Category Archives: Global Trade

There is a Price of Relocating to “Friendly Countries”, but There Are also Corresponding Cost Reductions

This originally posted on January 3 (2024), but is being reprinted in case you missed it due to the rising importance of near/home shoring!

A recent article in El Pais on the price of relocating factories to ‘friendly countries’ noted that according to the European Central Bank (ECB), 42% of the large companies in the Old Continent that it has recently surveyed have resolved to produce in allied countries as a means of reducing risks. However, this relocation carries economic consequences, and international institutions — such as the IMF and the ECB — warn of its impact on growth and soaring prices.

The article is right. Some prices will go up as countries move out of countries in, or likely to engage in conflict, both of the physical (war) and the economic (closed borders, significant tariff increases, rolling lockdowns, etc.) variety, and move to more “friendly” countries. (As far as SI is concerned, it shouldn’t just be “friendly” countries, it should be “friendly countries close to home”. At least companies are realizing that China and/or the lowest cost country is not always the answer when that answer comes with risks that, when they materialize, could lead to skyrocketing costs and losses that dwarf five years of “savings”.

Furthermore, even though 60% of those contacted said that changes in the location of production and/or cross-border sourcing of supplies had push up their average prices over the past five years, this hasn’t been true across the board, it doesn’t have to be true, and some of those could still see savings as they optimize their new processes, methodologies, and supply chain network. (Changes don’t reach full efficiency overnight, and sometimes it is two or three years before you can optimize a supply chain network due to existing contracts, infrastructure, etc.)

Why are costs (initially) going up for many companies?

  • wages: many of the “friendly” countries are more economically mature, or advantaged, with a higher standard of living buffered up by higher wages / better social systems
  • utility charges: in “friendly” countries that are using newer, cleaner, sources of energy or limiting energy production from burning (coal, oil, natural gas) have energy costs that are often higher as the initial infrastructure investment has not been amortized, water costs could be higher if more processing inbound or outbound is required, and so on
  • production overhead: chances are that the factories are newer, required a large investment that isn’t anywhere close to being paid off yet by the owner, and you’re paying a portion of the large interest payment to the investors/banks as part of the overhead

However, it’s important to note that:

  • productivity: will go up when you move to a locale where the workforce is more educated and skilled and is better able to employ automation and modern practices, and thus gets more efficient over time, countering the initial wage increase
  • energy costs: will reduce over time as a solar farm or wind farm can produce renewable energy for decades, with the initial investment often being paid back within one third to one quarter of that time; as a result, energy prices should remain flat(ter) over time than in the locales where they are still burning dwindling fossil fuels (which rise every year in cost) and have not yet invested in renewables
  • overhead: will decrease once the investments are paid back (and the interest payments are gone), which means it can stay flat as other production related costs rise (compared to older plants which will eventually reach a point where the revitalization investment becomes significant on a regular basis)

In addition to:

  • logistics costs: will reduce when you choose a friendly country closer to your target markets (since most freight is ocean freight on fossil fuel burning cargo ships)
  • disruption costs: will reduce as less risk translates into less (costly) disruptions over time

So while costs may go up a bit at first, at least relatively speaking, they will go down over time, especially as network and process optimizations are introduced and obtained from experience with the new network, suppliers, and technologies.

There are Perks and Pitfalls of Friend-Shoring — But The Answer is Near-shoring!

On Tuesday, when we told you the tariff tax is coming and there’s nothing you can do about it, we told you the long-term solution is near-shoring, and while others will tell you that the short-term answer is friend-shoring, we want to make it clear that it is NOT.

As a result of recent logistics disruptions, geopolitics, and global disasters, and all of the supply disruptions that have resulted, a lot of global companies are starting to pull back on global outsourcing and extended supply chains, at least where they seem to have options.

Apparently a number of these organizations are considering Friendshoring, as per yet another article on the subject, with a recent example being the perks and pitfalls of friendshoring in EP&T.

According to this article this strategic shift is buzzing among industry leaders and policymakers. Why, I’m not sure.

The article has the following benefits right:

  • enhanced security and trust as partners tend to trust each other and keep each other safe
  • improved compliance and standards as friends generally work to serve the same markets and are more aware of the standards and regulatory requirements that need to be met for all to benefit

And has the following challenge mostly right:

  • increased costs as most “friends” are in first world countries with higher labour costs, higher utility and operating costs, stricter environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. so costs are generally a bit higher up front (at first)

But here’s what the article overlooks:

  • better quality since these friends usually operate at higher standards with better tech which typically translates into
  • more reliability and longevity which generally translates into
  • reduced returns and warranty costs as customers will generally discard or move on from the product before it breaks
  • higher sales prices as customers will pay more for quality

And here’s what the article really overlooks.

It’s NOT friendshoring, it’s nearshoring!

Preferably somewhere you can get to on land, or from a nearby port. For North America, that means we should primarily be outsourcing from Central America (since we can get our stuff on trucks if ocean freighter availability is low) and, if we can’t get it there, from South America — since we can get it from a ship that sails up and down the coast (and doesn’t have to pass through a canal that has limited capacity due to drought or is unsafe due to terrorist presence). NOT from China, unless it is a raw material we can’t get elsewhere.

The nearer the source, and the less countries and distance the materials or products have to pass through, the less chance for disruption.

Moreover, it’s NOT the friends you have, it’s the friends you need, which may not be one in the same.

For example, a company in the UK might be your “friend”, but the UK is expensive, crossing the Atlantic is expensive and risky at certain times of the year, and you might be able to invest in a supplier in Mexico to get the same product! Moreover, if you invest in a company to help them grow, they are much more likely to stay your friend than a company who is only your friend because they think you are locked in to them.

Plus, if you choose, and invest in, up and coming / new suppliers, you can help them with their processes, new technology selections and plant upgrades, and even sub-tier supplier and material selection. This can be more helpful to you than an established supplier locked into their ways and last-generation technology and production lines they paid too much for.

Some of your “friends” will be the right “friends”, some won’t. Analyze them all and make sure they fit all of your requirements: near, quality, reliability, and potential for future value creation. (Not just future cost reduction after you help them get efficient, but potential sales price increase, value added services, and other factors that might increase the overall profit equation. After all, Procurement is about increasing business value, not just about securing supply and controlling costs.)

Stay close to home, and even home-shore when you can, and you will see fewer disruptions, which should be your goal as supply disruption has been the biggest risk for at least the last 15 years.

The Tariff Tax Is Coming – And There Ain’t Much You Can Do About It!

Since you have been ignoring the home-shoring/near-shoring that a few of us experts tried to warn you about almost a decade before the first of the predictable tragedies happened (with articles appearing in the late 2000s on the dangers of outsourcing and the advantages of near-shoring — here are 3 SI articles from 2009, 2011, and 2013), you will now have to pay the tariff tax.

(Note that we are now on the fourth predictable tragedy. The first was the COVID pandemic, which the WHO and WEF were warning us about for a good decade [even though they didn’t know what the pandemic would be, they knew a pandemic was inevitable]. The second was geo-political conflicts and sanctions that cut off entire markets. The third was the double whammy of Panamanian droughts and Houthis in the Red Sea, cutting off the fast shipping lanes and forcing a return to routes around the Capes. Now we have tariffs, a predictable result of home-first economic policies that always return in times of tense geo-political climates … and especially in countries run by leaders who believe they have autocratic power, even if they aren’t supposed to.)

So now you will get hit by tariffs. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Why?

  1. Tariffs are going to be applied across the board. Thus, changing locations isn’t going to prevent them, just minimize them.
  2. In most countries, tariffs on products don’t change weekly. But sales can based on the perceived economic situation, so stocking up on inventory can increase inventory costs beyond expectations as well as logistics costs if you have to expedite shipping.
  3. Locations with cheaper tariffs without supporting supply chain networks will actually cost more, especially if the average competency of the workforce is lower than other locations.
  4. Proclamations are not actualizations. Actual tariffs could be more or less. You could switch from a location expected to see tariff increases to one that sees even more tariff increases.

If you want to protect from tariffs, which are likely only going to get worse as time goes on, there is only one option — re-shore as close as you can! You want to be as close to home as you can to not only protect against tariffs, but to minimize other costs and risks. Logistics risks, and costs, are less. Re-supply times are less. Risk response is faster. And new development and innovation is easier.

So even though costs will increase in the short-term — as you build/upgrade/refine factories and production lines, retrain workforces, build new supply lines, design new distribution chains, and so on. Especially when you re-shore to a location with higher energy or workforce costs. However, over time, the workforce will become more skilled and productive, automation will improve, and supply and distribution lines will optimize. Costs will go down, and they will be more stable than costs half a world away you have no control over.

The key is figuring out what you should re-shore and what you shouldn’t. You should only re-shore what you can do cost-competitively unless you are certain you would lose access to supply otherwise. While the end goal should be that you only outsource for what you can’t get near, or at, home, the reality is that you have to stay in business, and that means staying competitive. So, at least in the short-term, you have to pick-and-choose. So how do you do that?

What-if cost modelling, optimization, and predictive analytics. You need to accurately model the costs associated with pulling acquisition and production back over time. First production batch, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc. Plot the costs over time and if the trend indicates the costs will match the outsourcing/offshoring costs within a few years, you go for it. These costs will require predicting all the component costs with predictive trend analytics, building detailed cost models, and optimizing them against all the different options. A lot of modelling, calculation, and what-if. But if you have the right advanced sourcing platform it can be done. (Although you will need to reach out to platform and modelling experts to figure out how.)

In the interim, for those of you panicking in the USA, just remember that some of the proposed tariffs is just posturing to force American allies to give into other US demands (more defence/border spending, less tariffs for US products). Others are promises to take revenge on countries that didn’t play nice or line certain pockets the last time the administration was in charge, unless those countries do exactly what is asked this time around. Thus, you don’t know exactly what will happen, all you know is that, since not everyone will meet the demands, more tariffs are coming. (And even if the worst don’t come now, who knows what the administration in four years will bring. Tariffs are coming!) That means you can’t select alternative locations ahead of time, or predict when to pre-buy. Moreover, you can only hold so much inventory, and can only get so much here so fast, so pre-buying wouldn’t help much anyway, if it helped at all.

The only sure fire way to minimize tariffs over time is to start re-shoring what you can relatively cost-effectively, as that will protect you no matter what, and even though it will take time, it will payoff in the long run. (And again, to be blunt, you should have started this fifteen years ago when Sourcing Innovation first started echoing the warnings of the inevitable disruptions that were going to come from too much off-shoring if a significant event happened, and now that we have had multiple — COVID, “special military operations” and sanctions, logistics challenges in Panama and the Red Sea, and now anti-trade policies in many countries — it’s time to act before even more disruptive events happen).

Another BRIC in the wall!

We don’t need no education!
We don’t need no thought control.

And we don’t need no American Dollar.
We don’t need no OPEC zone.
No cold war dogma in the classroom.
No arbitrary acetone!

As a result of “first-world” “western” policies, “populist” politics, arbitrary “sanctions” (which are then bypassed through intermediaries), arbitrarily choosing of sides, forced “democracies” (even though the ring-leader isn’t a democracy), etc., many countries are getting fed up of the “West” and petitioning to join the BRICS. What started as a union of Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2006 (and then expanded to South Africa in 2010), this year saw Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates join the ranks after being invited to join on January 1. (This followed reports last year that over 40 countries have expressed interest in BRICS, and almost half of that number have bid for membership.)

As of now, the BRICS countries represent roughly 45% of the world’s population and 28% of the world’s economy. (That’s more than the US portion of roughly 25% or the EU portion of roughly 19%, and way more than the UK’s portion of about 2%.) Within a few years, the BRICS will likely gobble up a considerable portion of the 26% not in the EU, and could soon represent close to 50% of the world’s GDP and 80% of the world’s population).

A seismic shift is coming and the BRICS, especially if they adopt a central currency, will soon set the global economic standard (despite the denials of the US and EU). Are you ready? (Answer: you’re not, but you should start preparing your global supply chains now so you are when the time comes.)

I don’t need no arms around me
And I don’t need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don’t think I need anything at all.
No! Don’t think I’ll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just the new BRICS in the wall.
All in all you were all just the new BRICS in the wall.

Sourcing Success in these Turbulent Times Require Long Term Planning and Cost Concessions

In a McKinsey article a few months back on How medium-size enterprises can better manage sources, McKinsey said that small and medium-size enterprises often struggle to find Procurement cost savings. Yet there are ways to do it while still pursing growth and providing a superior customer experience. The article, which concluded with an action plan for procurement cost savings, recommended:

  • establishing CoE teams
  • improving forecasting
  • expanding (the) use of digital procurement tools
  • gaining greater market intelligence
  • establishing a culture of — and process for — continuous cost improvement
  • incorporating supplier-driven product improvements

which, of course, are all great suggestions, and mostly address four of the five reasons that McKinsey give that prevent companies from reining in spending, which included

  • a lack of spending transparency (which would have to be corrected to improve forecasting)
  • talent gaps (which can be minimized with the right tools, market intelligence, and CoE teams)
  • underused digital tools and automation (which is directly addressed by using more of them)
  • exclusion of procurement and supply chain in business decision (which would hopefully be a byproduct of a corporate culture for continuous cost improvement that only happens when procurement and supply chain is not involved higher up)

but the fifth is largely unaddressed — the myopic focus on the short term which McKinsey claims could be addressed by putting more effort into planning and forecasting. But that doesn’t solve the problem.

Better forecasting will allow for longer contracts to be signed for higher volumes, which can lead to long term strategic supplier relationships, and better planning can allow this to happen, but this does not completely address the need for long term planning.

Supply Chains today are not the supply chains of the last ten to twenty years.

  • rare earths are even rarer
  • many critical raw materials are in increasingly limited or short supply
  • transportation can be unpredictable in availability and cost; even though most of the world declared COVID over in mid-2022, China still had mandatory lockdowns, ocean carriers scrapped many of their ships for insurance (and in some cases, post-panamax ships that had never made a single voyage), airlines furloughed too many pilots who found other jobs or just flat out retired, and the long-haul trucking in North America (the UK, and many first-world countries) has been on a steady decline for over a deacde
  • ESG/GHG/Carbon Requirements are escalating around the globe and you need to be in compliance (both in terms of reporting 1/2/3 and ensuring you don’t exceed any caps)
  • human/labour rights are escalating and you have to be able to trace compliance down to the source in some jurisdictions; you need suppliers who insist on the same visibility that you do
  • diversity is important not just to meet arbitrary requirements for government programs or arbitrary internal goals, but to ensure you have the right insight and expertise to solve all types of problems that might arise

And you can’t effectively address any of these problems unless you think long term AND accept that some of the solutions will cost more up front.

  • In mid November, the trading price for Neodymium (a rare-earth that is critical for the creation of strong permanent magnets, which makes it possible to miniaturize many electronic devices, including the [smart]phone you might be reading this on) was over $87,000 USD/mt. In comparison, hot roll steel was around $850 USD/mt. In other words, Neodymium was 100 times more expensive than steel. And while you can still buy steel for about the same price you could 10 years ago (it was around $900 USD/mt), Neodynmium is almost $20,000 more (as it was around $69,000 USD/mt in November 2013). It’s not the only rare earth to increase about 26% in 10 years, with further increases on the horizon. You need to have a strategy to minimize your need (which could include product redesigns that use more sustainable alternatives or recycling strategies that use recovered materials from older phone models). And when it comes to recycled materials, due to a historical lack of recycling efforts, or research into technologies to make recycling efficient and cost effective, recycled materials are almost always more expensive at first. Always. But as adoption increases, plants, technologies, and processes get more efficient, and the cost goes down (while, at the same time, raw material prices for materials in limited supply continue to go up). In other words, if you want to mitigate the ever-increasing costs for rare earths and other materials that are in limited supply, you have to incorporate the use of recycled materials, and maybe even invest in your own plants (and recycle your own phones you buy back because it’s cheaper just to buy them back and extract the rare earths yourself than buy the recycled rare earths from someone else).
  • Global trade is costly and unpredictable. Supply assurance is finally dictating near-sourcing and home-sourcing (which SI has been advocating for almost fifteen years, as inevitable disaster was the logical conclusion of outsourcing everything to China as eventually a pandemic, global spat, natural disaster, or other event would send shockwaves through the world when it severely disrupted the trade routes [because even though the chances of a pandemic, natural disaster on the scale of Krakatoa or the Valdivia earthquake, or another catastrophic event is minimal in any given year, over the course of a century, it becomes very likely]), and that is going to require re-investing in those Mexican factories (that worked just fine, by the way) you shut down twenty years ago, training appropriately skilled workers in low cost North American (or Eastern Europe) locales, and paying a bit more per unit (and even transportation until the carriers rebuild those routes). But in the long term, as global transportation costs continue to rise, and the local-ish resources get much more efficient (using the best technology we have to offer), your costs, and transportation risks, will go down while your competitor costs continue to go up.
  • if you don’t insist, and ensure, up front that your suppliers can report the data you need, how will you get it; chances are those suppliers need help and modern systems, which temporarily increase their operational costs as they install, integrate, and learn the systems; not more than a few cents here and there per unit, but a noticeable blip on the overall costs none-the-less
  • if you want suppliers that monitor their supply chain and insist on no slave/forced/child labour, appropriately treated and well paid labour, and, better yet, a community focus throughout the supply chain (so that the humans who mine the materials, harvest the food stuffs, weave the silk, or otherwise do the foundational work have a reasonable quality of life, health, and safety), you’re going to have to put the effort in to find them and the extra money to support them in their humanitarian efforts; since most of these workers in remote low-cost locales are paid pennies on your dollar, it’s another blip on the total cost to ensure they are paid every penny they deserve, but it’s still a blip; but you can’t afford not to do it if your jurisdiction has laws making you responsible for slave labour that later gets discovered in your supply chain
  • and while diversity shouldn’t cost more, since it’s the same number of employees, the reality is that the supply base embracing it could be a minority, and if these minority suppliers suddenly become in demand, market dynamics may kick in and they may charge a premium that your competitor will pay; but, as new challenges continue to arise, you will need the diversity to solve them; so, another blip in the cost you need to absorb

In other words, you need the long term focus to guarantee success, and you need to understand that, up front, it may cost a bit more. However, done right, your costs will decrease over time while your competitors’ costs skyrocket. So if you truly want success, in any high dollar, strategic, or emerging category, plan for the long term. And you will truly succeed.