Non classé

The Impact of NIS 2 Regulations on Manufacturing Supply Chains

Published

1 an ago

6 novembre 2024

The Impact Of Nis 2 Regulations On Manufacturing Supply Chains

NIS 2 Has Deep Impacts on the Supply Chain, Not Just Plant Operations

The manufacturing industry is undergoing a significant transformation as it grapples with the implications of the Network and Information Systems Directive 2 (NIS 2). This EU-wide regulation, designed to bolster cybersecurity and ensure the resilience of essential services and digital infrastructures, presents both challenges and opportunities for manufacturing supply chains. As cyber threats continue to evolve and increase in sophistication and volume, cyber resilience is critical.

Understanding NIS 2 Regulations

The NIS 2 Directive is an update to the original NIS Directive enacted in 2016. Its primary aim is to enhance the security of network and information systems across the European Union. The directive expands the scope of the original regulation to include more sectors and entities, including the manufacturing industry. It mandates stricter security requirements, incident reporting obligations, and greater cooperation between Member States.

NIS 2 requires companies to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to manage risks posed to the security of their network and information systems. This includes risk analysis, security of supply chains, and incident response capabilities. Non-compliance can result in significant fines and sanctions, making it imperative for companies to adhere to the new regulations.

Impact on Manufacturing Supply Chains

Increased Security Requirements

One of the most immediate impacts of NIS 2 on manufacturing supply chains is the increased security requirements. NIS 2 recognizes that cyber attackers often exploit vulnerabilities in third-party suppliers to compromise an organization’s systems, making supply chain security crucial. Manufacturers must now assess and bolster their cybersecurity measures to comply with the directive. This involves implementing advanced security technologies, such as intrusion detection and prevention systems, firewalls, and encryption protocols. Manufacturers must also ensure that their supply chain partners adhere to the same high standards of cybersecurity.

This heightened focus on security can lead to significant costs for manufacturers, both in terms of financial expenditure and time investment. However, these costs are offset by the long-term benefits of enhanced security and reduced risk of cyber-attacks. By investing in robust cybersecurity measures, manufacturers can protect their intellectual property, ensure the continuity of their operations, and maintain the trust of their customers. Organizations are expected to incorporate cybersecurity requirements into their contracts with suppliers, ensuring they maintain adequate security standards.

NIS 2 Improves Supply Chain Resilience

NIS 2 emphasizes the importance of supply chain resilience. Manufacturers are required to identify and mitigate risks throughout their supply chains, ensuring that all partners and suppliers meet the necessary cybersecurity standards. This necessitates a thorough evaluation of supply chain partners and the implementation of stringent security protocols. Building resilient supply chains involves adopting a proactive approach to risk management. Manufacturers must conduct regular risk assessments, monitor the security posture of their partners, and establish clear communication channels for incident reporting.

Incident Reporting and Response Requirements

NIS 2 mandates that companies report significant security incidents to the relevant authorities within 24 hours of detection. Manufacturers must be prepared to quickly identify, contain, and mitigate security incidents to minimize their impact on operations. Incident reporting also encourages greater transparency and collaboration between companies and regulatory authorities. By sharing information about security incidents, manufacturers can contribute to a better understanding of the threat landscape and help to develop more effective cybersecurity strategies. This collaborative approach can lead to improved security for the entire industry. Collaboration also extends to working with government agencies and regulatory bodies. Manufacturers must engage with these entities to ensure compliance with NIS 2 and to stay informed about the latest developments in cybersecurity regulations.

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges

NIS 2 also poses several challenges for manufacturers. Increased security requirements and incident reporting obligations can be resource-intensive, requiring substantial investments in technology, personnel, and processes. Manufacturers must also navigate the complexities of ensuring compliance across their global supply chains, which may involve different regulatory environments and varying levels of cybersecurity maturity. Not all EU member countries are fully prepared to implement NIS 2, as we discussed in this previous blog post about NIS 2 Day, which happened on October 17.

Opportunities

Despite these challenges, NIS 2 also presents numerous opportunities for manufacturers. By enhancing their cybersecurity measures, manufacturers can protect their intellectual property, safeguard their operations, and maintain the trust of their customers. Increasing your cyber resilience can improve your balance sheet because your company stands a greater chance of avoiding a cyber-attack and all the resulting unplanned downtime, reporting requirements, and potential impact to market performance. Increased supply chain cyber resilience also leads to stronger and more reliable partnerships. By working closely with their supply chain partners to ensure compliance with NIS 2, manufacturers can build more resilient and collaborative relationships.

Conclusions

While NIS 2 is an EU regulatory framework, the adoption of NIS 2 should improve supply chain cybersecurity around the world, because NIS 2 applies to companies located outside the EU if they provide services within the EU. Adopting a risk management framework for cybersecurity is something that all manufacturers should be doing. As with any regulatory framework, NIS 2 tells you what needs to be done, not always how to do it. There is an entire spectrum of ways to do assessments, from questionnaires to on site assessments. NIS 2 does mandate that you develop “cybersecurity protocols.” How you build those protocols and what resources you use to develop good protocols is up to you.

The post The Impact of NIS 2 Regulations on Manufacturing Supply Chains appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

Published

12 heures ago

3 février 2026

India–u.s. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

The announcement by Donald Trump and Narendra Modi of an India–U.S. “trade deal” has drawn immediate attention from global markets. From a supply chain and logistics perspective, however, the more important observation is not the scale of the claims, but the lack of formal detail required for execution.

At this stage, what exists is a political statement rather than a completed trade agreement. For companies managing sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, and compliance across India–U.S. trade lanes, uncertainty remains the defining condition.

What Has Been Announced So Far

Based on public statements from the U.S. administration and reporting by CNBC and Al Jazeera, several points have been asserted:

U.S. tariffs on Indian goods would be reduced from an effective 50 percent to 18 percent

India would reduce tariffs and non tariff barriers on U.S. goods, potentially to zero

India would stop purchasing Russian oil and increase energy purchases from the United States

India would significantly increase purchases of U.S. goods across energy, agriculture, technology, and industrial sectors

Statements from the Indian government have been more limited. New Delhi confirmed that U.S. tariffs on Indian exports would be reduced to 18 percent, but it did not publicly confirm commitments related to Russian oil, agricultural market access, or large scale procurement from U.S. suppliers.

This divergence matters. In supply chain planning, commitments only become relevant when they are documented, scoped, and enforceable.

Why This Is Not Yet a Trade Agreement

From an operational standpoint, the announcement lacks several elements required to support planning and execution:

No published tariff schedules by HS code

No clarification on rules of origin

No definition of non tariff barrier reductions

No implementation timelines

No enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms

Without these components, companies cannot reliably model landed cost, supplier risk, or network design changes.

By comparison, India’s recently announced trade agreement with the European Union includes detailed provisions covering market access, regulatory alignment, and investment protections. Those provisions are what allow supply chain leaders to translate trade policy into operational decisions. The U.S. announcement does not yet meet that threshold.

Implications for Supply Chains

Tariff Reduction Could Be Material if Formalized

An 18 percent tariff rate would improve India’s competitive position relative to regional peers such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. If implemented and sustained, this could support incremental sourcing from India in sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and light manufacturing.

For now, however, this remains a scenario rather than a planning assumption.

Energy Commitments Are the Largest Unknown

The claim that India would halt purchases of Russian oil has significant implications across energy, chemical, and manufacturing supply chains. Russian crude has been a key input for Indian refineries and downstream industrial production.

A shift away from that supply would affect energy input costs, tanker routing, port utilization, and U.S.–India crude and LNG trade volumes. None of these impacts can be assessed with confidence without confirmation from Indian regulators and implementing agencies.

Agriculture Remains Politically and Operationally Sensitive

U.S. officials have suggested expanded access for American agricultural exports. Historically, agriculture has been one of the most protected and politically sensitive sectors in India.

Any meaningful liberalization would raise questions around cold chain capacity, port infrastructure, domestic political resistance, and regulatory compliance. These factors introduce execution risk that supply chain leaders should consider carefully.

Compliance and Digital Trade Issues Are Unresolved

Several areas remain undefined:

Whether India will adjust pharmaceutical patent protections

Whether U.S. technology firms will receive exemptions from digital services taxes

Whether labor and environmental standards will be linked to market access

Each of these issues influences sourcing strategies, contract terms, and long term cost structures.

Practical Guidance for Supply Chain Leaders

Until formal documentation is released, a measured approach is warranted:

Avoid making structural network changes based on political announcements

Model tariff exposure using multiple scenarios rather than a single assumed outcome

Monitor customs and regulatory guidance rather than headline statements

Assess exposure to potential energy cost changes in Indian operations

Track implementation of the India–EU agreement as a near term reference point

Bottom Line

This announcement suggests a potential shift in the direction of India–U.S. trade relations, but it does not yet provide the clarity required for operational decision making.

For now, it creates strategic optionality rather than executable change.

Until tariff schedules, regulatory commitments, and enforcement mechanisms are formally published, supply chain and logistics leaders should treat this development as informational rather than actionable. In trade, execution begins only when the documentation exists.

The post India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Published

17 heures ago

3 février 2026

Home

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 3, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 10% to $2,418/FEU.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 2% to $3,859/FEU.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 5% to $2,779/FEU.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 5% to $4,179/FEU.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 8% to $6.74/kg.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 4% to $3.44/kg.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 10% to $2.53/kg.

Analysis

Winter weather is complicating logistics on both sides of the Atlantic. Affected areas in the US, especially the southeast and southern midwest are still recovering from last week’s major storm and cold.

Storms in the North Atlantic slowed vessel traffic and disrupted or shutdown operations at several container ports across Western Europe and into the Mediterranean late last week. Transits resumed and West Med ports restarted operations earlier this week, but the disruptions have already caused significant delays, and weather is expected to worsen again mid-week.

Join 65,000+ Supply Chain Experts Who Never Miss an Issue!

Start your week with the industry insights others miss.

« * » indicates required fields

Company

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Email*

Consent*

I agree to receive logistics, freight tech, and commercial emails.

The resulting delays and disruptions could increase congestion levels at N. Europe ports, but ocean rates from Asia to both N. Europe and the Mediterranean nonetheless dipped 5% last week as the pre-Lunar New Year rush comes to an end. Daily rates this week are sliding further with prices to N. Europe now down to about $2,600/FEU and $3,800/FEU to the Mediterranean – from respective highs of $3,000/FEU and $4,900/FEU in January.

Transpacific rates likewise slipped last week as LNY nears, with West Coast prices easing 10% to about $2,400/FEU and East Coast rates down 5% to $3,850/FEU. West Coast daily prices have continued to slide so far this week, with rates dropping to almost $1,900/FEU as of Monday, a level last seen in mid-December.

Prices across these lanes are significantly lower than this time last year due partly to fleet growth. ONE identified overcapacity as one driver of Q3 losses last year, with lower volumes due to trade war frontloading the other culprit.

And trade war uncertainty has persisted into 2026.

India – US container volumes have slumped since August when the US introduced 50% tariffs on many Indian exports. Just this week though, the US and India announced a breakthrough in negotiations that will lower tariffs to 18% in exchange for a reduction in India’s Russian oil purchases among other commitments. President Trump has yet to sign an executive order lowering tariffs, and the sides have not released details of the agreement, but once implemented, container demand is expected to rebound on this lane.

Recent steps in the other direction include Trump issuing an executive order that enables the US to impose tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, and threatening tariffs and other punitive steps targeting Canada’s aviation manufacturing.

The recent volatility of and increasing barriers to trade with the US since Trump took office last year are major drivers of the warmer relations and increased and diversified trade developing between other major economies. The EU signed a major free trade agreement with India last week just after finalizing a deal with a group of South American countries, and other countries like the UK are exploring improved ties with China as well.

In a final recent geopolitical development, Panama’s Supreme Court nullified Hutchinson Port rights to operate its terminals at either end of the Panama Canal. The Hong Kong company was in stalled negotiations to sell those ports following Trump’s objection to a China-related presence in the canal. Maersk’s APMTP was appointed to take over operations in the interim.

In air cargo, pre-LNY demand may be one factor in China-US rates continuing to rebound to $6.74/kg last week from about $5.50/kg in early January. Post the new year slump, South East Asia – US prices are climbing as well, up to almost $5.00/kg last week from $4.00/kg just a few weeks ago.

China – Europe rates dipped 4% to $3.44/kg last week, with SEA – Europe prices up 7% to more than $3.20/kg, and transatlantic rates up 10% to more than $2.50/kg, a level 25% higher than early this year.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Book a Demo

Learn More

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Weekly Freight Updates

More tariff threats, LNY rush easing, and winter storm disruptions – January 27, 2026 Update

Market Updates

Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026

Weekly Freight Updates

Greenland drama adds new dose of trade uncertainty – January 21, 2026 Update

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

Book a Demo

The post Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Non classé

Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality

Published

2 jours ago

2 février 2026

Microsoft And The Operationalization Of Ai: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding With Execution Reality

Microsoft has positioned itself as one of the central platforms for enterprise AI. Through Azure, Copilot, Fabric, and a rapidly expanding ecosystem of AI services, the company is not merely offering tools, it is proposing an operating model for how intelligence should be embedded across enterprise workflows.

For supply chain and logistics leaders, the significance of Microsoft’s strategy is less about individual features and more about how platform decisions increasingly shape where AI lives, how it is governed, and which decisions it ultimately influences.

From Cloud Infrastructure to Operating Layer

Historically, Microsoft’s role in supply chain technology centered on infrastructure and productivity software. Azure provided scalable compute and storage, while Office and collaboration tools supported planning and coordination. That boundary has shifted.

Microsoft is now positioning AI as a horizontal operating layer that spans data management, analytics, decision support, and execution. Azure AI services, Microsoft Fabric, and Copilot are designed to work together, reducing friction between data ingestion, model development, and business consumption.

The implication for operations leaders is subtle but important: AI is no longer something added to systems; it is increasingly embedded into the platforms those systems rely on.

Copilot and the Question of Decision Proximity

Copilot has become a focal point of Microsoft’s AI narrative. Positioned as an assistive layer across applications, Copilot aims to surface insights, generate recommendations, and automate routine tasks.

For supply chain use cases, the key question is not whether Copilot can generate answers, but where those answers appear in the decision chain. Insights delivered inside productivity tools can improve awareness and coordination, but operational value depends on whether recommendations are connected to execution systems.

This highlights a broader pattern: AI that remains advisory improves efficiency; AI that is embedded into workflows influences outcomes. Microsoft’s challenge is bridging that gap consistently across heterogeneous enterprise environments.

Microsoft Fabric and the Data Foundation Problem

Microsoft Fabric represents an attempt to simplify and unify the enterprise data landscape. By combining data engineering, analytics, and governance into a single platform, Microsoft is addressing one of the most persistent barriers to AI adoption: fragmented and inconsistent data.

For supply chain organizations, Fabric’s value lies in its potential to standardize event data across planning, execution, and visibility systems. However, unification does not eliminate the need for data discipline. Event quality, latency, and ownership remain operational issues, not platform features.

Fabric reduces friction, but it does not resolve governance by itself.

Integration with Existing Enterprise Systems

Microsoft’s AI strategy assumes coexistence with existing ERP, WMS, TMS, and planning platforms. Integration, rather than replacement, is the dominant pattern.

This creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, Microsoft can act as a connective tissue across systems that were never designed to work together. On the other, loosely coupled integration increases dependence on interface stability and data consistency.

In execution-heavy environments, even small integration failures can cascade quickly. As AI becomes more embedded, integration reliability becomes a strategic concern.

Where AI Is Delivering Value, and Where It Isn’t

AI deployments tend to deliver value fastest in areas such as demand sensing, scenario analysis, reporting automation, and exception identification. These use cases align well with Microsoft’s strengths in analytics, collaboration, and scalable infrastructure.

Where value is harder to realize is in autonomous execution. Closed-loop decision-making that directly triggers operational action requires tighter coupling with execution systems and clearer decision ownership.

This reinforces a recurring theme: platform AI accelerates insight, but execution still depends on operating model design.

Constraints That Still Apply

Despite the breadth of Microsoft’s AI portfolio, familiar constraints remain. Data quality, security, compliance, and organizational readiness continue to limit outcomes. AI platforms do not eliminate the need for process clarity or decision accountability.

In some cases, the ease of deploying AI services can outpace an organization’s ability to absorb them operationally. This creates a risk of insight saturation without action.

Why Microsoft Matters to Supply Chain Leaders

Microsoft’s relevance lies in its ability to shape the default environment in which enterprise AI operates. Platform decisions made today influence data architectures, governance models, and user expectations for years.

For supply chain leaders, the key takeaway is not to adopt Microsoft’s AI stack wholesale, but to understand how platform-level AI affects where intelligence sits, how it flows, and who ultimately acts on it.

The next phase of AI adoption will not be defined solely by model performance. It will be defined by how effectively platforms like Microsoft’s translate intelligence into operational decisions under real-world constraints.

The post Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.