Steve Geary is adjunct faculty at the University of Tennessee's Haaslam College of Business and is a lecturer at The Gordon Institute at Tufts University. He is the president of the Supply Chain Visions family of companies, consultancies that work across the government sector. Steve is a contributing editor at DC Velocity, and editor-at-large for CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.
Supply chain leaders need to look over the horizon and anticipate. Sometimes what's over the horizon is a rainbow. Sometimes it's a tsunami. In either case, we need to be ready.
We call that process, supply chain risk management.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has a good way to structure the process. Late in 2016, the agency issued a publication with a holistic approach to risk management.1 This government-sponsored research laid out simple framework to address the broad issue of risk at the organizational level. Although GAO framed this as a six-step process for overall enterprise risk management, it can be cascaded seamlessly to supply chain risk management.
By looking into the risk management practices found in different government agencies, GAO identified six key practices that, when joined together, create an effective risk management process.
Align the risk management process to the organization's overall goals and objectives. This step requires the full engagement and commitment of senior leaders because they play an active role in the goal-setting process. Their involvement also demonstrates to staff the importance of risk management.
Identify risks. In order to assemble a comprehensive list of risks, it is important to develop a culture where all employees can effectively bring attention to risks and are able to connect these risks to the organization's higher-level goals and objectives.
Assess risks. To help prioritize the risk, the organization needs to assess its probability and potential magnitude.
Select appropriate risk response. When creating a response or mitigation program for a risk, organizations should make sure it fits into their overall management structure, culture, and processes. Risk cannot be managed in isolation.
Monitor risks. Because risks are constantly changing, organizations should continuously monitor for and manage them. As a situation evolves, so will the organizational posture.
Communicate and report on risks. Organizations should share information with internal and external stakeholders on the risks that they have identified and the steps that they are taking to address them.
While GAO presents these ideas as a step-by-step sequence, the recommendations really describe an integrated and anticipatory oversight process. Good supply chain risk management strategies forecast, rather than react. Once upon a time, risk management was about "rolling with the punches." Today, risk management means anticipating events before they happen and avoiding the issue rather than reacting to it.
Forecasting means moving beyond reacting to traditional disruptions. Traditional supply chain disruptors include problems like missing shipments, hurricanes, strikes, and equipment failure. But to be more fully in control, we need to think about larger issues that might create vulnerabilities. Let the imagination roam. Tariffs? China taking over the South China Sea? North Korea meddling in communications or the Internet? All of these could happen, with a profound ripple effect.
This means that we all need to develop the ability to look over the horizon. That capability needs to be cascaded through all the layers of the supply chain and be held by everyone.
Alternatively, we may want to reduce the complexity of the supply chain by eliminating layers or pulling sources of supply closer. The word that supply chain risk managers need to apply is simplicity.
The danger of "silo thinking"
Today, when considering operations, supply chain experts think end-to-end, not in silos. Supply chain risk management should not be any different. But that's sometimes not the case.
Let's consider the approach taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly known as the Bureau of Standards. Around the same timeframe as the GAO report, NIST published a bulletin called, "Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations."2 The abstract for the bulletin says, "Federal agencies are concerned about the risks associated with information and communications technology (ICT) products and services that may contain potentially malicious functionality, are counterfeit, or are vulnerable due to poor manufacturing and development practices within the ICT supply chain."
While NIST's report asserts that it is about supply chain risk management, it isn't. Like the approach found in many government offices, the NIST policy treats supply chain risk as a cybersecurity issue. There is a cyber element in supply chain risk management, to be sure, but the topic of supply chain risk is broader than cybersecurity. Supply chain risk management extends beyond the cyber world and includes the physical.
Somewhere between the GAO high-level approach and NIST's narrow view lies the challenge for all of us: Understandthe layers of your supply chain, gather the data, analyze, characterize the processes, prioritize, and get to work.
Notes:
1. "Selected Agencies' Experiences Illustrate Good Practices in Managing Risk," GAO-17-63, a report to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-63
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
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.
That percentage is even greater than the 13.21% of total retail sales that were returned. Measured in dollars, returns (including both legitimate and fraudulent) last year reached $685 billion out of the $5.19 trillion in total retail sales.
“It’s clear why retailers want to limit bad actors that exhibit fraudulent and abusive returns behavior, but the reality is that they are finding stricter returns policies are not reducing the returns fraud they face,” Michael Osborne, CEO of Appriss Retail, said in a release.
Specifically, the report lists the leading types of returns fraud and abuse reported by retailers in 2024, including findings that:
60% of retailers surveyed reported incidents of “wardrobing,” or the act of consumers buying an item, using the merchandise, and then returning it.
55% cited cases of returning an item obtained through fraudulent or stolen tender, such as stolen credit cards, counterfeit bills, gift cards obtained through fraudulent means or fraudulent checks.
48% of retailers faced occurrences of returning stolen merchandise.
Together, those statistics show that the problem remains prevalent despite growing efforts by retailers to curb retail returns fraud through stricter returns policies, while still offering a sufficiently open returns policy to keep customers loyal, they said.
“Returns are a significant cost for retailers, and the rise of online shopping could increase this trend,” Kevin Mahoney, managing director, retail, Deloitte Consulting LLP, said. “As retailers implement policies to address this issue, they should avoid negatively affecting customer loyalty and retention. Effective policies should reduce losses for the retailer while minimally impacting the customer experience. This approach can be crucial for long-term success.”