Building resilience into the supply chain: interview with Yossi Sheffi
In his new book, The Power of Resilience, MIT professor Yossi Sheffi looks at how businesses can anticipate, prepare for, and respond to disruptive events.
Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
How vulnerable is your supply chain? What can you do to protect it from disruptions, especially those you cannot anticipate? These questions take on more and more urgency in an age of complex global supply chains, where events in one region can disrupt the operations of businesses and their customers on the other side of the world.
In his new book, The Power of Resilience: How the Best Companies Manage the Unexpected, Yossi Sheffi examines what many companies have done—and are doing—to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to disruptions that can range from earthquakes to hurricanes to cyberattacks to issues with sourcing that could harm business reputations.
The book is Sheffi's second on the topic of resilience. His first, The Resilient Enterprise, was published in 2005 in response to the 9/11 attacks. In the intervening decade, much has changed in both the landscape of supply chain risks and the implementation of corporate resiliency programs, Sheffi says. The new book looks at what companies have learned since that time and at new threats that have arisen.
Sheffi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, discussed the new book and supply chain resilience with DCV Editorial Director Peter Bradley. This is an edited and condensed version of the interview.
Q: What led you to decide it was time for a second book on the topic of resilience?
A: The first book was motivated by 9/11, looking at what companies were doing to prepare for disruption. When I started work on that book, I figured I'd begin by seeing what had already been written about this topic and I found nothing on logistics, supply chain, and transportation—in academic writing, at least. Since I didn't have any literature to draw from, I did research. I talked to well over a hundred companies. That research, which took four years and involved 30 people, led to the first book.
Then, when I was out talking to companies a few years back, more and more people were telling me, "Look, it's time for a new book because the threats are becoming more serious and more frequent, but we're also becoming a lot better at a number of new activities and processes, and (business continuity planning) has been taken to a higher level in corporations." So I put together a team and starting working on the new book.
Q: You write in the preface that we shouldn't look at this book as a sequel or a new edition of the original, that it really is something different. Tell me how.
A: It looks at a whole new set of threats that I didn't cover very much in the first book. For example, think about cybersecurity problems. Ten years ago, we were just starting to hear about cybersecurity problems. Today, "cyber" is a weapon. Many physical systems are being run by digital means and can be attacked.
It also became very important to talk about social and environmental responsibility: (the factory fires) in Bangladesh; the conflict mineral issues, which forced Intel and Apple to go to this very deep level—10 to 12 tiers deep—in the supply chain to find out where these minerals were coming from. This became a real corporate reputational risk. And, of course, there have been things like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that changed a lot of companies' views on risk and their own vulnerability to disruption.
In the new book, I also emphasize a point that I did not make and should have made last time that people always look at the top right corner [in a quadrant chart of possible disruptions and estimations of their likelihood and impact] where the probability (of an event) is high and the consequences are high, but that is the wrong place to look. Companies prepare for these events, and as a result, although the impacts could be severe, they are not that high because companies are ready for them. I point out the really worrisome quadrant is the high-consequence/very-low-probability corner because this is the "black swan." This is the 2008 financial meltdown. This is 9/11. This is Chernobyl. These are the things that nobody expected and nobody knew how to deal with. And the question is, how do you prepare for things that you cannot even imagine, things that you don't even know that you don't know. A lot of the issues in the book have to do with general preparation or general resilience for what you can't even imagine because it never happened to you, to your competitors, or to other people in the industry.
Another change that is introduced to this framework is what I call "detectability"—the time from when you know something is going to happen to the first impact. Think of the classic example, a hurricane. You know three days before we see the storm.
But you (also) have to prepare for something that you only find out about after the fact. Think about some sabotage, some people stealing trade secrets, some cyberbug in your system.
There are a lot of new software applications that didn't exist 10 years ago that are designed to alert you as soon as something happens and tell you what the implications are, what the value risk is, which customers and products will be affected, and what problems you're going to have. I cover some of these new software applications in the book.
Q: You talked a few minutes ago about how while the risks are higher today, we have also learned a lot. What have we learned over the last 10 years that we've been able to put to work to help mitigate risks?
A: In terms of things that you can point to, such as an earthquake in an area that's prone to quakes or floods, you have to prepare for things that have happened before and can happen again. What is the communication plan? How should you notify whoever it is: the customers, Wall Street, suppliers, whatever? Who should be notified? Who should be involved in making up the plan? How do you respond?
The other side is the completely unexpected situation where you don't know what to do beyond general resilience measures. For this, you first of all have to have an emergency response operation and you have to have all the communications lines. The number one thing is what I said: You have to know who to call. Who should be the people to man these emergency operations? In a manufacturing company, it should be basically two functions, supply chain management and engineering.
Supply chain management should focus on inventory—looking at how to acquire more supplies where needed and seeking alternative suppliers. Engineering should look for damage solutions. Can we replace a component with another part? How do we qualify another part and so forth?
In general, the response should be two-pronged and involve two separate teams. One team should deal with the people. What is the impact on people? How do we find everybody? How do we deal with our suppliers? The other team should deal with business continuity issues. Because otherwise, depending on the nature of the team, they pay too much attention to one or the other.
Q: Let me go back to risk assessment for a moment. You talked about Intel and how deeply it had to dig to find out where its minerals come from. How does a company find out the risk deep in its supply chain, in its tier three, four, or five?
A: Oh, there was talk about a tier 12 or something. Anyway, Intel learned that four metals used in electronic products might be "conflict minerals," metals that have been mined under conditions of coercion and violence, and mobilized a team to ensure that its operations were "conflict free." The first question was, "Are we using conflict minerals?" But nobody knew. So the company started going backward in the supply chain, and it realized that it had to go back to about level five or six. Beyond this, you cannot tell where a material is coming from because the supplier gets it from multiple sources and just mixes it all together.
Intel decided to focus on the smelters and make sure the smelters' brokers only bought from approved mines. The thought was the company was not going to buy anything from mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but that would just throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work in a very poor country. So it couldn't do that.
So then it went to the smelters and tried to convince them to do it, but the problem is, as big as Intel is, it is not a very big customer of the smelter. And the smelter says, "I am not selling to you. I'm selling to some broker who then sells to another customer, who sells it to some other company." So Intel put together an industry consortium [the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition]. And it paid the smelters to qualify certain mines so it knew where minerals were coming from. It took Intel years, by the way.
Q: One of the arguments you make in the book is that by looking at your risk, by preparing for risk, you actually strengthen the entire enterprise. Expand on that a bit.
A: For an example, there is Intel. It had to map its entire supply chain. Knowing who the people upstream are, you not only get risk protection—the sense that if something happened to one of them, you know what the implications are—but you also learn more about what's going on in the supply chain. You start understanding your own supply chain a lot better, which always brings good things.
Worldwide air cargo rates rose to a 2024 high in November of $2.76 per kilo, despite a slight (-2%) drop in flown tonnages compared with October, according to analysis by WorldACD Market data.
The healthy rate comes as demand and pricing both remain significantly above their already elevated levels last November, the Dutch firm said.
The new figures reflect worldwide air cargo markets that remain relatively strong, including shipments originating in the Asia Pacific, but where good advance planning by air cargo stakeholders looks set to avert a major peak season capacity crunch and very steep rate rises in the final weeks of the year, WorldACD said.
Despite that effective planning, average worldwide rates in November rose by 6% month on month (MoM), based on a full-market average of spot rates and contract rates, taking them to their highest level since January 2023 and 11% higher, year on year (YoY). The biggest MoM increases came from Europe (+10%) and Central & South America (+9%) origins, based on the more than 450,000 weekly transactions covered by WorldACD’s data.
But overall global tonnages in November were down -2%, MoM, with the biggest percentage decline coming from Middle East & South Asia (-11%) origins, which have been highly elevated for most of this year. But the -4%, MoM, decrease from Europe origins was responsible for a similar drop in tonnage terms – reflecting reduced passenger belly capacity since the start of aviation’s winter season from 27 October, including cuts in passenger services by European carriers to and from China.
Each of those points could have a stark impact on business operations, the firm said. First, supply chain restrictions will continue to drive up costs, following examples like European tariffs on Chinese autos and the U.S. plan to prevent Chinese software and hardware from entering cars in America.
Second, reputational risk will peak due to increased corporate transparency and due diligence laws, such as Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act that addresses hotpoint issues like modern slavery, forced labor, human trafficking, and environmental damage. In an age when polarized public opinion is combined with ever-present social media, doing business with a supplier whom a lot of your customers view negatively will be hard to navigate.
And third, advances in data, technology, and supplier risk assessments will enable executives to measure the impact of disruptions more effectively. Those calculations can help organizations determine whether their risk mitigation strategies represent value for money when compared to the potential revenues losses in the event of a supply chain disruption.
“Looking past the holidays, retailers will need to prepare for the typical challenges posed by seasonal slowdown in consumer demand. This year, however, there will be much less of a lull, as U.S. companies are accelerating some purchases that could potentially be impacted by a new wave of tariffs on U.S. imports,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management Solutions at Moody’s, said in a release. “Tariffs, sanctions and other supply chain restrictions will likely be top of the 2025 agenda for procurement executives.”
As holiday shoppers blitz through the final weeks of the winter peak shopping season, a survey from the postal and shipping solutions provider Stamps.com shows that 40% of U.S. consumers are unaware of holiday shipping deadlines, leaving them at risk of running into last-minute scrambles, higher shipping costs, and packages arriving late.
The survey also found a generational difference in holiday shipping deadline awareness, with 53% of Baby Boomers unaware of these cut-off dates, compared to just 32% of Millennials. Millennials are also more likely to prioritize guaranteed delivery, with 68% citing it as a key factor when choosing a shipping option this holiday season.
Of those surveyed, 66% have experienced holiday shipping delays, with Gen Z reporting the highest rate of delays at 73%, compared to 49% of Baby Boomers. That statistical spread highlights a conclusion that younger generations are less tolerant of delays and prioritize fast and efficient shipping, researchers said. The data came from a study of 1,000 U.S. consumers conducted in October 2024 to understand their shopping habits and preferences.
As they cope with that tight shipping window, a huge 83% of surveyed consumers are willing to pay extra for faster shipping to avoid the prospect of a late-arriving gift. This trend is especially strong among Gen Z, with 56% willing to pay up, compared to just 27% of Baby Boomers.
“As the holiday season approaches, it’s crucial for consumers to be prepared and aware of shipping deadlines to ensure their gifts arrive on time,” Nick Spitzman, General Manager of Stamps.com, said in a release. ”Our survey highlights the significant portion of consumers who are unaware of these deadlines, particularly older generations. It’s essential for retailers and shipping carriers to provide clear and timely information about shipping deadlines to help consumers avoid last-minute stress and disappointment.”
For best results, Stamps.com advises consumers to begin holiday shopping early and familiarize themselves with shipping deadlines across carriers. That is especially true with Thanksgiving falling later this year, meaning the holiday season is shorter and planning ahead is even more essential.
According to Stamps.com, key shipping deadlines include:
December 13, 2024: Last day for FedEx Ground Economy
December 18, 2024: Last day for USPS Ground Advantage and First-Class Mail
December 19, 2024: Last day for UPS 3 Day Select and USPS Priority Mail
December 20, 2024: Last day for UPS 2nd Day Air
December 21, 2024: Last day for USPS Priority Mail Express
Measured over the entire year of 2024, retailers estimate that 16.9% of their annual sales will be returned. But that total figure includes a spike of returns during the holidays; a separate NRF study found that for the 2024 winter holidays, retailers expect their return rate to be 17% higher, on average, than their annual return rate.
Despite the cost of handling that massive reverse logistics task, retailers grin and bear it because product returns are so tightly integrated with brand loyalty, offering companies an additional touchpoint to provide a positive interaction with their customers, NRF Vice President of Industry and Consumer Insights Katherine Cullen said in a release. According to NRF’s research, 76% of consumers consider free returns a key factor in deciding where to shop, and 67% say a negative return experience would discourage them from shopping with a retailer again. And 84% of consumers report being more likely to shop with a retailer that offers no box/no label returns and immediate refunds.
So in response to consumer demand, retailers continue to enhance the return experience for customers. More than two-thirds of retailers surveyed (68%) say they are prioritizing upgrading their returns capabilities within the next six months. In addition, improving the returns experience and reducing the return rate are viewed as two of the most important elements for businesses in achieving their 2025 goals.
However, retailers also must balance meeting consumer demand for seamless returns against rising costs. Fraudulent and abusive returns practices create both logistical and financial challenges for retailers. A majority (93%) of retailers said retail fraud and other exploitive behavior is a significant issue for their business. In terms of abuse, bracketing – purchasing multiple items with the intent to return some – has seen growth among younger consumers, with 51% of Gen Z consumers indicating they engage in this practice.
“Return policies are no longer just a post-purchase consideration – they’re shaping how younger generations shop from the start,” David Sobie, co-founder and CEO of Happy Returns, said in a release. “With behaviors like bracketing and rising return rates putting strain on traditional systems, retailers need to rethink reverse logistics. Solutions like no box/no label returns with item verification enable immediate refunds, meeting customer expectations for convenience while increasing accuracy, reducing fraud and helping to protect profitability in a competitive market.”
The research came from two complementary surveys conducted this fall, allowing NRF and Happy Returns to compare perspectives from both sides. They included one that gathered responses from 2,007 consumers who had returned at least one online purchase within the past year, and another from 249 e-commerce and finance professionals from large U.S. retailers.
The “series A” round was led by Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), with participation from Y Combinator and strategic industry investors, including RyderVentures. It follows an earlier, previously undisclosed, pre-seed round raised 1.5 years ago, that was backed by Array Ventures and other angel investors.
“Our mission is to redefine the economics of the freight industry by harnessing the power of agentic AI,ˮ Pablo Palafox, HappyRobotʼs co-founder and CEO, said in a release. “This funding will enable us to accelerate product development, expand and support our customer base, and ultimately transform how logistics businesses operate.ˮ
According to the firm, its conversational AI platform uses agentic AI—a term for systems that can autonomously make decisions and take actions to achieve specific goals—to simplify logistics operations. HappyRobot says its tech can automate tasks like inbound and outbound calls, carrier negotiations, and data capture, thus enabling brokers to enhance efficiency and capacity, improve margins, and free up human agents to focus on higher-value activities.
“Today, the logistics industry underpinning our global economy is stretched,” Anish Acharya, general partner at a16z, said. “As a key part of the ecosystem, even small to midsize freight brokers can make and receive hundreds, if not thousands, of calls per day – and hiring for this job is increasingly difficult. By providing customers with autonomous decision making, HappyRobotʼs agentic AI platform helps these brokers operate more reliably and efficiently.ˮ