evangelist for CSCMP with other associations, industry trade groups, and stakeholders in the supply chain discipline. Using his background in global trade and higher education, Buschmann has been instrumental in helping to create the semiconductor supply chain report, an alliance with The Association for Manufacturing Technology, and new channels for membership growth and expansion. He is also an adjunct policy analyst at RAND.
Bradley Martin is the director at the RAND Corporation's National Security Supply Chain Instituteand a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, where he has worked since November 2012. His work has emphasized issues of vulnerability resulting from economic interdependence, strategic readiness impacts from logistics and infrastructure shortfalls, and the overlap between geopolitics and supply chain exposure. His most recent work has focused on the challenges associated with China’s position in multiple different supply chains critical to the U.S. and its allies.
Daniel Egel is a senior economist; director at the RAND Corporation's Economics and National Security Initiative; and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.
The United States is at an inflection point in its approach to supply chain management. Facing off against China, an adversary that has both a proven capability and willingness to weaponize supply chains against the United States and its allies, both the U.S. government and U.S. private companies are embracing a pivot away from efficiency to resilience.
Effectively managing this transition from efficiency to resilience, while ensuring that the United States is postured for the economic and national security threats created by hyper efficient supply chains, will require new modalities for public-private partnership.
Recent decades have demonstrated that market forces generally do produce very efficient supply chains. These supply chains, under private sector ownership, have resulted in a worldwide economy that is in some respects prosperous beyond the wildest expectations of the 18th and 19th century economists who initially pointed to the virtues of specialization.
However, this efficiency depends, in large part, on geopolitical stability. The quarter-century following the end of the Cold War proved remarkably stable. However, this stability is increasingly under threat, both by acute threats like Russia's war in Ukraine and the increasing tensions between Washington and Beijing.
A public-private approach—widely acknowledged as critical to overcoming these supply chain risks—is at the heart of a series of landmark U.S. efforts. This is demonstrated by the design of the Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force, Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act. Each embraces a partnership between the U.S. government and the private sector in addressing the supply chain disruptions that began with the COVID-19 pandemic and have evolved with rising U.S.-China competition.
The U.S. government has long recognized the value of public-private partnerships in addressing systemic challenges to supply chains. An example is the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, which was established with the specific purpose of giving the Secretary of Commerce industry expert advice on a comprehensive national freight infrastructure policy. The potential of these types of partnerships is illustrated by this committee's role in raising awareness of systemic congestion and bottlenecks at ports in 2021.
However, there is often a disconnect between the public rhetoric of public-private partnerships and the reality of how they are implemented.
This is demonstrated most clearly, perhaps, in the difficulties that the White House has faced in effectively engaging with commercial actors in executing its landmark programs. As a prominent example, the CHIPS and Science Act has been criticized for picking winners and losers rather than filling gaps that the private sector is not equipped to fill. Missed opportunities for collaboration have resulted in mistrust.
Another missed opportunity is the White House's new Council on Supply Chain Resilience, which was announced with little private sector consultation. There is no doubt that coordination across U.S. government agencies, the primary mandate of this council, is indeed valuable. However, it is an open question whether this council can be effective without private sector collaboration. Building a private sector counterpart to this council, perhaps building from the model of Commerce's analogue advisory committee, seems like a policy worth considering. The three leading supply chain professional organizations—Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, Association for Supply Chain Management, and Institute for Supply Management—could enable the objectives that this council seeks to achieve and provide a mechanism for monitoring supply chain performance.
Other examples of missed opportunities are in government-industry exchange programs. These should be ideal chances for civil servants and academicians to learn something about private sector decisionmaking. But, as documented in a 2022 report from the U.S. General Accountability Office, this has not been the case. Correcting this discrepancy would require a change to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970.
Building Resilient Supply Chains (PDF) from the Economic Report of the President (PDF) outlined the opportunities and challenges in 2022, and suggests both the need and the intent to support this kind of collaboration. However, for this collaborative public-private partnership to work, the individual interests of the private sector must be brought into alignment with the requirements of the collective good perspective and policy goals of the public sector. Both partners have useful tools and working examples to now make this vision happen.
“The past year has been unprecedented, with extreme weather events, heightened geopolitical tension and cybercrime destabilizing supply chains throughout the world. Navigating this year’s looming risks to build a secure supply network has never been more critical,” Corey Rhodes, CEO of Everstream Analytics, said in the firm’s “2025 Annual Risk Report.”
“While some risks are unavoidable, early notice and swift action through a combination of planning, deep monitoring, and mitigation can save inventory and lives in 2025,” Rhodes said.
In its report, Everstream ranked the five categories by a “risk score metric” to help global supply chain leaders prioritize planning and mitigation efforts for coping with them. They include:
Drowning in Climate Change – 90% Risk Score. Driven by shifting climate patterns and record-high temperatures, extreme weather events are a dominant risk to the supply chain due to concerns such as flooding and elevated ocean temperatures.
Geopolitical Instability with Increased Tariff Risk – 80% Risk Score. These threats could disrupt trade networks and impact economies worldwide, including logistics, transportation, and manufacturing industries. The following major geopolitical events are likely to impact global trade: Red Sea disruptions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, Taiwan trade risks, Middle East tensions, South China Sea disputes, and proposed tariff increases.
More Backdoors for Cybercrime – 75% Risk Score. Supply chain leaders face escalating cybersecurity risks in 2025, driven by the growing reliance on AI and cloud computing within supply chains, the proliferation of IoT-connected devices, vulnerabilities in sub-tier supply chains, and a disproportionate impact on third-party logistics providers (3PLs) and the electronics industry.
Rare Metals and Minerals on Lockdown – 65% Risk Score. Between rising regulations, new tariffs, and long-term or exclusive contracts, rare minerals and metals will be harder than ever, and more expensive, to obtain.
Crackdown on Forced Labor – 60% Risk Score. A growing crackdown on forced labor across industries will increase pressure on companies who are facing scrutiny to manage and eliminate suppliers violating human rights. Anticipated risks in 2025 include a push for alternative suppliers, a cascade of legislation to address lax forced labor issues, challenges for agri-food products such as palm oil and vanilla.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.
Maersk’s overall view of the coming year is that the global economy is expected to grow modestly, with the possibility of higher inflation caused by lingering supply chain issues, continued geopolitical tensions, and fiscal policies such as new tariffs. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions could threaten global stability, climate change action will continue to shape international cooperation, and the ongoing security issue in the Red Sea is expected to continue into 2025.
Those are difficult challenges, but according to Maersk, a vital part of logistics planning is understanding where risk and weak spots might be and finding ways to dampen the impact of inevitable hurdles.
They include:
1. Build a resilient supply chain As opposed to simply maintaining traditional network designs, Maersk says it is teaming with Hapag-Lloyd to implement a new East-West network called Gemini, beginning in February, 2025. The network will use leaner mainliners and shuttles together, allowing for isolation of port disruptions, minimizing the impact of disruptions to supply chains and routes. More broadly, companies should work with an integrated logistics partner that has multiple solutions—be they by air, truck, barge or rail—allowing supply chains to adapt around issues, while still meeting consumer demands.
2. Implementing technological advances
A key component in ensuring more resilience against disruptions is working with a supply chain supplier that offers advanced real-time tracking systems and AI-powered analytics to provide comprehensive visibility across supply chains. An AI-powered dashboard of analytics can provide end-to-end visibility of shipments, tasks, and updates, enabling efficient logistics management without the need to chase down data. Also, forecasting tools can give predictive analytics to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency. And incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) into digital solutions can enable live tracking of containers to monitor shipments.
3. Preparing for anything, instead of everything Contingency planning was a big theme for 2024, and remains so for 2025. That need is highlighted by geopolitical instability, climate change and volatility, and changes to tariffs and legislation. So in 2025, businesses should seek to partner with a logistics partner that offers risk and disruption navigation through pre-planned procedures, risk assessments, and alternative solutions.
4. Diversifying all aspects of the supply chain Supply chains have felt the impact of disruption throughout 2024, with the situation in the Red Sea resulting in all shipping having to avoid the Suez Canal, and instead going around the Cape of Good Hope. This has increased demand throughout the year, resulting in businesses trying to move cargo earlier to ensure they can meet customer needs, and even considering nearshoring. As regionalization has become more prevalent, businesses can use nearshoring to diversify suppliers and reduce their dependency on single sources. By ensuring that these suppliers and manufacturers are closer to the consumer market, businesses can keep production costs lower as well as have more ease of reaching markets and avoid delay-related risks from global disruptions. Utilizing options closer to market can also allow companies to better adapt to changes in consumer needs and behavior. Finally, some companies may also find it useful to stock critical materials for future, to act as a buffer against unexpected delays and/or issues relating to trade embargoes.
5. Understanding tariffs, legislation and regulations 2024 was year of customs regulations in EU. And tariffs are expected in the U.S. as well, once the new Trump Administration takes office. However, consistent with President-elect Trump’s first term, threats of increases are often used as a negotiating tool. So companies should take a wait and see approach to U.S. customs, even as they cope with the certainty that further EU customs are set to come into play.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
As we look toward 2025, the logistics and transportation industry stands on the cusp of transformation. At the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we’re committed to helping industry leaders navigate these changes with insight and strategy. Here are six trends that we believe will form the competitive landscape of tomorrow.
1. Digital transformation and data integration: Technology continues to reshape every facet of logistics. Advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are becoming increasingly integrated into supply chain operations, driving efficiency, reducing costs, and enabling proactive decision-making.
For companies to succeed, they must invest in technologies that enhance data accuracy and facilitate seamless information sharing. Those that do so will be able to better anticipate disruptions, optimize routes, and improve customer satisfaction.
2. Sustainability: As the global community continues to prioritize environmental responsibility, the logistics sector faces growing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. The adoption of electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and optimized routes can reduce emissions significantly, and many organizations are setting ambitious targets to lower their environmental impact.
3. Supply chain resilience and flexibility: The capacity to pivot quickly in response to disruptions, whether due to natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or global pandemics, is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Companies are increasingly adopting flexible supply chain models and focusing on diversification to mitigate risk.
4. Nearshoring and reshoring: Bringing manufacturing closer to home—either by relocating it back to the country of origin (reshoring) or moving it to neighboring regions (nearshoring)—not only enhances supply chain agility but also reduces transportation costs, lowers emissions, and lessens exposure to global disruptions. Companies that embrace these approaches can strengthen their competitive positioning, helping them respond more effectively to fluctuations in demand while maintaining cost efficiency and meeting sustainability goals.
5. Workforce development: The logistics industry is facing a talent shortage, particularly in skilled labor and technology-focused roles. As we advance into a more digitalized landscape, we need a workforce proficient in tech and adaptable to change. Organizations must focus on upskilling and reskilling programs to equip their teams with the necessary knowledge.
6. E-commerce and last-mile solutions: E-commerce growth shows no signs of slowing, and with it comes the challenge of meeting rising consumer expectations for fast, reliable, and sustainable delivery. Last-mile logistics remains one of the most complex and costly segments of the supply chain. Innovative solutions, such as urban microfulfillment centers, autonomous delivery vehicles, and drone deliveries, are paving the way for more efficient last-mile solutions.
Looking Ahead
The future of global logistics and transportation holds both challenges and opportunities. At CSCMP, we are committed to supporting our members through these changes, fostering collaboration and sharing insights to navigate the path forward.
The landscape of 2025 may be unpredictable, but with strategic foresight and a commitment to adaptability, we can shape a prosperous future for logistics and transportation. Together, let’s continue to lead the way forward.