Connect with us

Non classé

Securing the Chain: Governance, Compliance, and Regulation

Published

on

Securing The Chain: Governance, Compliance, And Regulation

Call to Action: Download the full guide to gain in-depth insights and practical frameworks that will help you lead the transformation towards a resilient supply chain.

Part 4

Cybersecurity in supply chains is no longer just a best practice, it is a regulatory obligation and a fiduciary duty. Around the world, governments and regulators are tightening expectations, holding companies accountable not only for their own defenses but also for the resilience of their extended ecosystems.

For supply chain executives, this shift has profound implications. It means that governance frameworks, compliance regimes, and board oversight must be treated with the same rigor as financial reporting. Non-compliance isn’t just a reputational risk; it can mean fines, lawsuits, and executive liability.

1. The Evolving Regulatory Environment

Governments recognize that supply chains are now critical national infrastructure, and that disruption poses economic and security risks. As a result, new and updated regulations are reshaping expectations.

SEC Cybersecurity Rules (U.S., 2023): Public companies must disclose material cyber incidents within four business days and report on board oversight of cyber risk.
EU NIS2 Directive (2024): Expands cybersecurity obligations across 18 critical sectors, including logistics, energy, and transport. Non-compliance can trigger fines of up to €10 million or 2% of global revenue.
GDPR (EU, 2018): While focused on personal data, GDPR enforces stringent requirements on data protection, highly relevant in supply chains where customer data flows cross borders.
CMMC (U.S. Department of Defense): Defense suppliers must adhere to cyber maturity standards, ensuring resilience across the defense industrial base.
China’s Cybersecurity Law: Requires data localization and security reviews for cross-border data transfers.

Implication: Supply chain leaders must navigate a patchwork of overlapping, sometimes conflicting, global requirements.

2. Legal Liability in the Era of Third-Party Breaches

One of the thorniest issues is liability when a supplier is the entry point for an attack.

Precedent-setting cases: Courts are increasingly willing to hold companies accountable if they fail to vet supplier cyber practices.
Contractual obligations: Regulators expect firms to cascade cyber requirements downstream through vendor contracts.
Investor lawsuits: Shareholders may sue boards for negligence if cyber risk governance is found lacking.

Executives must understand: outsourcing operations does not outsource accountability.

3. ESG and Cyber Convergence

Cybersecurity is being pulled into the broader ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) conversation.

Governance pillar: Strong cyber practices demonstrate responsible management of operational risk.
Social pillar: Breaches that expose employee or customer data erode trust.
Investor expectations: ESG funds increasingly demand disclosure of digital risk management.

This convergence means that cyber resilience is now an investment narrative, not just a compliance checkbox.

4. Governance Frameworks for Cyber in Supply Chains

To meet rising expectations, firms are adopting standardized frameworks:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework (U.S.): Provides a structured approach: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover. Widely used across industries.
ISO 27001 (International): Sets standards for information security management systems (ISMS). Increasingly required in supplier contracts.
CSA STAR (Cloud Security Alliance): Certifies cloud service providers for adherence to robust security practices.
COBIT (ISACA): Offers governance and management guidelines for enterprise IT.

Adopting a framework creates credibility with regulators, customers, and partners.

5. Embedding Cyber into Board-Level Oversight

The SEC’s rules crystallize a trend: boards can no longer delegate cyber entirely to IT. They must demonstrate active governance.

Board cyber committees: Some companies now establish dedicated committees, akin to audit or compensation committees.
Cyber literacy training: Boards invest in raising their own cyber fluency to challenge management effectively.
Metrics and reporting: CISOs are expected to provide regular dashboards, not just technical metrics, but business-relevant KPIs (e.g., mean time to detect/respond, supplier cyber ratings).
Scenario planning: Boards should participate in tabletop exercises simulating supply chain cyber crises.

Boards that fail to show oversight may be deemed negligent.

6. Practical Challenges for Executives

Global inconsistency: Multinationals face contradictory rules (e.g., EU data localization vs. U.S. cloud adoption norms).
Cost of compliance: Implementing ISO/NIST frameworks across hundreds of suppliers is resource-intensive.
Audit fatigue: Suppliers face multiple overlapping audits from different customers.
Dynamic environment: Regulations are evolving faster than many governance structures can adapt.

Executives must balance compliance with operational practicality.

7. Case Example: European Logistics Provider

A major European logistics company recently faced fines under GDPR after a supplier leaked customer data. The company:

Lacked a vendor risk management program aligned with GDPR requirements.
Had not updated its data processing agreements with suppliers.
Was fined €4 million and forced to overhaul its governance framework.

This illustrates that governance failures at the supply chain level can have direct financial consequences.

8. The Role of Audits and Certifications

Audits and certifications provide assurance but must be used intelligently.

Third-party audits: Independent validation of supplier practices.
Continuous monitoring platforms: Real-time cyber ratings for suppliers.
Certifications: ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type II are increasingly required as table stakes.
Pitfall: Certifications are point-in-time; continuous assurance is still needed.

Executives should demand both certifications and ongoing monitoring.

9. The Strategic Value of Compliance

Forward-looking companies treat compliance as a competitive differentiator.

Winning contracts: Demonstrating superior cyber resilience can become a selling point in RFPs.
Investor confidence: Strong governance reassures markets.
Insurance premiums: Cyber insurers may offer better terms to firms with robust compliance frameworks.

Compliance, therefore, creates strategic upside, not just downside protection.

Executive Takeaways from Part 4

The regulatory environment is expanding rapidly (SEC, NIS2, GDPR, CMMC).
Third-party breaches increasingly create direct liability.
Cybersecurity is converging with ESG expectations.
Frameworks like NIST and ISO 27001 provide credibility and structure.
Boards must take active, documented oversight of cyber risks.
Compliance can be reframed as a strategic advantage.

Looking Ahead

In Part 5: Building Cyber-Resilient Architectures, we’ll move from governance to design, exploring how Zero Trust networks, secure-by-design contracts, and resilience testing can harden supply chains against escalating threats.

Call to Action: Download the full guide to gain in-depth insights and practical frameworks that will help you lead the transformation towards a resilient supply chain.

The post Securing the Chain: Governance, Compliance, and Regulation 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