For many companies, supply chain excellence has long meant developing the most cost-effective way to deliver a product on time to your customers. While detailed modeling and analysis are often completed to design these “optimal” supply chains, it has usually only been done for a relatively narrow range of supply and demand variability options. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many businesses learned the hard way how this tight focus limited their abilities to cope with a sudden shock to their supply chains. The pandemic has proven that the definition of supply chain excellence must be expanded beyond cost effectiveness and on-time performance to also consider supply chain resilience.
A resilient supply chain maximizes an enterprise’s ability to produce and move goods when business is booming while also avoiding potential disruptions by sensing and pivoting in response to changing conditions and unforeseeable variables. It senses when conditions and demands vary from the anticipated in real time. It pivots to nimbly change course in response to the unexpected. Further, a resilient supply chain will also use advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) to push relevant data to people trained to interpret and act on the information thus reducing, or perhaps even eliminating, the impact of potentially calamitous supply chain shocks.
Companies need to evaluate how resilient their supply chains are in order to determine their strengths and vulnerabilities in light of unanticipated shifts and future crises. These evaluations or “stress tests” would resemble the banking stress tests that came into being due to the Great Recession and shifted banks’ focus away from short-term profit toward the long-term resiliency. These risk management exercises have helped the banking industry weather the current pandemic much better than it did the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.
The supply chain version of these stress tests would feed into the development of a plan that sets the course for improving supply chain resilience, with an emphasis on the flexibility needed in the uncertain times ahead. These stress tests would examine supply chain resiliency along a number of different dimensions, including geography, planning, suppliers, distribution, manufacturing, product portfolio/platforms, and financial/working capital. Let’s take a closer look at some of these key dimensions.
Planning
Our recent experiences of companies we have “stress tested” in two interconnected industries, consumer packaged goods (CPG) and retail, have shown that resilience can be particularly challenging to achieve in planning. Planning that occurs at an accelerated pace and utilizes advanced technology can help companies navigate shocks to the supply chain. Most CPG companies, however, struggle to switch to accelerated planning (moving from monthly to weekly or daily planning), with nearly half being unable to do so for more than 40% of their total sales. They also are underleveraging technology for their planning efforts; only one in six use demand-sensing technologies or analytical tools for more than half of their sales. Retailers, too, have shown limited capabilities to switch to accelerated planning and are similarly challenged by underutilization of technology and tools.
Suppliers
Retailers and CPG companies also face similar difficulties in working with their suppliers. For example, having alternative sources of supply can help improve resiliency. By prequalifying possible alternative manufacturing providers, CPG companies could ramp up manufacturing in alternative locations during unexpected shocks or disruptions. However, the majority of CPG companies have prequalified alternative manufacturing contracts for less than 20% of their core stock-keeping units (SKUs). For their part, many retailers have constrained their ability to be resilient by depending on a small pool of suppliers for the majority of a given category’s spend.
Supply chain resiliency can also be improved by increasing insight and visibility into downstream supply chain partners. While retailers have strong outbound logistics networks, they lack visibility and control of their inbound transportation networks—a group that includes their CPG partners! Both retailers and CPG companies have very limited visibility into their second-tier suppliers, which leaves CPG companies relatively blind to potential raw material disruptions and component shortages.
The high-tech industry also faces constraints in the supplier dimension that inhibit its resiliency. Companies in the high-tech industry face a somewhat unique supply chain challenge because most of their products are designed around a specific processor. Processors cannot be easily substituted once designed into a product, and since a design is typically employed for two to five years, supply chain redundancy alternatives will be limited. Fortunately, extensive effort is put into ensuring processor supply chain disruptions rarely occur (outside of instances of governmental intervention). Yet the threat of catastrophic supply interruption is real, as companies worldwide have shifted their manufacturing to China—initially for cost reasons, and now because of the vast high-tech ecosystem that has been developed there.
Accentuating the risk posed by the single-country component ecosystem for the high-tech industry is the prevalence of contract manufacturing, which has become standard practice in the high-tech industry. Now, most high-tech companies lack visibility into the base of component suppliers. Even those high-tech companies that source key components themselves rarely focus on components beyond the top 20 or so of their bill of materials. Instead they rely upon their manufacturing partners to manage that portion of spend and any supply visibility and/or delivery challenges that may exist. This creates a major risk not only for the company but also for the entire industry. Increasingly, it will also create risks for the many other industries that rely upon high-tech products, such as the automotive, consumer, medical, and industrial sectors.
Geography
We know that every border that has to be crossed to move raw materials, components, and finished goods introduces any number of risks for the supply chain. Selling in the same country where you manufacture thus reduces risk for some percentage of your sales. This strategy has been a boon to those companies that sell their products in the low-cost countries that they have come to rely on for goods production.
Product portfolio/platforms
Another way to reduce risks and supply interruptions is by designing and making simpler products that use relatively few parts or components. Similarly—though it sounds counterintuitive at first—products designed and built with ingrained software can actually reduce manufacturing complexity by making it possible to modify the built-in functionality of a product with the flip of a virtual switch. Under this strategy, customers pay only for the features that they value, increasing product flexibility and sales options without increasing manufacturing complexity—essentially, this brings the “software-as-a-service” business model into the physical world of objects like automobiles and appliances.
Working capital
Finally working capital can be wielded as a strategic weapon and help increase resilience in the supply chain. It can be used to lock in supply by, for example, using it to make mass buys of raw materials or of common components that are used across a company’s products. It can even be used to lock in suppliers through strategic supplier management efforts such as investing in a key supplier’s capabilities and facilities.
Overcoming constraints and identifying opportunities
Clearly, traditional approaches to supply chain management are no longer sufficient. Cost and performance remain important, but it is also critical to identify opportunities in the supply chain to reduce risk exposure through increased flexibility and redundancy. The supply chain strategy must evolve if we are to take any positives away from the COVID-19 pandemic and emerge stronger, more competitive, and better able to thrive when faced with the next crisis.
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).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
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.