When was the last time you reviewed your outsourcing agreements? Taking a fresh look at those contracts can help you cut costs in tough economic times.
Julian S. Millstein is a senior counselor in the global sourcing and technology transactions groups in the Morrison & Foerster law firm's New York office.
The global recession is forcing every company to consider new ways of cutting costs. This can be a challenge for supply chain managers who are saddled with long-term outsourcing relationships entered into in better times, and which may no longer be as favorable as they once were.
It's possible to cut some of the costs associated with these relationships, but it is not easy. In this article, we discuss four areas that offer opportunities to revise and improve your long-term outsourcing contracts.
1. Make the most of flexibility
A well-drafted outsourcing contract includes provisions that allow the contract to adapt to the customer's changing requirements. Many agreements contain fixed charges that are based to some extent on transaction or headcount assumptions in the initial year of the agreement. Often these amounts can be adjusted when conditions change. For example, a contract may allow adjustments to fixed charges if the volume of activity falls below an agreed baseline, or if the service provider achieves additional cost savings.
Even if a contract does not specifically envisage and make pricing allowances for changing circumstances, you often can make other changes that will save you money. For example, your agreement may have been negotiated at a time when stringent service levels were a priority. Service excellence, however, comes at a price, and reducing service levels can significantly lower the cost of delivery. Do you really need that 99.999 percent availability of a product or service? Studies indicate that each additional "9" in the availability measure can add 30 percent to costs. What business benefits are you getting for that additional 30 percent?
Or consider whether you could trim back or streamline services. Do you really require all of the service components in the original contract? Do all of the vendor's activities provide a business benefit? If not, ask your vendor to drop or scale back those services and amend the contract accordingly.
The procedure you establish for making changes in the contract should require the vendor to reduce its charges in line with the reduced scope of service. An important caveat: In many contracts, if a certain portion of the services are removed, that removal will be treated as a partial "termination for convenience," and a termination fee might be payable. Even in these circumstances, there may be some scope for negotiation. If the services you want to eliminate are disproportionately costly for the vendor to provide, the vendor may be willing to discontinue that piece of the business and waive the penalty.
Flexibility in a contract may allow you to reduce costs by delaying or canceling some or all scheduled process transformations (for example, automating manual processes) or technology upgrades. If the outsourcing agreement includes some form of process transformation, consider whether all or part of that project could be delayed or canceled. If you give short notice of the delay or cancellation, however, you may be required to compensate the vendor, but the cost savings from eliminating the project could well outweigh that penalty. And take a close look at any provision concerning information technology (IT). Does the agreement provide for unnecessarily aggressive technology upgrades? If so, now might be the time to re-evaluate your strategy for refreshing technology. But be careful not to indiscriminately cut IT spending: Targeted technology investments could help to boost sales and even save more money than you could through cost cutting.
2. Enforce your contractual rights
Too often, companies spend a long time negotiating a comprehensive outsourcing agreement, only to file away the executed contract in a drawer and manage the day-to-day relationship on an informal basis. Tough economic times, however, demand a return to more formal and controlled management. To get the full benefit of the terms in your existing agreement, review its service-level and pricing mechanisms, and then enforce the rights you already have.
Failing to enforce existing contract provisions inevitably leads to missed opportunities. For example, companies frequently fail to demand credits for "minor" service failures, preferring to give the provider some leeway for the sake of "the relationship." However valuable this trade-off may be in better times, even small service credits can add up. Exercising your right to claim them can produce appreciable cost savings.
Another example involves the right to benchmark service charges. Prices you agreed on years ago may be out of step with the market. A benchmarking right that will automatically reduce service charges in line with market pricing offers an easy way to realize cost savings. Even the threat of benchmarking can be enough to bring a vendor to the table to negotiate a reduction in fees.
Consider also whether to utilize the auditing rights in your agreement. By doing so, you can verify whether the vendor is invoicing the correct amounts. Audits can also determine whether you are being invoiced for the volume and type of services you actually use. Are you paying for a software license that has elapsed? Is the vendor in breach of any of its obligations?
Finally, make use of the dispute-resolution provisions in your outsourcing agreements. Check to make sure that they meet your needs. If your service provider is based offshore, will you have any enforceability issues? Ideally, you want to review and address these matters before you ever have to invoke dispute mechanisms. On a related note, parties to outsourcing agreements often fall into informal dispute-resolution processes rather than follow the steps laid out in their contractual agreements. Avoid potential problems by insisting that your vendor use the correct process, and if it fails to follow up on legitimate disputes, use the appropriate escalation and resolution mechanisms.
3. Find opportunities for renegotiation
It's wise to periodically review outsourcing agreements to assure that they are supporting your current business requirements. But when economic circumstances affect the business case for a particular deal, a review is not just a good idea, it's essential. That's why now is the time to consider whether any element of your outsourcing agreement should be renegotiated to reflect fundamentally different economic conditions.
One area where you may want to renegotiate is offshoring. If you decided to restrict a service provider from offshoring certain service elements when you first struck the agreement, there probably were valid reasons for doing so. Now, however, cost sensitivity may outweigh any potential downside of offshoring, and you may wish to change the terms to allow it. If your deal already includes offshore operations, then it's time to consider whether the allocation of currency risk is still valid. If you are paying for offshore services in the local currency, are you prepared to accept the currency risk? Or should your company hedge the currency risk on its own, without involving the vendor?
Provisions for dealing with corporate mergers, divestments, and other changes of control are prime candidates for renegotiation. Review the extent to which your existing relationships could accommodate a merger with a competitor—or the extent to which those relationships could be terminated and transitioned to an acquiring (or acquired) entity's vendor. Accordingly, you will need to review your agreement's assignment, termination, and pricing provisions to determine what your rights are when there is a change of control. If the contract does not already allow it, consider including the right for related companies to be added or removed as "services recipients." Outsourcing contracts often will treat the removal of a services recipient as a partial termination for convenience, but you can avoid the liability to pay a termination fee if the divested entity enters into a replacement contract with the same vendor.
If the provider's cost of borrowing is less than yours, consider mid-term renegotiation of pricing. Many outsourcing relationships spread recovery of the provider's up-front costs over the full term of the agreement, and therefore they allow the customer to defer payment for such items as transition, asset-acquisition, and initial start-up costs. There is no reason why you could not consider a similar principle mid-term. For example, the vendor might finance mid-term price reductions in return for higher prices later on.
4. Use your leverage
It is all very well to come up with a list of potential improvements to your outsourcing contract, but it's quite another thing to get the service provider's attention so that you can implement those improvements. To bring your service provider to the table, you must consider areas that you can leverage as well as changes that may offer value to your provider. Here's an example of the latter. Suppose you are satisfied with your provider's services but wish to receive price concessions. To make those concessions worthwhile for the provider, you could offer to extend the contract.
An example of using leverage would be exercising your right to terminate for convenience. Vendors prefer to retain existing, profitable clients rather than see them go to the competition. If you threaten a convenience termination, the vendor may therefore be open to discussing compromises. This is more likely if the net value of the agreement exceeds any compensation you would be obligated to pay to the vendor for the termination.
Here's another possibility. If the vendor is in breach of any of its contractual terms, then you can use the threat of termination on those grounds. Taking steps to (or even threatening to) enforce contractual terms and claim damages may give you some leverage. Of course, the more material the breach, the more successful such a tactic will be. If the breach is so material as to allow termination of the contract, it could threaten the vendor's reputation, and the vendor will want to avoid any negative publicity.
You could offer the provider additional business in return for a lower unit price. Sometimes reducing the scope in exchange for a price reduction serves both parties' economic interests. For example, you might offer to drop a poorly performed service that produces very little or negative margins for the provider.
Finally, if you are satisfied with the provider's services, consider offering to act as a reference in return for some additional benefits. If you are a large, prestigious customer, your recommendation could help your vendor get new clients. That might not sound like a lot of leverage, but in a tight market it could lead the provider to offer substantial benefits in return for your public endorsement.
Managing outsourcing agreements in difficult economic times requires thoughtful review in light of your organization's current goals. By conducting this type of review, you are likely to find many opportunities to gain additional cost savings or other advantages. So pick up your contract and look it over with care. There's no better time to do so than the present.
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.
That strategy is described by RILA President Brian Dodge in a document titled “2025 Retail Public Policy Agenda,” which begins by describing leading retailers as “dynamic and multifaceted businesses that begin on Main Street and stretch across the world to bring high value and affordable consumer goods to American families.”
RILA says its policy priorities support that membership in four ways:
Investing in people. Retail is for everyone; the place for a first job, 2nd chance, third act, or a side hustle – the retail workforce represents the American workforce.
Ensuring a safe, sustainable future. RILA is working with lawmakers to help shape policies that protect our customers and meet expectations regarding environmental concerns.
Leading in the community. Retail is more than a store; we are an integral part of the fabric of our communities.
“As Congress and the Trump administration move forward to adopt policies that reduce regulatory burdens, create economic growth, and bring value to American families, understanding how such policies will impact retailers and the communities we serve is imperative,” Dodge said. “RILA and its member companies look forward to collaborating with policymakers to provide industry-specific insights and data to help shape any policies under consideration.”