Global supply patterns have changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century— not just once but several times—and they will continue to change over time.
Global supply patterns have changed dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century— not just once but several times—and they will continue to change over time. Whenever shifts in production and consumption occur, new winners and losers emerge. This dynamic has a direct effect not only at a country or regional level but also at the supply chain and individual company level. Supply chain managers, therefore, can benefit from a basic understanding of some of these shifts and their consequences.
Changing production patterns
In the past, less developed countries with low production costs produced the raw input materials, while capital-intensive countries would design, produce, and consume the finished goods. During the course of the 20th century, however, a new paradigm for goods production emerged. Trade patterns reflected the comparative advantages that arose from supply chains that extended to less developed countries. They also came to feature multilateral exchanges of finished consumer goods among advanced economies. For example, Germany both exported and imported beer. This is partly related to the fact that consumers in modern capitalist societies developed a preference for variety; satisfying that demand required more intragroup trade in parallel with the outsourcing of production to markets with lower production costs.
The international trade picture, then, could be characterized as raw materials from less developed countries flowing to industrial countries in a traditional, linear supply chain, with a considerable volume of similar finished and capital goods trading between industrial countries. Despite this paradigm shift, the ability to add value at lower production costs (i.e., comparative advantage) remained an essential determinant of international trade flows.
Eventually, manufacturers came to realize that by locating production or assembly plants within the consuming countries, they could reduce distribution costs and offer lower prices to end consumers. For example, a U.S.-owned soft drink plant in a Latin American country would produce soft drinks for local consumption, thereby substantially reducing logistics and transportation costs. This shift is not limited to low-cost countries. In the United States, for instance, a Toyota plant in Mississippi or a Mercedes plant in Alabama imports some parts from Japan or Germany but assembles the automobiles themselves in close proximity to the consuming market.
After the end of the Cold War, trade flows and the integration of global markets have increased at a rapid pace, while transportation costs have fallen. More countries have opened their borders to free trade or have liberalized trade in some way. Landmark developments include China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a swing by India and many other developing countries away from anti-trade and anti-market policies. These developments caused the economic paradigm for goods production to change once again.
Now many North American and European companies locate production and assembly facilities in countries like China, where input costs are lower. The finished goods are subsequently imported by the North American or European company, so that the final sales proceeds stay with the parent company, in the home country, or both. Economic activities in this new supply chain paradigm mean that the value added to a product, the productivity level, and the costs for many products are lowest at the production level and highest at the design and distribution levels. A visual depiction of this phenomenon shows a "smiley curve" (see Figure 1).
Weaving a supply web
During the last two decades, there has been a consistent flow of low-skill and low-value-added jobs from developed economies to emerging economies that have a comparative advantage in less capital-intensive industries. This phenomenon has had an important, transformational impact on global supply chain dynamics: the metaphor of a linear supply chain, with product moving chronologically through the stages of supply, production, and distribution, may be heading toward obsolescence. Instead, today's global supply chain is increasingly looking and acting like a global supply web. The concept of a series of interconnecting links, from the input link (supplier) to the output link (distribution) has given way to a network pattern involving myriad suppliers, producers, and distributors cascading across international boundaries.
With companies scattering production around the globe and conducting economic activities in multiple countries, tracing the flows and interconnections of the global supply web has become an almost impossible task. It's not uncommon to see a pattern like this: Low-cost Country A imports raw materials or components from Country B, which has higher production costs. Country A assembles the parts or processes the product. The assembled or processed product is then exported to Country C. Further processing or assembly may then be done in Country C before the finished product is exported back to Country A or to another country altogether.
As that scenario suggests, companies are taking increasing advantage of their ability to fragment the production process by locating design and engineering in one place, parts in another place, and assembly in still another place. China offers a prime example of this new phenomenon. A large volume of raw materials and parts are shipped to China for manufacture or assembly. Once incorporated into a finished product, they are exported to the country of origin or to another country. This strategy has become very common in recent years. Since 2000, the value of Chinese merchandise exports of finished or semi-finished goods processed with imported materials has multiplied by a factor of six. According to manufacturing trade data, it is estimated that more than half of China's total merchandise exports now include imported materials. The total value of those exports in 2010 represents an estimated US $600 billion (on an annual basis).
Another element of Chinese trade patterns worth mentioning is that the gap between the value of merchandise imports and merchandise exports has grown from 15 percent in 1994 to 50 percent in 2010. This is most likely a consequence of increased productivity and a higher value added to Chinese exports since 1994. Increased productivity has allowed Chinese companies to produce more output (and therefore exports) with a given amount of inputs (or imports). At the same time, the improvement in Chinese processing and assembly processes since then is likely to have boosted the value added to the finished products.
Interestingly, production fragmentation is no longer limited to manufactured goods and has also made its way into the information services sector. Many companies now locate call centers, data processing facilities, and research centers in countries where the production costs for those functions are lower.
Shared prosperity
For the time being, advanced economies will continue to focus on the parts of the supply web for which they have a comparative advantage, while low-productioncost countries will concentrate on other segments. But the shape and complexity of the supply web could change over time. As populations in many of the key emerging economies age or attain higher levels of education, the geographical concentration of those nations having comparative advantages will shift, creating new and interesting patterns of international trade.
Regardless of how the lineup of developed and emerging economies changes in the future, the global supply web will connect them in a strong ensemble that is capable of reaping the greatest benefits from free trade. As Nariman Behravesh, IHS's chief economist, writes in his book Spin-Free Economics.
"In war, one country wins and another loses. In globalization, both countries prosper. Power can be gained at someone else's expense, but prosperity can be shared."
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.