Barbara Gaudenzi is Associate Professor in Supply Chain Management & Risk Management at the Department of Business Administration of the University of Verona (Italy).
George A. Zsidisin is the John W. Barriger III Professor and Director of the Supply Chain Risk and Resilience Research (SCR3) Institute at the University of Missouri—St. Louis.
Firms have engaged in global supply chains for centuries. This is due to the many benefits organizations experience from trading globally, such as expanding their customer base, attaining lower purchasing costs, and obtaining higher quality products and services, among many other factors. Although firms have been enjoying the fruits of global supply chain management for many years, there are also inherent uncertainties and risks that can quickly erode profitability.
One such form of risk prevalent in these supply chains is foreign exchange (FX) risk. Firms may suffer an increase in operating costs due to changes in exchange rates when purchasing components or materials from nondomestic suppliers, or they may lose margins when they sell products in markets with a lower exchange rate. For example, the price of a cup of coffee is the same every morning, and the price of the bakery product is the same on the shelf. But, if suppliers are paid in their own currency, the cost of the commodities—coffee beans and grain—can significantly increase due to the fluctuation in the country-of-origin’s currency, affecting production costs and profit margins.
FX risk can severely affect profitability, especially in industries characterized by tight product margins, low levels of stock, and short lead times. A 2018 survey of 200 chief financial officers, for example, found that 70% of respondents had suffered reduced earnings in the prior two years due to avoidable, unhedged FX risk.1
This finding shows the need to carefully consider FX risk. In addition, global political risk trends are increasing many firms’ exposure to FX risk. For example, the currency markets became particularly volatile after the British vote to leave the European Union.
Many firms have implemented financial hedging to manage FX risk. However, from an operational perspective, there are additional approaches firms can consider for mitigating this form of risk. In a recent research program, partly funded by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we uncovered five principles organizations should consider in creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy. The primary focus of these principles is oriented more towards a supplier-facing perspective of the supply chain, but they take into consideration internal and downstream FX risk exposure as well. These principles include 1) creating flexibility up front, 2) looking upstream and downstream in the supply chain, 3) incorporating multiple sources of cost/price uncertainty, 4) using a range of risk mitigation approaches, and 5) considering relationships. (See Figure 1.)
[Figure 1] Five principles for creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy Enlarge this image
Creating flexibility up front
Firms can mitigate a great amount of FX risk by considering a variety of sourcing strategies during the initial product development and supplier evaluation and selection stages. Sourcing a component or product from a sole supplier located in a foreign country leaves a firm vulnerable to changes in the exchange rate. When possible and feasible, firms should consider establishing a multisourcing strategy (or at least backup suppliers) by qualifying and selecting a domestic supplier or one from an alternate foreign country. Although identifying and qualifying alternate sources of supply can be costly, firms should see it as an investment in flexibility. It gives firms the opportunity to mitigate unfavorable fluctuations in FX rates by switching the purchasing quantity to another supplier.
We have seen organizations create backup, domestic sources of supply as well as qualify suppliers that use a third currency. For example, one Italian firm we studied purchases components from China, but it has also qualified a supplier in the U.K. and can source from another supplier in Italy. This example supports findings from a recent survey, which found that 80% of the companies studied invest in supplier relationships and flexibility to reduce risk.2
However, companies need to be careful when creating these plans. They should make sure to consider additional expenses such as the costs of switching from one supplier to another, including the cost of changing manufacturing and distribution processes and any new transportation costs. Hence, before deciding whether or not to invest in flexibility by qualifying suppliers that use a different currency, it is crucial to carefully assess the expected benefits versus the cost for implementing the plan. One way to make this assessment is to use real options valuation (ROV) in combination with simulation tools.3 This avoids having firms build flexibility when it does not prove to be worthwhile.
Flexibility, in fact, has its limitations. It is very difficult to frequently change supply sources due to switching costs and process changes. Therefore, companies need to understand both the short- and long-term FX rate uncertainties and forecasts in order to determine if switching sources is really worthwhile, especially since it may take six months or more before another switch is viable. Longer time between switches may in fact dramatically erode the value created by the flexibility itself. At the extreme, if the next switch is only viable several months later, another fluctuation in FX rates may make the switch financially unfavorable.
Looking upstream and downstream
It is important for firms to know where in their supply chains they could be exposed to foreign exchange rate risk. To uncover these points of weakness, they need to look both up and down their supply chain. Upstream sources of risk include having suppliers located in countries using a different currency and having suppliers whose own suppliers receive payments in various currencies. Downstream FX risk exposure can come from customers in foreign countries who pay in their respective currencies as well as from making payments to providers of transportation and other supply chain services in a foreign currency.
It is also important to understand how these FX risks may affect your supply chains. How will fluctuations in foreign exchange rates affect your cash-to-cash cycle and your firm’s profitability? Are there opportunities for natural hedging where sales and purchases are done using the same foreign currency? The mitigation of FX risk might be particularly crucial for firms located in countries where raw materials are scarce or the share of imported material from abroad (spend in other countries) is significant and experiences currency volatility. This can especially occur in developing countries, such as with BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). In such cases, experiencing a devaluation of the local currencies (the currency of the selling product) may produce a significant loss for a firm.
Incorporating multiple sources of cost/price uncertainty
Firms are exposed to uncertainty from many different sources. These sources of uncertainty can include, but are not limited to: global political dynamics, demand volume volatility, commodity price fluctuations, tariffs, and transportation costs. Further, many of these sources of uncertainty influence other sources. For example, the price of oil (a commodity) has an influence on transportation rates. Likewise, the uncertainty around the recent COVID-19 pandemic is dramatically affecting global demand, changing its volumes and affecting the equilibrium between off-shored and domestic manufacturing needed to meet that demand. Some of these sources of uncertainty can offset the effects of FX risk, while others can amplify unfavorable FX rates.
For example, the COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the global oil market because demand for oil from China (which accounts for 20% of total global consumption) dropped by about 3 million barrels a day. As a result, global oil prices, such as the Brent crude oil price, dropped to their lowest level in more than a year. This drop also affected shipping prices and generated high volatility in commodity prices, which in turn affected foreign exchange rates.4
Commodity price shocks, higher prices due to disruptions to global supply chains, and the shortage of demand from the tourism industry all resulted in severe fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.
As recent events show, FX risk cannot be considered in a vacuum. Instead, we have found it is important for firms to create total cost models that holistically assess their entire financial risk exposure. These models would include FX risk as one of several factors. Similarly, when companies create a FX risk mitigation strategy, they should take into consider other cost drivers and how they influence FX risk.
Using a range of risk mitigation approaches
There is no one “silver bullet” for mitigating FX risk. Larger firms for many years have employed financial hedging instruments, such as derivatives and currency swaps, for reducing their exposure to FX risk. Although financial hedging remains an important tool and approach in creating a FX risk mitigation strategy, other approaches, especially at the operational level, can also be employed for actively addressing this form of financial risk and creating supply chain flexibility in the case of unfavorable FX valuation rates.
One common approach that supply chain professionals utilize for reducing the effects of significant FX valuation shifts is negotiation. Many suppliers want to ensure that they keep their customers’ business. From the purchasing firm’s perspective, we have found it beneficial for organizations to simply communicate to its supplier how FX rate shifts affect its cost structure. This tactic gives suppliers the opportunity to adjust their sales prices to counter the currency value shift and remain price competitive. Further, these negotiations, especially when they are done during the contracting stage, can include escalation and de-escalation clauses, where this form of risk is shared between the companies. For example, if future changes of FX valuation shift by more than 5% above or below an established rate, then the price increase or decrease due to currency differences would be shared between the buyer and supplier. Other mitigation techniques can include suppliers switching or reallocating volume for reducing the effects of FX risk, financial hedging, and natural hedging.
Considering relationships
The success of many of the approaches to FX risk mentioned above is dependent upon a firm’s current and future relationships with its customers and suppliers. Further, the power balance in the relationship will also partly determine how FX risk is mitigated.
For example, building in flexibility by switching suppliers or reallocating volume may be a viable strategy when there are no production capacity constraints and the relationship with the supplier is more transactional. However, it may be the incorrect decision if the supplier is considered strategic to your success. Also, a multisourcing approach may strengthen your firm’s purchasing power by providing information that can be used to improve current relationships or negotiations with new suppliers. Therefore, investing in flexibility may be seen as a “strategic tool” to adopt from a longer-term perspective, based on the FX rate forecasts.
Understanding the relationship between yourself and a supplier is also key to successfully using negotiation as an approach to mitigating FX risk. By establishing rules at the very beginning of the negotiation, you may create efficiency and limit opportunistic behaviors by your suppliers. In this sense, negotiation may be a “tactical tool” used to manage specific suppliers for shorter-term periodic FX rate fluctuations. Having strong, established relationships and rapport with suppliers is an important requisite for negotiating contractual terms in response to FX risk.
When determining what approach to take in mitigating FX risk, companies should ask themselves, what is the true value of the supplier or customer? Is FX risk considered a win-lose game, where one organization gains temporary financial benefits from currency valuation shifts at the expense of the other? Or is it an opportunity to mutually discover opportunities for financial success?
Supply chain relationships are not just external. Internal supply chain relationships with other business functions (such as production, finance, and marketing) should be taken into consideration. Is finance/treasury considered the primary entity responsible for this form of risk? How can we work with them in mitigating FX risk? Are there opportunities for creating a natural hedging strategy with marketing and sales? How do our decisions affect production? Creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy cannot be done in isolation. It needs to incorporate both external and internal supply chain partners and functions.
The path forward
There is no question about it—firms are subject to a myriad of uncertainties that can detrimentally affect their profitability. Currency fluctuations and their inherent risk is one such uncertainty supply chain professionals need to be aware of and incorporate into their plans for managing their supply chains and contributing to corporate profitability. The five principles provided in this article shed some insight into what factors you may want to consider when creating such a strategy.
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank the companies participating in this research and CSCMP for a grant helping to support this study.
Notes:
1. Rethinking Treasury, HSBC and FT Remark, 2018: https://www.gbm.hsbc.com/the-new-future/treasury-thought-leadership/risk-management-survey
3. Real option valuation (ROV) methods are based on the concept of “real options,” which are defined as “the right but not the obligation” to choose a course of action and obtain an associated payoff. ROV methods have been widely used for project/asset valuations when the exercise of further options is not certain and depends on the evolution of other events, but comes at a certain initial cost. Examples are having the managerial flexibility (that is, the option) to expand, abandon, or contract a project, based on different states being realized in future
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.