Barbara Gaudenzi is Associate Professor in Supply Chain Management & Risk Management at the Department of Business Administration of the University of Verona (Italy).
George A. Zsidisin is the John W. Barriger III Professor and Director of the Supply Chain Risk and Resilience Research (SCR3) Institute at the University of Missouri—St. Louis.
Firms have engaged in global supply chains for centuries. This is due to the many benefits organizations experience from trading globally, such as expanding their customer base, attaining lower purchasing costs, and obtaining higher quality products and services, among many other factors. Although firms have been enjoying the fruits of global supply chain management for many years, there are also inherent uncertainties and risks that can quickly erode profitability.
One such form of risk prevalent in these supply chains is foreign exchange (FX) risk. Firms may suffer an increase in operating costs due to changes in exchange rates when purchasing components or materials from nondomestic suppliers, or they may lose margins when they sell products in markets with a lower exchange rate. For example, the price of a cup of coffee is the same every morning, and the price of the bakery product is the same on the shelf. But, if suppliers are paid in their own currency, the cost of the commodities—coffee beans and grain—can significantly increase due to the fluctuation in the country-of-origin’s currency, affecting production costs and profit margins.
FX risk can severely affect profitability, especially in industries characterized by tight product margins, low levels of stock, and short lead times. A 2018 survey of 200 chief financial officers, for example, found that 70% of respondents had suffered reduced earnings in the prior two years due to avoidable, unhedged FX risk.1
This finding shows the need to carefully consider FX risk. In addition, global political risk trends are increasing many firms’ exposure to FX risk. For example, the currency markets became particularly volatile after the British vote to leave the European Union.
Many firms have implemented financial hedging to manage FX risk. However, from an operational perspective, there are additional approaches firms can consider for mitigating this form of risk. In a recent research program, partly funded by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we uncovered five principles organizations should consider in creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy. The primary focus of these principles is oriented more towards a supplier-facing perspective of the supply chain, but they take into consideration internal and downstream FX risk exposure as well. These principles include 1) creating flexibility up front, 2) looking upstream and downstream in the supply chain, 3) incorporating multiple sources of cost/price uncertainty, 4) using a range of risk mitigation approaches, and 5) considering relationships. (See Figure 1.)
[Figure 1] Five principles for creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy Enlarge this image
Creating flexibility up front
Firms can mitigate a great amount of FX risk by considering a variety of sourcing strategies during the initial product development and supplier evaluation and selection stages. Sourcing a component or product from a sole supplier located in a foreign country leaves a firm vulnerable to changes in the exchange rate. When possible and feasible, firms should consider establishing a multisourcing strategy (or at least backup suppliers) by qualifying and selecting a domestic supplier or one from an alternate foreign country. Although identifying and qualifying alternate sources of supply can be costly, firms should see it as an investment in flexibility. It gives firms the opportunity to mitigate unfavorable fluctuations in FX rates by switching the purchasing quantity to another supplier.
We have seen organizations create backup, domestic sources of supply as well as qualify suppliers that use a third currency. For example, one Italian firm we studied purchases components from China, but it has also qualified a supplier in the U.K. and can source from another supplier in Italy. This example supports findings from a recent survey, which found that 80% of the companies studied invest in supplier relationships and flexibility to reduce risk.2
However, companies need to be careful when creating these plans. They should make sure to consider additional expenses such as the costs of switching from one supplier to another, including the cost of changing manufacturing and distribution processes and any new transportation costs. Hence, before deciding whether or not to invest in flexibility by qualifying suppliers that use a different currency, it is crucial to carefully assess the expected benefits versus the cost for implementing the plan. One way to make this assessment is to use real options valuation (ROV) in combination with simulation tools.3 This avoids having firms build flexibility when it does not prove to be worthwhile.
Flexibility, in fact, has its limitations. It is very difficult to frequently change supply sources due to switching costs and process changes. Therefore, companies need to understand both the short- and long-term FX rate uncertainties and forecasts in order to determine if switching sources is really worthwhile, especially since it may take six months or more before another switch is viable. Longer time between switches may in fact dramatically erode the value created by the flexibility itself. At the extreme, if the next switch is only viable several months later, another fluctuation in FX rates may make the switch financially unfavorable.
Looking upstream and downstream
It is important for firms to know where in their supply chains they could be exposed to foreign exchange rate risk. To uncover these points of weakness, they need to look both up and down their supply chain. Upstream sources of risk include having suppliers located in countries using a different currency and having suppliers whose own suppliers receive payments in various currencies. Downstream FX risk exposure can come from customers in foreign countries who pay in their respective currencies as well as from making payments to providers of transportation and other supply chain services in a foreign currency.
It is also important to understand how these FX risks may affect your supply chains. How will fluctuations in foreign exchange rates affect your cash-to-cash cycle and your firm’s profitability? Are there opportunities for natural hedging where sales and purchases are done using the same foreign currency? The mitigation of FX risk might be particularly crucial for firms located in countries where raw materials are scarce or the share of imported material from abroad (spend in other countries) is significant and experiences currency volatility. This can especially occur in developing countries, such as with BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). In such cases, experiencing a devaluation of the local currencies (the currency of the selling product) may produce a significant loss for a firm.
Incorporating multiple sources of cost/price uncertainty
Firms are exposed to uncertainty from many different sources. These sources of uncertainty can include, but are not limited to: global political dynamics, demand volume volatility, commodity price fluctuations, tariffs, and transportation costs. Further, many of these sources of uncertainty influence other sources. For example, the price of oil (a commodity) has an influence on transportation rates. Likewise, the uncertainty around the recent COVID-19 pandemic is dramatically affecting global demand, changing its volumes and affecting the equilibrium between off-shored and domestic manufacturing needed to meet that demand. Some of these sources of uncertainty can offset the effects of FX risk, while others can amplify unfavorable FX rates.
For example, the COVID-19 pandemic severely affected the global oil market because demand for oil from China (which accounts for 20% of total global consumption) dropped by about 3 million barrels a day. As a result, global oil prices, such as the Brent crude oil price, dropped to their lowest level in more than a year. This drop also affected shipping prices and generated high volatility in commodity prices, which in turn affected foreign exchange rates.4
Commodity price shocks, higher prices due to disruptions to global supply chains, and the shortage of demand from the tourism industry all resulted in severe fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.
As recent events show, FX risk cannot be considered in a vacuum. Instead, we have found it is important for firms to create total cost models that holistically assess their entire financial risk exposure. These models would include FX risk as one of several factors. Similarly, when companies create a FX risk mitigation strategy, they should take into consider other cost drivers and how they influence FX risk.
Using a range of risk mitigation approaches
There is no one “silver bullet” for mitigating FX risk. Larger firms for many years have employed financial hedging instruments, such as derivatives and currency swaps, for reducing their exposure to FX risk. Although financial hedging remains an important tool and approach in creating a FX risk mitigation strategy, other approaches, especially at the operational level, can also be employed for actively addressing this form of financial risk and creating supply chain flexibility in the case of unfavorable FX valuation rates.
One common approach that supply chain professionals utilize for reducing the effects of significant FX valuation shifts is negotiation. Many suppliers want to ensure that they keep their customers’ business. From the purchasing firm’s perspective, we have found it beneficial for organizations to simply communicate to its supplier how FX rate shifts affect its cost structure. This tactic gives suppliers the opportunity to adjust their sales prices to counter the currency value shift and remain price competitive. Further, these negotiations, especially when they are done during the contracting stage, can include escalation and de-escalation clauses, where this form of risk is shared between the companies. For example, if future changes of FX valuation shift by more than 5% above or below an established rate, then the price increase or decrease due to currency differences would be shared between the buyer and supplier. Other mitigation techniques can include suppliers switching or reallocating volume for reducing the effects of FX risk, financial hedging, and natural hedging.
Considering relationships
The success of many of the approaches to FX risk mentioned above is dependent upon a firm’s current and future relationships with its customers and suppliers. Further, the power balance in the relationship will also partly determine how FX risk is mitigated.
For example, building in flexibility by switching suppliers or reallocating volume may be a viable strategy when there are no production capacity constraints and the relationship with the supplier is more transactional. However, it may be the incorrect decision if the supplier is considered strategic to your success. Also, a multisourcing approach may strengthen your firm’s purchasing power by providing information that can be used to improve current relationships or negotiations with new suppliers. Therefore, investing in flexibility may be seen as a “strategic tool” to adopt from a longer-term perspective, based on the FX rate forecasts.
Understanding the relationship between yourself and a supplier is also key to successfully using negotiation as an approach to mitigating FX risk. By establishing rules at the very beginning of the negotiation, you may create efficiency and limit opportunistic behaviors by your suppliers. In this sense, negotiation may be a “tactical tool” used to manage specific suppliers for shorter-term periodic FX rate fluctuations. Having strong, established relationships and rapport with suppliers is an important requisite for negotiating contractual terms in response to FX risk.
When determining what approach to take in mitigating FX risk, companies should ask themselves, what is the true value of the supplier or customer? Is FX risk considered a win-lose game, where one organization gains temporary financial benefits from currency valuation shifts at the expense of the other? Or is it an opportunity to mutually discover opportunities for financial success?
Supply chain relationships are not just external. Internal supply chain relationships with other business functions (such as production, finance, and marketing) should be taken into consideration. Is finance/treasury considered the primary entity responsible for this form of risk? How can we work with them in mitigating FX risk? Are there opportunities for creating a natural hedging strategy with marketing and sales? How do our decisions affect production? Creating a supply chain FX risk mitigation strategy cannot be done in isolation. It needs to incorporate both external and internal supply chain partners and functions.
The path forward
There is no question about it—firms are subject to a myriad of uncertainties that can detrimentally affect their profitability. Currency fluctuations and their inherent risk is one such uncertainty supply chain professionals need to be aware of and incorporate into their plans for managing their supply chains and contributing to corporate profitability. The five principles provided in this article shed some insight into what factors you may want to consider when creating such a strategy.
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank the companies participating in this research and CSCMP for a grant helping to support this study.
Notes:
1. Rethinking Treasury, HSBC and FT Remark, 2018: https://www.gbm.hsbc.com/the-new-future/treasury-thought-leadership/risk-management-survey
3. Real option valuation (ROV) methods are based on the concept of “real options,” which are defined as “the right but not the obligation” to choose a course of action and obtain an associated payoff. ROV methods have been widely used for project/asset valuations when the exercise of further options is not certain and depends on the evolution of other events, but comes at a certain initial cost. Examples are having the managerial flexibility (that is, the option) to expand, abandon, or contract a project, based on different states being realized in future
The launch is based on “Amazon Nova,” the company’s new generation of foundation models, the company said in a blog post. Data scientists use foundation models (FMs) to develop machine learning (ML) platforms more quickly than starting from scratch, allowing them to create artificial intelligence applications capable of performing a wide variety of general tasks, since they were trained on a broad spectrum of generalized data, Amazon says.
The new models are integrated with Amazon Bedrock, a managed service that makes FMs from AI companies and Amazon available for use through a single API. Using Amazon Bedrock, customers can experiment with and evaluate Amazon Nova models, as well as other FMs, to determine the best model for an application.
Calling the launch “the next step in our AI journey,” the company says Amazon Nova has the ability to process text, image, and video as prompts, so customers can use Amazon Nova-powered generative AI applications to understand videos, charts, and documents, or to generate videos and other multimedia content.
“Inside Amazon, we have about 1,000 Gen AI applications in motion, and we’ve had a bird’s-eye view of what application builders are still grappling with,” Rohit Prasad, SVP of Amazon Artificial General Intelligence, said in a release. “Our new Amazon Nova models are intended to help with these challenges for internal and external builders, and provide compelling intelligence and content generation while also delivering meaningful progress on latency, cost-effectiveness, customization, information grounding, and agentic capabilities.”
The new Amazon Nova models available in Amazon Bedrock include:
Amazon Nova Micro, a text-only model that delivers the lowest latency responses at very low cost.
Amazon Nova Lite, a very low-cost multimodal model that is lightning fast for processing image, video, and text inputs.
Amazon Nova Pro, a highly capable multimodal model with the best combination of accuracy, speed, and cost for a wide range of tasks.
Amazon Nova Premier, the most capable of Amazon’s multimodal models for complex reasoning tasks and for use as the best teacher for distilling custom models
Amazon Nova Canvas, a state-of-the-art image generation model.
Amazon Nova Reel, a state-of-the-art video generation model that can transform a single image input into a brief video with the prompt: dolly forward.
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).
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.”
Grocers and retailers are struggling to get their systems back online just before the winter holiday peak, following a software hack that hit the supply chain software provider Blue Yonder this week.
The ransomware attack is snarling inventory distribution patterns because of its impact on systems such as the employee scheduling system for coffee stalwart Starbucks, according to a published report. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Blue Yonder provides a wide range of supply chain software, including warehouse management system (WMS), transportation management system (TMS), order management and commerce, network and control tower, returns management, and others.
Blue Yonder today acknowledged the disruptions, saying they were the result of a ransomware incident affecting its managed services hosted environment. The company has established a dedicated cybersecurity incident update webpage to communicate its recovery progress, but it had not been updated for nearly two days as of Tuesday afternoon. “Since learning of the incident, the Blue Yonder team has been working diligently together with external cybersecurity firms to make progress in their recovery process. We have implemented several defensive and forensic protocols,” a Blue Yonder spokesperson said in an email.
The timing of the attack suggests that hackers may have targeted Blue Yonder in a calculated attack based on the upcoming Thanksgiving break, since many U.S. organizations downsize their security staffing on holidays and weekends, according to a statement from Dan Lattimer, VP of Semperis, a New Jersey-based computer and network security firm.
“While details on the specifics of the Blue Yonder attack are scant, it is yet another reminder how damaging supply chain disruptions become when suppliers are taken offline. Kudos to Blue Yonder for dealing with this cyberattack head on but we still don’t know how far reaching the business disruptions will be in the UK, U.S. and other countries,” Lattimer said. “Now is time for organizations to fight back against threat actors. Deciding whether or not to pay a ransom is a personal decision that each company has to make, but paying emboldens threat actors and throws more fuel onto an already burning inferno. Simply, it doesn’t pay-to-pay,” he said.
The incident closely followed an unrelated cybersecurity issue at the grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, which has been recovering from impacts to the Stop & Shop chain that it across the U.S. Northeast region. In a statement apologizing to customers for the inconvenience of the cybersecurity issue, Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize said its top priority is the security of its customers, associates and partners, and that the company’s internal IT security staff was working with external cybersecurity experts and law enforcement to speed recovery. “Our teams are taking steps to assess and mitigate the issue. This includes taking some systems offline to help protect them. This issue and subsequent mitigating actions have affected certain Ahold Delhaize USA brands and services including a number of pharmacies and certain e-commerce operations,” the company said.
Editor's note:This article was revised on November 27 to indicate that the cybersecurity issue at Ahold Delhaize was unrelated to the Blue Yonder hack.
The new funding brings Amazon's total investment in Anthropic to $8 billion, while maintaining the e-commerce giant’s position as a minority investor, according to Anthropic. The partnership was launched in 2023, when Amazon invested its first $4 billion round in the firm.
Anthropic’s “Claude” family of AI assistant models is available on AWS’s Amazon Bedrock, which is a cloud-based managed service that lets companies build specialized generative AI applications by choosing from an array of foundation models (FMs) developed by AI providers like AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Cohere, Meta, Mistral AI, Stability AI, and Amazon itself.
According to Amazon, tens of thousands of customers, from startups to enterprises and government institutions, are currently running their generative AI workloads using Anthropic’s models in the AWS cloud. Those GenAI tools are powering tasks such as customer service chatbots, coding assistants, translation applications, drug discovery, engineering design, and complex business processes.
"The response from AWS customers who are developing generative AI applications powered by Anthropic in Amazon Bedrock has been remarkable," Matt Garman, AWS CEO, said in a release. "By continuing to deploy Anthropic models in Amazon Bedrock and collaborating with Anthropic on the development of our custom Trainium chips, we’ll keep pushing the boundaries of what customers can achieve with generative AI technologies. We’ve been impressed by Anthropic’s pace of innovation and commitment to responsible development of generative AI, and look forward to deepening our collaboration."