"Customer and Supplier Portfolios: Can Credit Risks Be Managed Through Supply Chain Relationships" by Matthew A. Schwieterman of Michigan State University and Thomas J. Goldsby and Keely L. Croxton of The Ohio State University. Published in the May 2018 issue of the Journal of Business Logistics.
THE UPSHOT
The nature or structure of a company's relationships with its customers and suppliers can have a direct impact on its financial performance. For example, if a prominent customer lengthens its payment terms, a supplier may see a decrease in its liquidity. Similarly, previous research has shown that a firm's share prices can be affected by the performance of its key customers.
Is there a similar link between the external market's perception of a company's supply chain relationships and the company's credit rating? This research sought to find out. The researchers chose to look specifically at two key ways to characterize a firm's portfolio of relationships with its suppliers and customers: concentration and balanced portfolio dependence. Concentration is defined as the portion of a firm's sale revenue that is received from its primary customers and the percentage of its purchasing spend that is allocated to its primary suppliers. Dependence relates to how much a company relies on its customer or supplier for its financial success. In some relationships, there is a power imbalance, where one party is more dependent on the other than the other is on it. In other relationships, the level of dependence is more equal. Balanced portfolio dependence is defined as the average degree of balance in dependence (based on the percentage of business each party allocates to the other) across the top customer and supplier relationships for a firm.
Previous research has found that these two characteristics can influence a company's financial outcomes. But is there a correlation between high customer or supplier concentration and a company's credit rating? Is there a correlation between a balanced portfolio dependence and a company's credit rating? The article's corresponding author, Matthew A. Schwieterman, explained to Supply Chain Quarterly Executive Editor Susan K. Lacefield what he and the rest of the research team found out and what it means for supply chain managers.
Q: What was the impetus for this research? Why were you interested in studying the relationship between supply chain portfolio characteristics and credit risks?
Based on the massive interest from the business community, supply chain relationships have been researched extensively in recent years. A variety of supply chain relationship issues have been explored, and a multitude of financial outcomes have been examined. For example, return on assets; return on sales; and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization margin have all been said to be influenced by supply chain structure.
As the popularity of supply chain management has grown, a variety of other outcomes have been proposed as being related to a company's supply chain strategy and practices. For example, concentrating sales to several large customers leads companies to hold excess cash to hedge against risks associated with loss of relationships. Similarly, these companies are likely to receive less favorable loan terms from banks and longer payment terms from customers. Given the large amount of interest in supply chain outcomes, we wanted to explore whether supply chain structure also affected a company's credit risks.
Q: Why did you choose to look at "concentration" and "balanced portfolio dependence" specifically?
Various studies in business and economics over the years have shown that these characteristics impact firm performance. However, these studies generally only considered financial performance. Based on our belief in the importance of supply chain structure, we wanted to extend the use of these characteristics to include other outcomes, such as credit ratings.
Q: What affect did your research show that concentration and balanced portfolio dependence had on credit ratings?
In a nutshell, both customer concentration and balanced customer portfolio dependence were shown to be beneficial to a company's credit ratings. However, supplier concentration and balanced supplier portfolio dependence had no significant effect. In plain terms, all else being equal, companies with several large, key customer relationships had better credit ratings than those that did not. Likewise, credit ratings were better for companies that had balanced relationships with customers, where each party represented relatively the same percentage of business to the other.
Q: Were any of the results surprising? Why, or why not?
We were happy to show that customer relationship characteristics were related to credit ratings but initially perplexed that supplier relationship characteristics were not. In hindsight though, this made sense as credit ratings are measures of a company's ability to meet its financial obligations. As such, revenue would be of key importance. The supplier characteristics, while important to other outcomes, would likely not feature a direct link to revenue as would the customer characteristics. The importance of supplier relationships on various supply chain outcomes would be a great area for more investigation in the future.
Q: How do you think that companies can apply your findings?
Companies can benefit from an awareness of the importance of supply chain structure to their overall performance, including credit ratings. Credit ratings are an important outcome, as they can impact the credit terms extended to companies.
Additionally, the findings point to the importance of managing customers and suppliers as a portfolio, with an awareness of how customers and suppliers are contributing to a company's strategy. When considering customer portfolio characteristics, companies should think about the possible benefits of large, prominent customers, especially as signals of future revenue to external evaluators, such as credit-rating agencies. Finally, balanced relationships may be important to success, and should be considered when possible.
Q: Do you think companies in general think about the effect that their supply chain relationships could have on their credit rating? Should these concepts of concentration and dependence affect who they choose to be suppliers and who they choose as customers?
We believe companies will continue to become more aware of the effect supply chain characteristics have upon various outcomes, including credit ratings. It makes sense to consider concentration and balanced dependence within customer portfolios when pursuing various customers. However, as with all key business decisions, many factors will need to be considered.
Q: What would you say is the key takeaway message of your research?
To put it broadly, supply chain structure is important! The decisions made by supply chain managers impact more than immediate financial metrics and have implications for a company's long-term success. Specifically, balanced relationships with large, key customers are associated with stronger credit ratings.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.