The Other 1%!

These days, we’re hearing a lot about the 1% — the percentage of the population who control over 35% of the nation’s wealth, and control, at a minimum, 23 times the wealth controlled by the average person. And while it looks good on the books, right now, this isn’t the 1% anyone wants to be in, given the ire directed their way. But that’s not the 1% this post is about.

This post is about the 1% of companies that have implemented ILO (International Labour Organization) compliant supplier codes of conduct that are monitored and enforced. As per a recent publication by Zurich and Rockwell Automation entitled “Safe Supply Chains Help Produce Sustainable Business”, only 43% of major US companies have implemented supplier codes of conduct. Of these codes, only 10% reference ILO conventions. In addition, only 25% of companies perform even minimal monitoring against their supplier codes of conduct. In other words, the percentage of companies that have codes of conduct that reference ILO conventions and that are monitored is 0.43 * 0.10 * 0.25 = 0.01, or 1%! Ouch!

This is a disgrace! This is not the 1% we want in the Supply Management world! Every organization needs to shape up and do something about this right now.

  • Step 1: Get a supplier code of conduct. If your organization doesn’t want to invest the time drafting its own, borrow one (such as the publicly available JLP Responsible Sourcing Supplier Workbook) and modify it as appropriate or simply state that your organization complies with all relevant ILO labour standards, summarized in the Brief Introduction to International Labour Standards, and you have the right to monitor and inspect supplier operations to make sure they do the same.
  • Step 2: Make sure all relevant ILO standards are referenced.
  • Step 3: Monitor suppliers and, with other customers, insure an audit is done on an annual basis (by a responsible, neutral third party)*.

This isn’t hard. Just do it!

*It’s too disruptive to a supplier, and too costly, for every customer to audit the supplier every year. Instead, big customers should band together and hire an independent third party who’s good at conducting audits to perform an annual audit and make the results available to all customers, who can collectively apply pressure to a supplier violating ILO and individually take issue with any aspect of the supplier code of conduct that goes beyond ILO that is specific to that customer.

Do Great Supply Chains Create Great Brands?

Consider the Gartner Top 25 Supply Chain companies and the 25 top Brandz Top 100 Global Brands. Notice anything?

Gartner Top 25

01. Apple
02. McDonald’s
03. Amazon.com
04. Unilever
05. Intel
06. Procter & Gamble (Gilette/Pampers)
07. Cisco Systems
08. Samsung Electronics
09. Coca Cola Company
10. Colgate-Palmolive
11. Dell
12. Inditex (Zara)
13. Wal-Mart Stores
14. Nike
15. Starbucks
16. PepsiCo
17. H&M
18. Caterpillar
19. 3M
20. Lenovo Group (Old IBM PC Unit)
21. Nestle
22. Ford Motor
23. Cummins
24. Qualcomm
25. Johnson & Johnson

    Brandz Top 25

01. Apple
02. Google
03. IBM
04. MacDonalds
05. Coca Cola
06. AT&T
07. Microsoft
08. Malboro
09. Visa
10. China Mobile
11. GE
12. Verizon
13. Wells Fargo
14. Amazon.com
15. UPS
16. ICBC
17. Vodofone
18. Walmart
19. SAP
20. MasterCard
21. Tencent
22. China Construction Bank
23. Toyota
24. BMW
25. HSBC

Looking at the Gartner top 25 supply chain, 5 of the top 25 are also 5 of the top 25 global brands! In other words, 20% of the leading supply chain companies are also leading brands. Digging deeper, we find that 17 of the top 25 supply chain companies are also top 100 global brands, as mentioned in the BrandZ report. In other words, 68% of great supply chain companies are also leading global brands! Of the 8 companies that are not leading global brands, 3 are consumer good companies that have a large variety of brands (Unilever, Nestle, Johnson & Johnson), 1 is a primarily North American computer hardware provider (Dell), 2 are construction equipment giants and not expected to be a household name (Caterpillar and Cummins), 1 is a multinational manufacturing conglomerate with dozens of consumer and industrial brands (3M), and the last 1 produces chipsets for big-name mobile phone makers (Qualcomm). In other words, the only top 25 supply chain companies that are not top 100 global brands are precisely those companies that are not big consumer market companies or those companies that are conglomerates of a large number of smaller, but sometimes still Billion-dollar plus, companies.

And while it’s true that, at this point, this is just correlation, it’s a very significant correlation. While one may not be able to say that a great supply chain creates a great brand, these results seem to suggest that a great supply chain is needed for a great brand.

Buying and Negotiating on TCO – A Must Know for Any Supply Management Organization!

At this point in time, very few people are still in the stone ages of Supply Management and buy on price per unit (PPU) alone, the first level of sourcing value. However, there are still a number of buyers in a number of organizations that still buy on landed cost or total cost of acquisition (TCA) and buy solely on the sum of price per unit, transportation, duty, tariff, temporary storage, and other costs that are incurred from the time an order is placed until the time the product is received. These organizations are still in the dark ages of Supply Management and need to find the light very, very quickly. Most modern Supply Management organizations attempt to buy on total cost of ownership (TCO), the third level of sourcing value.

The most commonly used metric today by analysts, consultants, vendors, and (I’m sorry to say) bloggers, it is a comparative cost metric that quantifies the overall cost of each acquired unit from a direct, indirect, and quantifiable market perspective that takes a broader look at the cost of a product from an acquisition, utilization, and delivery perspective. In addition to the landed costs, it also considers indirect utilization, supplier switching, and transaction costs as well as cost adjustments for quality, waste, and brand power (if your supplier has a brand that increases the selling price of the product you create with the component). TCO captures the ‘true cost’ of a product (or service) from a supplier and does a much better job of helping you to compare apples-to-apples when determining the best buy for your organization. It’s not the ultimate metric, as that’s total value management (TVM), the next level (and pinnacle) of sourcing value measurement, but you cannot apply TVM until you have mastered TCO (which is a big component of TVM just like total cost of acquisition is a big component of TCO). Plus, the effort required to apply TVM isn’t worth it in all categories. If the category is low-spend, non-strategic, or best handled in a leveraged purchasing agreement, you don’t bother with TVM. (Just like you don’t bother spending hours looking for the absolute cheapest supplier when buying a box of printer paper for your home office as saving $2 isn’t worth hours of your time, you don’t bother with an advanced analysis on the office supplies category.)

An in-depth understanding of TCO, and how to negotiate on TCO, is vital to the success of your Supply Management department as your organization’s success ultimately depends on the proper application to every category you source now that we are returning to (rampant) inflationary times. To assist you in the acquisition of this knowledge, Next Level Purchasing is hosting a webinar on How to Negotiate and Buy on Total Cost of Ownership this Thursday, May 30, 2013 @ 8:30 am PDT / 11:30 am EDT. It’s free to all NLPA (Next Level Purchasing Association) members, and basic membership in the NLPA is free! (Join Here!)

The webinar, which will be presented by Todd Snelgrove, Global Manager for SKF Group, will teach you how to reduce organizational costs by managing TCO. You’ll learn about updated strategies, techniques, and TCO-reducing methodologies. The webinar will delve into real world case studies and share the experiences and pitfalls to watch out for. You’ll leave this webinar with a firm understanding of the do’s and don’ts of buying on TCO.

To register for this free, live, event, Login to the NLPA, navigate to the “Webinars” tab, and click on the webinar to get to the registration screen.

Do You Know Where Your Towel Is?

You Better! It’s international Towel Day, the day where we all carry a towel with us to commemorate The Hithchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and the dreams of Extra-Planetary Supply Management that it instilled in all of us. Without the inspiration contained within this great book, there wouldn’t be people working hard to make a Lunar Mission, and the extra-planetary supply management that goes with it, a reality. RIP Douglas Adams.


I Am The Freight Container

I am the freight container
And I now just where I stand
Another freight enabler
And another caravan
Today I am your champion
As I have won your hearts
And I know the game
You won’t forget my name
And I’ll still be here
In a hundred years
As I’m still state of the artI am the freight enabler
As I have reduced your price
The things you did not know at first
You learned by doin’ twice
And you cannot replace me
No mater what they say
No one else can dent
by ninety seven percent
shipping costs compared
to loading freight impaired
by old bulky wooden crates.

Little did Malcom McLean know when he first invented, patented, and then sent the first metal shipping container on its way on April 26 in 1956 that it would do more to enable global trade than any treaty or global trade organization ever would. As pointed out in this recent economist blog that asked why have containers boosted trade so much, a recent paper by Daniel M. Bernhofen, Zouheir El-Sahli, and Richard Kneller on “Estimating the Effects of the Container Revolution on World Trade”, has disentangled the impact of trade deals from that of shipping containers and derived a rather shocking result. Analyzing the data from 22 industrialized countries, the study found that that containerization is associated with a 320% increase in bilateral trade over the first five years and a 790% increase in bilateral trade over 20 years. On the other hand, a bilateral free-trade agreement only boosts trade by 45% over 20 years and membership in GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) raises trade by 285%. In other words, a trade agreement will boost trade 50%, membership in GATT will increase trade by a factor of two and a half, but containers will increase trade by a factor of 8!

So, not only did they greatly reduce shipping costs (by 97% according to the shipping records maintained by Mr. McLean who saw his costs per tonne fall from $5.83 per tonne for loose cargo to $0.16/tonne), but they have already done more for global trade than any long winded bureaucrats and diplomats ever will.