Connect with us

Non classé

Top Supply Chain Risks to Prepare for in 2025

Published

on

Top Supply Chain Risks To Prepare For In 2025

This is the time of year when analysts get bombarded with pitches from PR firms. The pitches share a “sneak peek” of the predictions that a CEO at a solutions company is making and then asks the journalist if they want to interview the CEO. These predictions mostly seem obvious.

I got a pitch from the PR firm representing Everstream Analytics that was different. Everstream Analytics is sitting on a vast trove of risk data. The company applies AI and other analytics to this data to provide supply chain risk analytics and insights to its clients. In short, what makes them different is that they can quantify and thus prioritize supply chain risks.

Their 2025 outlook identifies the five most likely supply chain events that will impact supply chain operations this year. Each event is assigned a risk score.

Drowning in Climate Change

This is the top risk identified by Everstream. They apply a risk score of 90% here. “Flooding has become so volatile that even nations with the most sophisticated weather warning systems and infrastructure are caught off guard by the ferocity and speed of sudden flash flood events. Companies will be upended by even more frequent small-scale events and larger-scale storms like Hurricane Helene’s unexpected and extensive destruction across several states in the U.S. Appalachia region in 2024.”

The company points out that forecasted rainfall totals for Helene were very accurate one week in advance of the flood that devasted the Blue Ridge mountain region of North Carolina. “But nobody in that region had ever experienced or even expected that amount of rainfall in such a brief period. The existing infrastructure (bridges, roads, rails) was built in the past and was insufficient to handle these copious rainfall totals. The damage impacted more than 50 electronics, automotive, and aerospace manufacturers, plus general machinery and materials processors, and medical device and health care companies.”

Climate change is causing more frequent and intense extreme weather events around the world. In 2024, flooding events contributed to 70% of the weather disruptions covered by Everstream Analytics.

So, what can companies do about this risk? They recommend looking at key company-owned facilities and those run by key partners and suppliers. The “evaluation should include a review of area infrastructure, egress routes, and waterways. Pay attention to applied meteorology forecasts as far in advance as possible and take flood warnings particularly seriously. Prepare for the worst and react aggressively.”

Geopolitical Instability with Increased Tariff Risk

Everstream applies a score of 80% to this risk. “International political and economic relations are destabilizing, caused by political upheaval, ongoing skirmishes, and full-scale wars. In 2025, it will be impossible to avoid conflict and its impact on sourcing, manufacturing, and logistics.”

The report cites intensified political turmoil in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Hamas war and its spillover, the Syrian civil war, and continuous Houthi attacks on Red Sea vessels. “Even if the traffic along the Suez Canal route returns to full throttle in 2025, this shift would cause weeklong processing delays, container backlogs, and a spike in congestion at many European seaports due to the sudden increase in cargo volume.”

In Ukraine, Russian forces now occupy around 20% of the country. Additional support from Western allies looks less likely. It is likely Russia will be able to destabilize Ukraine’s remaining manufacturing and trade activities and that further strain between Europe and Russia will result.

In Asia-Pacific, China believes Taiwan rightfully belongs to them. This has led to the souring of cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan as Taiwan exhibits more political independence. “A full-scale invasion seems unlikely.” This may be overly optimistic. However, the report summarizes the military drills around Taiwan in recent years and comments that “more or bigger Chinese military exercises could disrupt transportation through significant seaports and airports in the region. Nearly a third of all global trade – and 40% of all globally traded petroleum products – flows through sea lanes in the region.

Meanwhile, tariff increases always affect global trade flows. President Trump has proposed tariff increases, including a global baseline tariff of 10–20%, a 60% tariff on Chinese imports, and a 100% tariff on goods from de-dollarizing countries. De-dollarization is an effort by several countries to reduce the role of the U.S. dollar in international trade. Countries like Russia, India, China, among others, are seeking to set up trade channels using currencies other than the dollar.

Everstream’s report did not mention Mexican or Canadian tariffs. An increase in the flows between China and Mexico of assembled products, and materials and components produced in China has occurred. This has been described as a “back door” into the U.S. to avoid Trump and Biden administration tariffs. Trump’s negotiations with Mexico to close the back door could heighten the impact of new tariffs on China.

The automotive, semiconductor, and manufacturing industries are at risk due to potential tariffs on solar wafers, polysilicon, steel/aluminum imports, and the closure of the back door to Mexico. Additionally, tariffs on Chinese goods could lead to retaliatory measures, affecting U.S. companies operating in China. This would primarily affect U.S. agricultural exports and finished goods.

The key strategy, according to Everstream, is to understand the multi-tier supply sources by country so that a company can make sourcing adjustments when an event occurs. If a company can do this more quickly than its competitors, that leads to a competitive advantage.

More Back Doors for Cybercrime

Everstream assigns this risk a score of 75%. “While a company’s cybersecurity front doors may be double-bolted, but there are more unlocked back doors than ever available to increasingly sophisticated attackers. In 2025, cyberattacks will primarily arrive via sub-tier supply chains, where criminals can more easily exploit common programming errors and vulnerabilities. They can then leapfrog into top-tier corporations via phishing, software connection links, or other methods.”

Cencora, a sub-tier pharmaceutical supplier, had a security breach in the early spring of 2024. At least 11 global pharmaceutical companies linked this breach to their later ransomware and phishing attacks. Everstream’s data document 471 attacks in 2024. The data shows that cyberattacks were particularly common in the electronics, logistics, and consumer goods industries.

Larry O’Brien, a vice president at ARC Advisory Group, says that an European Union regulation known as Network and Information Systems Directive 2 provides a good framework for companies to follow to bolster their supply chain cybersecurity capabilities. While NIS 2 is an EU regulatory framework, NIS 2 applies to companies headquartered 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,” Mr. O’Brien points out. “As with any regulatory framework, NIS 2 tells you what needs to be done, not always how to do it.”

Rare Metals and Minerals on Lockdown

The score assigned to this class of risks is 65%. “Countries and companies alike are recognizing global mineral scarcity coupled with increasing demand, and both are responding by locking up supplies.” Between rising regulations, new tariffs, and long-term or exclusive contracts, rare minerals and metals will be harder and more expensive to obtain.

“Within a politically charged atmosphere between the West and the major commodity producers—China and Russia—companies will face new tariffs and sanctions on critical metals. Governments are placing renewed emphasis on the negative environmental and social impacts of mining, which will present challenges for metal producers over the coming year.”

But, China is not the only nation with proposed or enacted commodity restrictions. “Political tensions over the Russia-Ukraine war led to restrictions on Russian metal imports by the U.S. and the UK. Additionally, security concerns and allegations of industry product dumping led many countries to enact measures against Chinese metal imports.”

As concerns mount surrounding critical commodities, companies are increasingly turning to direct mineral purchasing agreements with mines. However, when a nation supplies an overwhelming majority of a mineral based on mining or processing, direct agreements with mines may have limited value. Graphite, for example, is a core raw material for producing Lithium batteries which are core to the electronic vehicle market. 80% of the world’s graphite is produced in China.

Crackdown on Forced Labor

No nation’s enforcement of any ESG issue comes close to the US Customs and Border Protection Agency’s enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act. $3.7 billion in shipments have been detained at the border based on enforcement of this act. In some cases, the shipments are eventually cleared, but only after supply chains were disrupted and demurrage charges accrued. But a significant proportion of shipments were never allowed entry into the US.

What gives the US act teeth is that “the ‘rebuttable presumption’ part of UFLPA is truly unique. Anything coming out of Xinjiang is presumed to have used forced labor unless an importer can prove the negative. There is also a lack of a de minimis exception; this means that even an insignificant input of product produced in whole or in part with forced labor could result in enforcement action.

While the UFLPA is the most stringent, other nations and regions have also enacted legislation. These include the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and regulation on Prohibiting Products made with Forced Labor (FLR); Mexico’s Forced Labor Regulation; and Canada’s Fighting Against Forced and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.

While legislation has pushed many companies to find alternative suppliers in other low-income countries, many emerging economies do not have adequate laws or enforcement mechanisms. This is particularly true when sub-tier suppliers employ migrant labor.

The technology exists to detect whether a company’s supply chain includes sub-tier suppliers based in the Uighur region of China. This technology is not flawless, there can be false positives and misses. Nevertheless, it is a powerful tool to prevent shipments from being detained based on UFLPA.

However, finding bad actors among sub-tier suppliers in other parts of the world is still difficult. Everstream points out that the food industry is a particular source of concern. Vanilla, palm oil, cocoa, and soy – produced in Madagascar, Indonesia, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria – have frequently accrued violations and allegations based on child labor or forced labor issues.

The post Top Supply Chain Risks to Prepare for in 2025 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

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

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Non classé

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

Published

on

By

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Continue Reading

Non classé

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

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Trending