Mexican approach to NAFTA renegotiation offers a lesson for the U.S., observers say
Mexico's public-private collaboration ensures that—unlike in this country—government and industry are on the same page when it comes to negotiating positions and priorities, say Mexican trade experts at Coalition of New England Companies for Trade conference.
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a freelance writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, material handling, and international trade. She previously was Editor at CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. and Senior Editor of SCQ's sister publication, DC VELOCITY. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Mexican business and trade interests are astonished that an array of U.S. industries, as well as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, are at odds with their own government over what provisions should be included in the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a Mexican attorney with extensive international trade experience said at the Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (CONECT) 16th Annual Northeast Cargo Conference in Providence, R.I., earlier this month.
Such conflicts don't arise between Mexican businesses and the country's trade negotiators,
according to Edmundo ElÃas-Fernández, who practices with Cacheaux, Cavazos & Newton in Guadalajara. Mexico has a private sector advisory group commonly referred to as the
"Cuarto de Junto" ("in the next room"). These advisors represent the interests of Mexico's
major industrial and service sectors. Though they don't participate in the negotiations,
they are present at every round to provide immediate feedback to negotiators, ElÃas-Fernández said. As a result, Mexican private industry will not be "blindsided" by negotiators' proposals, as has been the case in the U.S., he said.
There has been no shortage of squabbling between the U.S. government and industry over NAFTA. In
early October, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive called some
Trump administration proposals
"highly dangerous" to the U.S. economy. Later that month, several automotive-industry groups formed the "Driving American Jobs" coalition to fight the White House's stance on renegotiating the treaty, including a proposal that cars made in North America contain 85 percent NAFTA-origin content, with 50 percent of inputs manufactured in the United States, to qualify for duty-free treatment. Numerous business groups and companies have slammed President Trump's assertion that he will pull the U.S. out of NAFTA if he does not get what he wants. The groups have warned that the three North American economies would suffer irreparable harm if the agreement were to fall apart.
For now, negotiations are moving quickly, said Nicolas Guzmán, a senior associate with Drinker Biddle & Reath,
a U.S.-based law firm with a large international trade practice. Guzmán noted that previous rounds have covered
approximately 60 percent of the issues to be renegotiated, and a fifth round that begins later this week in
Mexico could reach accords on perhaps 75 percent of the topics on the table, he estimated.
(Mexico's chief negotiator is Kenneth Smith Ramos; read our Q&A with him here.)
Guzman, who also spoke at CONECT, said Mexico seeks four things from an updated accord:
Strengthened competitiveness across North America; regional trade policies that are
"inclusive and responsible"; rules changes that will allow Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. to
take full advantage of "21st century" economic opportunities; and economic certainty that
encourages trade and investment in all three countries.
ElÃas-Fernández and Guzmán highlighted several areas of disagreement
between the U.S. and Mexican positions. Number one on their list is the U.S. demand that cars
made in North America must include 50 percent U.S-made content in order to qualify for preferential
treatment under NAFTA. This has "set off a lot of fireworks" because U.S. automakers have
invested heavily in Mexican assembly plants, Guzmán said. "The capacity doesn't exist in the U.S."
to meet the 50 percent requirement, he contended.
ElÃas-Fernández said that although the 50-percent proposal is unacceptable, he thinks
the automotive rules of origin "are going to change in some way." He also believes the United States will
try to push similar U.S.-content requirements on other industry sectors. Both Canada and Mexico strongly
oppose such positions.
Other concerns include the Trump administration's proposal to renegotiate NAFTA every
five years, a plan that would create enormous uncertainty and instability for businesses, ElÃas-Fernández said. "Nobody makes plans or invests in five-year time spans," he said. Mexico is also worried about the U.S. demand that the three countries follow Washington's lead and raise the de minimis threshold for formal customs entries to US$800, meaning that imports valued below those levels would be exempt from certain import documentation requirements. Mexico City calls the U.S. demand a non-starter due to concerns about smuggling and security.
A sixth round is scheduled for January in Canada, and a seventh round is possible, Guzmán said. Mexico's negotiators will "remain at the table" and will respond firmly even to proposals that are unacceptable, he asserted. Mexico "is not taking the bait, but it's not backing off, either," he said.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.