Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged, there has been only one certainty: Things are uncertain. Nobody knows how long governments will enforce lockdown regulations, when a vaccine will arrive, how badly the economy will be damaged, or what will happen if the virus returns shortly after things have gone back to normal.
For supply chain organizations, this scale of uncertainty is a big challenge. Supply chains rely heavily on plans and forecasts. They have to know how many items are needed at a specific time in a specific place. When the forecast isn’t accurate… well, we’ve all seen the empty aisles.
Despite its unpredictability, we now know a bit more about how the virus affects economies and consumer decisions, and we can use this knowledge to engage in scenario planning. Scenario planning enables supply chain leaders to anticipate how the coronavirus disruption may unfold and identify both risk and opportunities. It also provides chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) with the data needed to demand investments in supply chain resiliency and agility—a challenging task when most companies are looking to cut costs.
At Gartner, we have developed three scenarios that span the time until a vaccine is available. Those scenarios aren’t excluding each other. A version of scenario 1 could become reality in one industry, geography, or product, while other organizations face the consequences of scenario 2.
Scenario 1: short-term disruption
This is the best-case scenario: While we have already seen a significant impact from COVID-19, the virus will ultimately be dealt with quickly. Local authorities will ease restrictions, and customer confidence will increase quickly.
However, even under this scenario, business as usual won’t return, and supply chain organizations will not be the same after COVID-19. Before we enter the “new normal,” there will be a recovery phase to deal with.
In this phase, demand sensing and insights into consumer sentiment will be key. Supply chain leaders must assess if customers are likely to take a more cautious spending approach. Based on the assessment of anticipated customer spend, they can then prioritize products by location, demographic, or other factors.
Prioritization of shipments will be important, because space on planes, trucks, and ocean carriers will be in high demand and result in increased costs. Not being able to secure freight space in time means that competitor products might reach the customer faster.
The recovery phase is also the time to focus on employees—to thank and reward associates who have supported the organization through the crisis. Also, be aware that some crisis management team members may be close to burnout, having worked incredibly hard to navigate and respond to the COVID-19 crisis. Think about how to balance workload, rotating individuals out of crisis management teams if necessary. Responding to COVID-19 is a marathon, not a sprint, and requires engaged minds.
Scenario 2: long-term disruption
This scenario describes a world in which the virus takes longer to contain, and restrictions remain in place for many months. Customer confidence declines, with a recession following.
This is a scenario where customer spending habits will probably change, as financial insecurity increases emphasis on personal financial resilience. Supply chain leaders must find out where customers are likely to make cuts and radically review their product portfolio. They will likely stop manufacturing low-volume and low-margin products and focus on products that make up the bulk of the organization’s revenue.
Under this scenario, financial insecurity will also impact suppliers—it’s fair to assume that some might not survive the crisis. CSCOs should pay close attention to supplier financial distress and customer credit risk. They must anticipate which suppliers will no longer be in business and the impact that this will have on being able to supply product during the pandemic or in a recovery situation. In this scenario, supply chain leaders should look for strategic opportunities to support suppliers, to purchase intellectual property, and to gain access to expertise or production equipment in anticipation of a delayed recovery.
Scenario 3: secondary crisis
After organizations experience either the first or second scenario, it’s also a possibility that a second disruption will follow—caused by COVID-19, a natural disaster, or other major incident. An example of a secondary localized disaster and disruption is Michigan’s Edenville Dam failure, which occurred on the May 20, 2020. While it’s difficult to predict what a secondary crisis could look like, there are certain learnings from the current disruption that will prove helpful. For example, when the coronavirus first emerged, supply chains saw a sharp increase in demand for personal hygiene products, while demand in the fashion and apparel industry declined.
Also, supply chain organizations must consider the impact of the changing political landscape on their ability to move products between countries, as some nations are restricting the export of critical products. Medium-term forms of protectionism may mean that supply chains need to reconsider their network design and pivot toward more regionalized production. Those measures take time and must be planned and executed carefully.
In general, supply chain resilience should be a priority. Supply chain leaders should focus on opportunities to improve supply resilience and gain transparency through the value chain by identifying weaknesses and single points of failure. When a supplier goes out of business, it may result in the loss of key expertise and create difficulty with regionalization or localization of supply chain networks. Those situations can be avoided by either developing key skills inside the organization or purchasing external expertise.
Nobody knows what is going to happen in the upcoming months. That’s why a scenario-driven approach is best when preparing for the recovery phase—or a possible secondary crisis. The scenarios described above are just one set of scenarios that can be applied to map out a path to recovery and different scenarios may be relevant to different markets and products. Asking “what if,” “how fast,” “how severe,” and “how would we respond” allows leaders to identify both risks and opportunities associated with the coronavirus and provides a glimpse of certainty in those uncertain times.
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.