Global supply patterns have changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century— not just once but several times—and they will continue to change over time.
Global supply patterns have changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century— not just once but several times—and they will continue to change over time. Whenever shifts in production and consumption occur, new winners and losers emerge. This dynamic has a direct effect not only at a country or regional level but also at the supply chain and individual company level. Supply chain managers, therefore, can benefit from a basic understanding of some of these shifts and their consequences.
Changing production patterns
In the past, less developed countries with low production costs produced the raw input materials, while capital-intensive countries would design, produce, and consume the finished goods. During the course of the 20th century, however, a new paradigm for goods production emerged. Trade patterns reflected the comparative advantages that arose from supply chains that extended to less developed countries. They also came to feature multilateral exchanges of finished consumer goods among advanced economies. For example, Germany both exported and imported beer. This is partly related to the fact that consumers in modern capitalist societies developed a preference for variety; satisfying that demand required more intragroup trade in parallel with the outsourcing of production to markets with lower production costs.
The international trade picture, then, could be characterized as raw materials from less developed countries flowing to industrial countries in a traditional, linear supply chain, with a considerable volume of similar finished and capital goods trading between industrial countries. Despite this paradigm shift, the ability to add value at lower production costs (i.e., comparative advantage) remained an essential determinant of international trade flows.
Eventually, manufacturers came to realize that by locating production or assembly plants within the consuming countries, they could reduce distribution costs and offer lower prices to end consumers. For example, a U.S.-owned soft drink plant in a Latin American country would produce soft drinks for local consumption, thereby substantially reducing logistics and transportation costs. This shift is not limited to low-cost countries. In the United States, for instance, a Toyota plant in Mississippi or a Mercedes plant in Alabama imports some parts from Japan or Germany but assembles the automobiles themselves in close proximity to the consuming market.
After the end of the Cold War, trade flows and the integration of global markets have increased at a rapid pace, while transportation costs have fallen. More countries have opened their borders to free trade or have liberalized trade in some way. Landmark developments include China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a swing by India and many other developing countries away from anti-trade and anti-market policies. These developments caused the economic paradigm for goods production to change once again.
Now many North American and European companies locate production and assembly facilities in countries like China, where input costs are lower. The finished goods are subsequently imported by the North American or European company, so that the final sales proceeds stay with the parent company, in the home country, or both. Economic activities in this new supply chain paradigm mean that the value added to a product, the productivity level, and the costs for many products are lowest at the production level and highest at the design and distribution levels. A visual depiction of this phenomenon shows a "smiley curve" (see Figure 1).
Weaving a supply web
During the last two decades, there has been a consistent flow of low-skill and low-value-added jobs from developed economies to emerging economies that have a comparative advantage in less capital-intensive industries. This phenomenon has had an important, transformational impact on global supply chain dynamics: the metaphor of a linear supply chain, with product moving chronologically through the stages of supply, production, and distribution, may be heading toward obsolescence. Instead, today's global supply chain is increasingly looking and acting like a global supply web. The concept of a series of interconnecting links, from the input link (supplier) to the output link (distribution) has given way to a network pattern involving myriad suppliers, producers, and distributors cascading across international boundaries.
With companies scattering production around the globe and conducting economic activities in multiple countries, tracing the flows and interconnections of the global supply web has become an almost impossible task. It's not uncommon to see a pattern like this: Low-cost Country A imports raw materials or components from Country B, which has higher production costs. Country A assembles the parts or processes the product. The assembled or processed product is then exported to Country C. Further processing or assembly may then be done in Country C before the finished product is exported back to Country A or to another country altogether.
As that scenario suggests, companies are taking increasing advantage of their ability to fragment the production process by locating design and engineering in one place, parts in another place, and assembly in still another place. China offers a prime example of this new phenomenon. A large volume of raw materials and parts are shipped to China for manufacture or assembly. Once incorporated into a finished product, they are exported to the country of origin or to another country. This strategy has become very common in recent years. Since 2000, the value of Chinese merchandise exports of finished or semi-finished goods processed with imported materials has multiplied by a factor of six. According to manufacturing trade data, it is estimated that more than half of China's total merchandise exports now include imported materials. The total value of those exports in 2010 represents an estimated US $600 billion (on an annual basis).
Another element of Chinese trade patterns worth mentioning is that the gap between the value of merchandise imports and merchandise exports has grown from 15 percent in 1994 to 50 percent in 2010. This is most likely a consequence of increased productivity and a higher value added to Chinese exports since 1994. Increased productivity has allowed Chinese companies to produce more output (and therefore exports) with a given amount of inputs (or imports). At the same time, the improvement in Chinese processing and assembly processes since then is likely to have boosted the value added to the finished products.
Interestingly, production fragmentation is no longer limited to manufactured goods and has also made its way into the information services sector. Many companies now locate call centers, data processing facilities, and research centers in countries where the production costs for those functions are lower.
Shared prosperity
For the time being, advanced economies will continue to focus on the parts of the supply web for which they have a comparative advantage, while low-productioncost countries will concentrate on other segments. But the shape and complexity of the supply web could change over time. As populations in many of the key emerging economies age or attain higher levels of education, the geographical concentration of those nations having comparative advantages will shift, creating new and interesting patterns of international trade.
Regardless of how the lineup of developed and emerging economies changes in the future, the global supply web will connect them in a strong ensemble that is capable of reaping the greatest benefits from free trade. As Nariman Behravesh, IHS's chief economist, writes in his book Spin-Free Economics.
"In war, one country wins and another loses. In globalization, both countries prosper. Power can be gained at someone else's expense, but prosperity can be shared."
“The past year has been unprecedented, with extreme weather events, heightened geopolitical tension and cybercrime destabilizing supply chains throughout the world. Navigating this year’s looming risks to build a secure supply network has never been more critical,” Corey Rhodes, CEO of Everstream Analytics, said in the firm’s “2025 Annual Risk Report.”
“While some risks are unavoidable, early notice and swift action through a combination of planning, deep monitoring, and mitigation can save inventory and lives in 2025,” Rhodes said.
In its report, Everstream ranked the five categories by a “risk score metric” to help global supply chain leaders prioritize planning and mitigation efforts for coping with them. They include:
Drowning in Climate Change – 90% Risk Score. Driven by shifting climate patterns and record-high temperatures, extreme weather events are a dominant risk to the supply chain due to concerns such as flooding and elevated ocean temperatures.
Geopolitical Instability with Increased Tariff Risk – 80% Risk Score. These threats could disrupt trade networks and impact economies worldwide, including logistics, transportation, and manufacturing industries. The following major geopolitical events are likely to impact global trade: Red Sea disruptions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, Taiwan trade risks, Middle East tensions, South China Sea disputes, and proposed tariff increases.
More Backdoors for Cybercrime – 75% Risk Score. Supply chain leaders face escalating cybersecurity risks in 2025, driven by the growing reliance on AI and cloud computing within supply chains, the proliferation of IoT-connected devices, vulnerabilities in sub-tier supply chains, and a disproportionate impact on third-party logistics providers (3PLs) and the electronics industry.
Rare Metals and Minerals on Lockdown – 65% Risk Score. Between rising regulations, new tariffs, and long-term or exclusive contracts, rare minerals and metals will be harder than ever, and more expensive, to obtain.
Crackdown on Forced Labor – 60% Risk Score. A growing crackdown on forced labor across industries will increase pressure on companies who are facing scrutiny to manage and eliminate suppliers violating human rights. Anticipated risks in 2025 include a push for alternative suppliers, a cascade of legislation to address lax forced labor issues, challenges for agri-food products such as palm oil and vanilla.
Maersk’s overall view of the coming year is that the global economy is expected to grow modestly, with the possibility of higher inflation caused by lingering supply chain issues, continued geopolitical tensions, and fiscal policies such as new tariffs. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions could threaten global stability, climate change action will continue to shape international cooperation, and the ongoing security issue in the Red Sea is expected to continue into 2025.
Those are difficult challenges, but according to Maersk, a vital part of logistics planning is understanding where risk and weak spots might be and finding ways to dampen the impact of inevitable hurdles.
They include:
1. Build a resilient supply chain As opposed to simply maintaining traditional network designs, Maersk says it is teaming with Hapag-Lloyd to implement a new East-West network called Gemini, beginning in February, 2025. The network will use leaner mainliners and shuttles together, allowing for isolation of port disruptions, minimizing the impact of disruptions to supply chains and routes. More broadly, companies should work with an integrated logistics partner that has multiple solutions—be they by air, truck, barge or rail—allowing supply chains to adapt around issues, while still meeting consumer demands.
2. Implementing technological advances
A key component in ensuring more resilience against disruptions is working with a supply chain supplier that offers advanced real-time tracking systems and AI-powered analytics to provide comprehensive visibility across supply chains. An AI-powered dashboard of analytics can provide end-to-end visibility of shipments, tasks, and updates, enabling efficient logistics management without the need to chase down data. Also, forecasting tools can give predictive analytics to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency. And incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) into digital solutions can enable live tracking of containers to monitor shipments.
3. Preparing for anything, instead of everything Contingency planning was a big theme for 2024, and remains so for 2025. That need is highlighted by geopolitical instability, climate change and volatility, and changes to tariffs and legislation. So in 2025, businesses should seek to partner with a logistics partner that offers risk and disruption navigation through pre-planned procedures, risk assessments, and alternative solutions.
4. Diversifying all aspects of the supply chain Supply chains have felt the impact of disruption throughout 2024, with the situation in the Red Sea resulting in all shipping having to avoid the Suez Canal, and instead going around the Cape of Good Hope. This has increased demand throughout the year, resulting in businesses trying to move cargo earlier to ensure they can meet customer needs, and even considering nearshoring. As regionalization has become more prevalent, businesses can use nearshoring to diversify suppliers and reduce their dependency on single sources. By ensuring that these suppliers and manufacturers are closer to the consumer market, businesses can keep production costs lower as well as have more ease of reaching markets and avoid delay-related risks from global disruptions. Utilizing options closer to market can also allow companies to better adapt to changes in consumer needs and behavior. Finally, some companies may also find it useful to stock critical materials for future, to act as a buffer against unexpected delays and/or issues relating to trade embargoes.
5. Understanding tariffs, legislation and regulations 2024 was year of customs regulations in EU. And tariffs are expected in the U.S. as well, once the new Trump Administration takes office. However, consistent with President-elect Trump’s first term, threats of increases are often used as a negotiating tool. So companies should take a wait and see approach to U.S. customs, even as they cope with the certainty that further EU customs are set to come into play.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
As we look toward 2025, the logistics and transportation industry stands on the cusp of transformation. At the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we’re committed to helping industry leaders navigate these changes with insight and strategy. Here are six trends that we believe will form the competitive landscape of tomorrow.
1. Digital transformation and data integration: Technology continues to reshape every facet of logistics. Advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are becoming increasingly integrated into supply chain operations, driving efficiency, reducing costs, and enabling proactive decision-making.
For companies to succeed, they must invest in technologies that enhance data accuracy and facilitate seamless information sharing. Those that do so will be able to better anticipate disruptions, optimize routes, and improve customer satisfaction.
2. Sustainability: As the global community continues to prioritize environmental responsibility, the logistics sector faces growing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. The adoption of electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and optimized routes can reduce emissions significantly, and many organizations are setting ambitious targets to lower their environmental impact.
3. Supply chain resilience and flexibility: The capacity to pivot quickly in response to disruptions, whether due to natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or global pandemics, is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Companies are increasingly adopting flexible supply chain models and focusing on diversification to mitigate risk.
4. Nearshoring and reshoring: Bringing manufacturing closer to home—either by relocating it back to the country of origin (reshoring) or moving it to neighboring regions (nearshoring)—not only enhances supply chain agility but also reduces transportation costs, lowers emissions, and lessens exposure to global disruptions. Companies that embrace these approaches can strengthen their competitive positioning, helping them respond more effectively to fluctuations in demand while maintaining cost efficiency and meeting sustainability goals.
5. Workforce development: The logistics industry is facing a talent shortage, particularly in skilled labor and technology-focused roles. As we advance into a more digitalized landscape, we need a workforce proficient in tech and adaptable to change. Organizations must focus on upskilling and reskilling programs to equip their teams with the necessary knowledge.
6. E-commerce and last-mile solutions: E-commerce growth shows no signs of slowing, and with it comes the challenge of meeting rising consumer expectations for fast, reliable, and sustainable delivery. Last-mile logistics remains one of the most complex and costly segments of the supply chain. Innovative solutions, such as urban microfulfillment centers, autonomous delivery vehicles, and drone deliveries, are paving the way for more efficient last-mile solutions.
Looking Ahead
The future of global logistics and transportation holds both challenges and opportunities. At CSCMP, we are committed to supporting our members through these changes, fostering collaboration and sharing insights to navigate the path forward.
The landscape of 2025 may be unpredictable, but with strategic foresight and a commitment to adaptability, we can shape a prosperous future for logistics and transportation. Together, let’s continue to lead the way forward.
Keep ReadingShow less
Attendees visit the CSCMP EDGE 2024 Resource Center.
As I assume the role of Chair of the Board of Directors for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), I fondly reflect on the more than 10 years that I’ve had the privilege of being part of this extraordinary organization. I’ve seen firsthand the impact we have had on individuals, companies, and the entire supply chain profession.
CSCMP’s journey as an organization began back in 1963. It has since grown from a small, passionate community to the world’s premier association for supply chain professionals. Our mission—to connect, educate, and develop supply chain professionals throughout their careers—remains not only relevant, but vital in today’s world.
As we look ahead, the opportunities are vast. What stands out the most to me is simply this:We are stronger together. Every individual brings a unique perspective, and it’s through our collective wisdom and efforts that we will continue to advance the work we do. The road ahead is not one we travel alone. It’s a path we navigate as a community—one united in purpose and direction.
My vision for the year ahead centers around growth—growth in our global reach and, perhaps even more importantly, growth in how we engage and support each other. We have tremendous opportunities for international expansion, especially in Europe, the U.K., Mexico, Central and South America, and Canada. I’m happy to share that we're already seeing progress in our reach to these regions.
I'm incredibly excited about the potential for even more growth ahead. One of the initiatives I am most passionate about is our Centers of Excellence. These centers will provide members the space to engage deeply in key supply chain disciplines. I invite each of you to dive into these areas, share your experiences, and contribute to the innovative solutions we develop together. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so. These centers are not only academic spaces—they are hubs for innovation, where we can share best practices and work together to solve our industry’s biggest challenges.
Education and thought leadership will continue to be at the heart of what we do. By expanding our research capacity, we will offer cutting-edge insights that keep our members at the forefront of industry trends and innovation. Through our platforms, we will create even more opportunities for connection and collaboration—ensuring that every voice is heard. Your insights, curiosity, questions, and engagement will drive the transformation we seek. We all play a part in the advancement of our industry and our profession.
Our impact begins with membership. Expanding collaborations with public, private, and nonprofit sectors will give us new ways to drive progress. In a world where our ecosystem is even more interconnected than ever before, the ability to engage with diverse stakeholders will help us unlock new solutions and truly make a difference on a global scale. None of this would be possible without the strong foundation that has been built over the years by serving our supply chain community. Each of you holds the ability to shape the future of the supply chain, and I can’t wait to see what we will achieve together.