Non classé

Foreign Trade Zones in Today’s Trade Policy Environment

Published

3 mois ago

11 décembre 2025

Foreign Trade Zones In Today’s Trade Policy Environment

In 1934, when Congress passed the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Act and established the FTZ program, the U.S. economy faced a policy environment similar to today’s: high (and prevalent) tariffs and heightened concern for protecting domestic industries and encouraging domestic investment. Then, as now, policymakers sought mechanisms to help U.S.-based companies stay competitive in the face of escalating costs by offsetting the burden of high tariffs.

For decades, FTZs have been used actively and on trend with overall U.S. import and export statistics, providing importers, exporters, and manufacturers with a toolkit to manage customs duties, streamline operations and bolster cash flow. Today, however, recent tariff actions on steel and aluminum that for most countries doubled to 50% under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as well as sweeping International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) reciprocal tariffs imposed on nearly all commodities from all countries, have upended global trade and shifted the FTZ landscape significantly.

As trade tensions push import duties to record highs, companies big and small are looking for ways to insulate themselves against tariff volatility and stabilize cash flow against economic uncertainty. While FTZs are resonating as a strategy to mitigate or avoid absorbing higher tariffs into operating costs, the program is not a silver bullet. Instead, FTZ participation in 2025 demands a more nuanced cost-benefit analysis that weighs the traditional advantages of FTZs compared to the current benefits against changing trade policy.

Traditional FTZ Benefits

Licensed by the U.S. FTZ Board, FTZs are secure, designated sites traditionally located within 60 miles or a 90-minute drive from a U.S. port of entry (although FTZ sites now are often located at further points as well), in which domestic and foreign merchandise (i.e., inventory) receives the same treatment by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as if it were outside the commerce of the United States. FTZs enable companies to defer, reduce or eliminate duties, depending on where goods end up (e.g., distributed domestically or exported to avoid applicable duties and taxes).

Historically, one of the most important FTZ benefits was inverted tariff relief for manufacturers. Through the Boggs Amendment of 1950 and regulatory clarifications in the 1980s, U.S. manufacturers could import higher-duty inputs, process them domestically, and release finished products into the commerce of the U.S. at lower duty rates of the finished products. This helped manufacturers reduce overall tariff costs, enhance profitability and get on more even footing with offshore manufacturers.

Put another way, it gave U.S.-based businesses federal approval to rationalize what historically was “irrational tariff treatment” in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. (HTSUS). Irrational tariff treatment is when imported parts and materials are assessed at higher duty rates than the finished goods they are incorporated into. Without the ability to invert duty rates, companies would be financially incentivized, from a customs duty treatment perspective, to import finished goods rather than produce them domestically.

Beyond inverted tariffs, FTZs offer additional benefits:

Export relief: Goods brought in and stored or manufactured in an FTZ can be exported in bond without incurring quota charges or U.S. duties, insulating businesses from the adverse effects of tariff hikes. Plus, merchandise exported from FTZs to international customers and subsequently returned can be admitted to an FTZ for storage, repair and export again without being subject to duties.

Cash-flow benefits: The timing of when duties are paid makes a significant difference to cash flow. By deferring the payment of duties until goods leave an FTZ, companies improve working capital. By bringing the duty cost closer to when goods are sold to the customer, companies can shorten the cash cycle and optimize cash flow. Depending on how fast a business turns its inventory, this can be a critical part of a company’s ability to maintain its U.S. operations.

Weekly customs entry and Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF) savings: MPF is paid per customs entry (.3464% against the value reported on the entry) but has a maximum amount today of $651.50 with routine incremental increases each year. However, FTZs permit qualified companies to consolidate an entire week’s worth of shipments out of the FTZ into a single weekly customs entry, thereby creating the opportunity to possibly save broker entry fees and significantly reduce annual MPF spend. Filing consolidated weekly entries is especially appealing for high-volume importers but comes with its own set of complexities in the current trade policy environment.

State and local tax savings: In states that assess ad valorem tax on inventory, such as Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Puerto Rico, inventory held in FTZs may be preempted from such taxes through the federal FTZ law. Likewise, some states have codified state-level tax benefits, such as Arizona’s reduction of up to 75% for real and personal property held in FTZs. These tax exemptions and reductions—above and beyond the traditional duty benefits of the program—create additional financial incentives and help further reduce operational costs for FTZ users.

A Changing Trade Landscape

For decades, these advantages attracted a diverse mix of manufacturers and distributors into the program. In 2018, however, key tariff developments began to disrupt the global trade landscape. In January 2018, the U.S. imposed safeguard tariffs on solar panels and washing machines from all sources (except Canada) under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. In March 2018, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum took effect, with temporary exemptions for Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and the EU. By June, however, exemptions had expired for Canada, Mexico and the EU, and Section 232 tariffs were imposed.

In April 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released a list of 1,333 China-origin imports for proposed 25% Section 301 duties, as part of a broader and new trading strategy with the East Asian nation. Within days, China imposed retaliatory tariffs of its own on U.S. exports. By June, the USTR proposed a new list of products from China, worth $50 billion in trade, to be subject to Section 301 duties of 25%. These initial trade remedy actions in 2018 were just the beginning of what is now an almost eight-year-long, increasingly complicated but fundamental change in U.S. trade policy.

Interestingly, with the first six months of 2018 also came a pivotal shift in how FTZs function today: a change to mandating the election of Privileged Foreign (PF) status for imported merchandise at the time of admission to an FTZ, which locks in an item’s classification and duty rate on that date. For decades, imported raw materials, components and finished goods were largely admitted into FTZs in Non-privileged Foreign (NPF) status, which requires classification on the item’s condition as removed from the FTZ at the duty rate in effect on the date of entry. For FTZ manufacturers authorized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NPF status elected for imported parts and components is what drove inverted tariff benefit (i.e., the ability to apply the finished good duty rate to the value of the parts/components consumed in the finished good). With 2018’s new tariff actions, the Administration through the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Commerce began requiring FTZ imports to be admitted in PF status. PF status “locks in” the normal, or Most Favored Nation (MFN), duties and any remedy tariff rates on goods at the time of their admission into an FTZ, which means the imported component’s duty and tariff rates apply even if the finished good made in the FTZ carries a lower duty rate.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means the inverted tariff benefit for FTZ manufacturers was essentially eliminated in April of this year when the PF status admission stipulation began applying to nearly all imported commodities from all countries of origin via IEEPA reciprocal tariffs. Now, existing FTZ manufacturers as well as manufacturers considering the program must recalculate the savings opportunities from FTZ usage. For some manufacturers, the program may continue to make sense or drive even more benefit, while for others the program may no longer make sense. Paradoxically, tariffs intended to protect U.S. jobs are simultaneously hampering some FTZ manufacturers from promoting domestic production, the original intent of the program. If the same finished product is made in another country, under IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, it still offers a lower overall tariff rate when imported than the imported parts and components used to make the finished product in the U.S. If the goal of current trade policy, however, is to reshore and nearshore manufacturing, don’t FTZ manufacturers still need the inverted tariff benefit to rationalize what is otherwise still an irrational HTSUS?

FTZ Advantages Today

What are the main advantages for FTZ users today then? For many importers, it’s cash flow: by delaying duty payments, companies can preserve capital. This benefit, however, depends heavily on inventory turnover. Large retailers cross-docking goods through distribution centers may realize little advantage as goods enter U.S. commerce within days, triggering prompt duty payments. By contrast, businesses holding inventory for weeks or months can extract more meaningful benefit from duty deferral, such as industrial distributors, seasonal retailers, or exporters awaiting foreign buyers.

In the absence of inverted tariffs, the importance of export relief has grown. Manufacturers that ship even a portion of their production abroad can typically eliminate duties altogether on exported goods. For many businesses that traditionally relied on inverted tariffs, this now represents one of the few clear savings opportunities. Additionally, some manufacturers that previously had little reason to consider FTZs are now compelled to join the program precisely to avoid duties on outbound shipments.

While tariff relief is the focus for many, ancillary benefits remain material. Although now more administratively complex, weekly entry/MPF savings continue to appeal to some while the compliance requirements may outweigh the fee savings for others. Inventory and real/personal property tax abatements are still available in states such as Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arizona and Puerto Rico, but these benefits are not guaranteed. They require negotiation with local impacted tax recipients and cannot be assumed across the board. Companies that install imported production equipment in their FTZ production facilities can also achieve duty/tariff deferral benefits on the machinery until it begins being using in production.

Looking Ahead: Uncertainty and Opportunity

The FTZ program is at a crossroads. Its historical role as an engine for tariff rationalization for U.S. manufacturers has been curtailed, but its potential as a platform for cash flow management, export relief and targeted ancillary tax savings is legitimate. In addition, pending litigation, including possible Supreme Court rulings, could dramatically reshape the tariff landscape overnight. A rollback of tariffs could potentially restore inverted tariff benefits for many industries and commodities, while new tariff exemption frameworks could offer parallel relief.

For importers and manufacturers, the shift in trade policy has forced more sophisticated supply chain analyses. Establishing and operating an FTZ requires significant time and investment in an extremely complex trade compliance environment. Understanding if setting up and operating an FTZ makes sense in the context of this complexity is not a simple exercise. For tax and finance professionals, determining whether FTZ participation will yield measurable benefit requires a more granular assessment of inventory turn rates and export volumes. Companies must model turnover rates, tariff exposures, and compliance costs in detail to decide whether an FTZ is advantageous for the organization’s unique product mix, trade patterns, and risk tolerance.

Parting Thoughts

For businesses, agility is critical. Companies must reassess FTZ participation regularly, model cash flow implications under various scenarios, and assess measures for ancillary benefits, including engaging with local authorities on property and inventory tax opportunities where appropriate.

For policymakers grappling with the challenge of reconciling tariff policy with industrial strategy, FTZs may represent an underused tool. In an era when tariff policies are used both as protectionist levers and geopolitical instruments, FTZs provide a stable, regulated framework for balancing trade governance with competitiveness.

FTZs are not loopholes. They are highly regulated, overseen by U.S. CBP and the Department of Commerce, and subject to annual reviews and public interest considerations for manufacturers. In many ways, they are better suited to provide equitable tariff mitigation than ad hoc exemption processes. A 2019 econometric study conducted by The Trade Partnership titled The U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Program: Economic Benefits to American Communities quantified that—all else being equal—employment, wages, and value-added activity are higher in areas with FTZs than similar areas without FTZs, and that a company’s access to FTZ benefits has substantial positive ripple effects throughout its U.S. supply chain.

And so, as they were conceived, FTZs are an effective mechanism for encouraging domestic manufacturing and facilitating global competitiveness.

By Rebecca Williams, Managing Director, Rockefeller Group Foreign Trade Zone Services and Eric Dalby, VP Support, Professional Services at Descartes

The post Foreign Trade Zones in Today’s Trade Policy Environment appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Supply Chain and Logistics News February 23rd- 26th 2026

Published

24 heures ago

27 février 2026

Supply Chain And Logistics News February 23rd 26th 2026

This week’s supply chain landscape is defined by a massive push to bridge the gap between having data and actually using it. From the high-stakes legal battle over billion-dollar tariffs to a radical AI-driven workforce restructuring at WiseTech Global, the industry is moving past simple visibility toward a period of high-consequence execution. Whether it is the Supreme Court’s intervention in trade policy or the operationalization of decision intelligence showcased at the 30th Annual ARC Forum, the recurring theme is clear: the next competitive advantage belongs to those who can synchronize their technology, their inventory, and their legal strategies in real time. In this edition, we break down the four critical shifts—architectural, legal, operational, and structural—shaping the final days of February 2026.

Your News for the Week:

The Technology Gap: Why Supply Chain Execution Still Isn’t Fully Connected Yet

Richard Stewart of Infios argues that the primary technology gap in modern supply chain execution is not a lack of ambition or budget, but rather an architectural failure. Most existing systems, such as WMS and TMS, are designed to optimize within their own silos, leaving a critical disconnect during real-time disruptions where manual workarounds and spreadsheets are still required to coordinate responses. Citing the Supply Chain Execution Readiness Report, Richard highlights that 69% of leaders struggle with data quality and integration, driving a shift in buying criteria toward interoperability and real-time visibility. Ultimately, Richard suggests that the next competitive advantage will belong to organizations that move beyond simple visibility toward “connected execution,” prioritizing modular architectures that synchronize decisions across the entire operational landscape rather than just reporting on them.

FedEx sues the US Government, seeking a full refund over Trump Tariffs

FedEx has officially filed a lawsuit against the US government, seeking a full refund for duties paid under the Trump administration’s recent tariff policies. The move follows a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that found the president overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to bypass Congress’s sole power to levy taxes. While the court’s decision stopped the specific enforcement mechanism, it left the status of the estimated $175 billion already collected in limbo. As the first major carrier to seek reimbursement, FedEx’s legal challenge could set a precedent that could affect the logistics industry and thousands of other importers currently navigating a volatile trade environment.

From Hidden Inventory to Returns Recovery: Exposing Operational Blind Spots

Hiu Wai Loh sheds light on the hidden inventory crisis and the costly returns black hole that plagues supply chains long after peak season ends. The research reveals that a staggering number of organizations suffer from fragmented data, leading to false stockouts and millions of dollars trapped in reverse logistics limbo. To overcome these operational blind spots, the author argues that companies must tear down silos and adopt a unified, real-time inventory model. By leveraging AI-driven smart disposition, businesses can efficiently route returns to their most profitable next destination, transforming a traditional cost center into a powerful engine for full-price recovery and year-round agility.

How Avantor and Aera Technology Are Operationalizing Decision Intelligence, Insights from ARC Advisory Group’s 30th Leadership Forum

Avantor and Aera Technology were present at the 30th Annual ARC Forum and presented on how they are operationalizing Decision Intelligence. They explore how modern supply chains are navigating the paradox of increasing global disruptions alongside record-breaking operational efficiency. By highlighting a case study from Avantor, the presentation demonstrated how Decision Intelligence (DI) can move beyond theoretical AI to automate thousands of routine daily decisions, such as stock rebalancing and purchase order prioritization. The key takeaway from the ARC Advisory Group’s 30th Leadership Forum is that companies should focus on “change-ready” solutions that solve immediate, high-impact problems rather than waiting for perfect data or fully autonomous systems.

WiseTech Global Cutting 30% of Workforce in AI restructure:

WiseTech Global, the developer of the CargoWise platform, has announced a major two-year restructuring plan that will involve cutting approximately 2,000 jobs, or 29% of its global workforce. This strategic pivot aims to integrate artificial intelligence deeper into both its internal operations and its customer-facing software, which currently handles a massive 75% of global customs transaction data. The layoffs are expected to hit the company’s U.S. cloud division, E2open, particularly hard, with some reports suggesting cuts of up to 50% there. This move comes at a turbulent time for the Australian tech giant, as it seeks to regain investor confidence following a 68% drop in share price since late 2024 amid leadership controversies and shifting market dynamics.

Song of the week:

The post Supply Chain and Logistics News February 23rd- 26th 2026 appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

Burger King’s AI “Patty” Moves AI Into Frontline Execution

Published

2 jours ago

26 février 2026

Burger King’s Ai “patty” Moves Ai Into Frontline Execution

Burger King is piloting an AI assistant called “Patty” inside employee headsets as part of its broader BK Assistant platform. This is not a marketing chatbot. It is an operational system embedded into restaurant execution.

Patty supports crew members with preparation guidance, monitors equipment status, and analyzes customer interactions for defined service language such as “please” and “thank you.” Managers can query performance metrics tied to service quality in real time.

The architecture matters more than the novelty.

AI Inside the Operational Core

Patty is integrated with a cloud based point of sale system. That connection allows:

near real time inventory updates across channels
equipment downtime alerts
synchronized digital menu adjustments
structured service quality measurement

If a product goes out of stock or a machine fails, availability can be updated across kiosks, drive through boards, and digital systems within minutes.

This is AI operating inside the transaction layer, not sitting above it.

Earlier fast food AI experiments focused on automated drive through ordering. Burger King is more measured there. The more consequential shift is internal execution intelligence.

Efficiency, Visibility, and Risk

Across retail and logistics sectors, AI agents are being embedded directly into workflows to standardize performance and compress response times. The value comes from integration and coordination, not conversational capability.

At the same time, customer sentiment toward fully automated service remains mixed. Privacy, workforce implications, and over automation risk are active concerns. As AI begins monitoring tone and behavior, governance becomes part of the deployment decision.

Operational AI improves visibility. It also expands accountability.

Implications for Supply Chain and Operations Leaders

Three themes emerge:

Execution instrumentation – AI is now measuring soft metrics and converting them into structured operational data.
Closed loop response – When connected to POS and inventory systems, AI can both detect issues and trigger corrective updates.
Governance at scale – Embedding AI at the edge requires clear oversight, performance auditability, and workforce alignment.

Burger King plans to expand BK Assistant across U.S. restaurants by the end of 2026, with Patty currently piloting in several hundred locations.

This is not a fast food curiosity. It is a signal.

AI is moving from analytics to execution. From dashboards to headsets. From advisory tools to operational participants.

For supply chain leaders, the question is no longer whether AI will enter frontline operations. The question is how intentionally it will be architected and governed once it does.

The post Burger King’s AI “Patty” Moves AI Into Frontline Execution appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Non classé

AI and Enterprise Software: Is the “SaaSpocalypse” Narrative Overstated?

Published

2 jours ago

26 février 2026

Ai And Enterprise Software: Is The “saaspocalypse” Narrative Overstated?

Capital is rotating. Growth has given way to value, and within technology the divergence is increasingly pronounced. While broad indices have stabilized, many software names have not. Since late 2025, software equities have materially underperformed other parts of the technology complex. Forward revenue growth across many mid-cap SaaS firms has slowed from prior expansion levels, net retention rates have edged down in several categories, and valuation multiples have compressed accordingly. Markets are repricing both growth durability and margin structure.

The prevailing explanation is straightforward. Generative AI lowers barriers to entry, reduces the cost of building applications, and compresses differentiation. If application logic becomes easier to produce, competitive intensity increases and pricing power weakens. The result is visible not only in equity valuations, but in moderated expansion rates and tighter forward guidance. There is substance behind that concern. But reducing enterprise software economics to code production misses where the structural leverage in these platforms actually resides.

The Core Bear Case

The bearish thesis rests on three related propositions: AI commoditizes application logic, accelerates competitive entry, and pressures margins. If enterprises can generate software dynamically, recurring subscription models face structural pressure. If workflows can be automated through agents, reliance on fixed applications may decline. If code becomes less scarce, incumbents may struggle to defend premium multiples.

The repricing in software reflects these risks. Multiples have compressed meaningfully, and growth expectations have moderated across several verticals. In certain categories, retention softness suggests substitution pressure is already emerging. These signals should not be dismissed as temporary volatility.

At the same time, equating software value solely with feature output or code generation is a simplification. Enterprise software durability rarely rests on feature sets alone.

What Enterprise Software Actually Represents

In supply chain environments, systems function as operational coordination layers rather than isolated applications. Transportation management systems, warehouse platforms, planning suites, and multi-enterprise visibility networks sit at the center of integrated transaction flows. They embed years of configuration, exception handling logic, compliance mappings, and cross-functional workflows. Over time, they accumulate operational data that informs sourcing, forecasting, transportation optimization, and execution decisions across the enterprise.

Replacing those systems is not equivalent to generating new code. It requires rebuilding institutional memory, re-establishing integration points, and re-validating compliance controls across internal and external stakeholders. The switching cost is not interface retraining; it is operational re-architecture.

In our research on AI system design in supply chains

AI in the Supply Chain-sp

, the recurring conclusion is that structural advantage stems from coordination, persistent context, and integration density. Model capability matters. Economic durability flows from how systems connect and govern activity across distributed networks. That distinction is central to evaluating enterprise software in the current environment.

Where Risk Is Real

Not all software categories have equivalent structural protection. Risk is most evident in narrowly defined vertical tools, lightweight workflow utilities, and productivity-layer applications with limited proprietary data accumulation. In these segments, generative models can replicate core functionality with relatively low switching friction. Pricing pressure can intensify quickly, and margin compression may prove structural rather than cyclical.

By contrast, enterprise workflow orchestration platforms deeply embedded in core business processes create operational dependency. Replacing them requires redesigning process architecture, not simply substituting interfaces. Systems that accumulate years of transaction data, customization layers, and ecosystem integrations generate switching costs that extend beyond feature parity. Observability and monitoring platforms that collect continuous telemetry function as operational infrastructure; as AI agents proliferate, the need for measurement, traceability, and governance increases rather than declines.

In supply chain software specifically, planning platforms and transportation orchestration systems accumulate integration density over time. That density represents economic friction against displacement and reinforces durability when market volatility increases.

AI as Architectural Pressure

AI will alter software economics. It will increase development intensity, shorten product cycles, and compress margins in commoditized segments. Vendors operating at the surface layer of functionality will face sustained pressure.

However, AI simultaneously increases coordination complexity. As autonomous agents proliferate, enterprises require more governance controls, more integration layers, and more persistent contextual memory. The economic question shifts from “Who can build features fastest?” to “Who can coordinate distributed intelligence most reliably?”

Agent-to-agent communication, contextual memory frameworks, retrieval-based reasoning, and graph-aware modeling are becoming foundational design considerations in supply chain environments, as described in ARC’s white paper AI in the Supply Chain: Architecting the Future of Logistics. Vendors capable of governing these interactions at scale may strengthen their structural position. Vendors confined to interface-layer differentiation may see pricing pressure intensify. The outcome is not uniform decline; it is structural differentiation within the sector.

Valuation vs. Structural Impairment

Markets reprice sectors quickly when uncertainty rises. The current adjustment reflects legitimate concerns: slower growth trajectories, reduced retention durability, increased competitive intensity, and rising research and development requirements. These are measurable economic factors.

The open question is whether valuations reflect permanent impairment across enterprise software broadly, or whether the market is failing to distinguish between commoditized applications and structurally embedded coordination platforms.

Some observers argue that AI may ultimately expand the addressable market for enterprise systems rather than compress it. As AI adoption increases, enterprises may require additional orchestration frameworks, governance layers, and system-level controls. In that scenario, platforms with embedded workflows and distribution reach could see increased strategic relevance. The impact will vary materially by category and architectural depth.

In supply chain markets, complexity is not declining. Cross-border regulation is tightening, network volatility remains elevated, and multi-enterprise coordination is becoming more demanding. Economic value accrues to platforms that integrate and govern transactions, not to those that merely present information.

Implications for Enterprise Buyers

For supply chain leaders, the relevant issue is not short-term equity performance but architectural positioning. Does the platform function as a system of record embedded in transaction flows, or as a reporting layer adjacent to them? How deeply is it integrated into compliance processes, procurement logic, and transportation execution? Does it accumulate proprietary operational data that reinforces switching costs over time? Is it evolving toward coordinated AI architectures, or layering assistive tools onto a static foundation?

AI will not eliminate enterprise systems. It will expose those whose economic value rests primarily on surface functionality rather than integration depth.

A Measured Conclusion

The current narrative captures real pressure within segments of the software sector, but it does not fully account for structural differentiation. Certain categories face sustained pricing compression where differentiation is shallow and switching friction is low. Others may strengthen as AI increases coordination demands, governance requirements, and integration complexity.

The decisive factor will not be branding or feature velocity. It will be integration density, data gravity, and the ability to coordinate distributed intelligence across enterprise and partner networks. In supply chain contexts, platforms that govern transactions, maintain contextual continuity, and orchestrate multi-node operations retain structural advantage. Platforms that merely automate isolated tasks face a more uncertain economic trajectory.

That distinction, rather than headline narrative, will determine long-term outcomes.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Download the Full Architecture Framework

A2A is only one component of a broader intelligent supply chain architecture. For a structured analysis of how A2A integrates with context-aware systems, retrieval frameworks, graph-based reasoning, and data harmonization requirements, download the full white paper:

AI in the Supply Chain: Architecting the Future of Logistics with A2A, MCP, and Graph-Enhanced Reasoning

The paper outlines the architectural model, governance considerations, and practical implementation path for enterprises building connected intelligence across their supply networks.

Download the white paper to explore the complete framework.

The post AI and Enterprise Software: Is the “SaaSpocalypse” Narrative Overstated? appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.