2222222222

Supply Chain Risks

The Risks of Reshoring

Manufacturing’s return will require re-evaluating insurance programs, challenging underwriters to analyze new risks.
By: | April 7, 2017 • 6 min read

President Donald Trump pledged to create millions of jobs in the American economy. To achieve this goal he wants to convince companies to bring back the bulk of their supply chains to the United States.

But promoting the reshoring of manufacturing will be a hard task and, in order to accelerate this process, Trump looks set to experiment with policy measures that should have significant effect on the operations of multinational companies. The government can, for instance, implement tax reforms to reward companies that invest in America, or impose punitive tariffs on goods imported from suppliers located abroad.

Advertisement




Trump can also use his well-known persuasion skills to shame firms into creating jobs at home, rather than elsewhere in the world. The latter strategy may already have borne fruit earlier this year with the likes of Ford Motor Co. and Carrier, which shelved plans to expand their production lines in Mexico, opting to invest in Michigan and Indiana instead.

Either way, the government appears to mean business.

“It does the American economy no long-term good to only keep the big box factories where we are now assembling ‘American’ products that are composed primarily of foreign components,” Peter Navarro, the head of the White House National Trade Council, told the “Financial Times” in January. “We need to manufacture those components in a robust domestic supply chain that will spur job and wage growth.”

“Costs have gone up significantly since the big outsourcing wave started some 15 years ago, and the economic advantages have narrowed.” – J. Paul Dittmann, executive director, Global Supply Chain Institute at the University of Tennessee

If the administration manages to deliver on its promises, companies will have to review the way they deal with supply chain risks. Experts have warned, for example, that workers’ compensation issues could become a more important factor across their supply chain, and insurance programs could become more expensive as insurance coverages tend to be more comprehensive, and premiums higher, in America than in developing nations. But opportunities could also arise, for example in terms of lower transportation costs and proximity to the final consumer.

In fact, although the subject has gained plenty of attention due to the Trump government’s protectionist views, the reversal of the globalization of supply chains has been going on for some time already, said J. Paul Dittmann, the executive director at the Global Supply Chain Institute at the University of Tennessee.

“It is a trend that is already very strong and seems to be growing,” he said. The reasons for this movement are manifold. Higher geopolitical risks have increased the threat of disruption of supply chains around the world in ways that companies did not anticipate some years ago. Dealing with corrupt authorities in the developing world involves plenty of risks of falling afoul with American courts, and economies like China offer less of a cost advantage these days, as income and wage expectations are beginning to catch up with developed economies.

“Costs have gone up significantly since the big outsourcing wave started some 15 years ago, and the economic advantages have narrowed,” Dittmann said. “Many companies have been over-optimistic in their cost analysis, and they often do not fully understand the inventory impact of long distance outsourcing.”

Restructuring Supply Chains

SCM, a think-tank that publishes an annual study on the subject, observed that local-for-local supply chain management strategies have gained popularity among companies since 2012.
Furthermore, the argument that focuses on jobs creation was also played by the Barack Obama administration, and the Economic Development Agency has funded reshoring initiatives for several years already.

That said, Dittmann warned that the movement back to the United States must be a natural one, driven by economic factors, and not by government arm-twisting.

If the authorities want to give the phenomenon a boost, it should address tax and regulatory constraints to the operation of companies in the country, he said.

“To force supply chains into a certain region does not make a lot of sense, and it could put American companies into a position of disadvantage,” he said.

Protective measures could drive production costs up, as wages in America remain much higher than in countries that are vital supply chain markets, such as Mexico or China.

Experts have stressed that industries like consumer electronics, high tech and footwear could suffer considerable impact if restrictive actions are taken against China, while the automotive sector is exposed to any new tariffs on imports from Mexico.

Furthermore, tit-for-tat reactions from foreign governments could restrict the access of American companies to export markets, and retaliation from China would be bad news, for example, for the aerospace industry.

The rise of protectionism, not only in the U.S., but also in Europe and other parts of the world has actually been highlighted by the latest annual report on the matter by the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply as a major factor behind an increase in supply chain risks.

Logan Payne, assistant vice president, global client services group, Lockton

The moving of supply chain links from emerging economies to the U.S. should also have a significant effect on the insurance programs of international companies.

It will require them to restructure their programs in order to reflect a broader American footprint, replacing local coverages purchased in foreign markets with others purchased in the U.S., and sometimes acquiring policies that are not really needed in other markets.

That’s the case, for example, with workers’ compensation policies, said Logan Payne, the assistant vice president in Lockton’s global client services group. “In some countries, workers’ compensation is covered by social security systems, while here it is necessary to purchase a separate insurance policy,” he said.

Working mostly in the United States also means that a higher share of a company’s activities will be exposed to a legal system where jury awards are much higher than elsewhere. Therefore, liability programs could become more expensive as local policies purchased abroad are replaced with American ones, Payne said.

The concentration of the supply chain in a single region also means a concentration of business interruption risks. As such, it increases the risk that production will suffer major disruption, if a large event hits one of the supply chain’s links.

On the other hand, risks linked to the shipment and transportation of goods and raw materials should be less of a worry, Payne said.

Advertisement




“With a more regionalized supply chain, where supplies are much closer and there is less need for transoceanic cargo shipment, transportation is one area where insurance costs should be reduced,” he said.

An additional complication is that decisions about supply chains, more than ever, now entail a significant level of reputational risk.

“The basic message is to be more national, don’t just be global,” Richard Edelman, CEO of marketing firm Edelman, told Reuters during the World Economic Forum in Davos.

“Let’s try and pre-empt that tweet by having a long-term discussion about the supply chain.” &

Rodrigo Amaral is a freelance writer specializing in Latin American and European risk management and insurance markets. He can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Cyber Resilience

No, Seriously. You Need a Comprehensive Cyber Incident Response Plan Before It’s Too Late.

Awareness of cyber risk is increasing, but some companies may be neglecting to prepare adequate response plans that could save them millions. 
By: | June 1, 2018 • 7 min read

To minimize the financial and reputational damage from a cyber attack, it is absolutely critical that businesses have a cyber incident response plan.

“Sadly, not all yet do,” said David Legassick, head of life sciences, tech and cyber, CNA Hardy.

Advertisement




In the event of a breach, a company must be able to quickly identify and contain the problem, assess the level of impact, communicate internally and externally, recover where possible any lost data or functionality needed to resume business operations and act quickly to manage potential reputational risk.

This can only be achieved with help from the right external experts and the design and practice of a well-honed internal response.

The first step a company must take, said Legassick, is to understand its cyber exposures through asset identification, classification, risk assessment and protection measures, both technological and human.

According to Raf Sanchez, international breach response manager, Beazley, cyber-response plans should be flexible and applicable to a wide range of incidents, “not just a list of consecutive steps.”

They also should bring together key stakeholders and specify end goals.

Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions

With bad actors becoming increasingly sophisticated and often acting in groups, attack vectors can hit companies from multiple angles simultaneously, meaning a holistic approach is essential, agreed Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions.

“Collaboration is key — you have to take silos down and work in a cross-functional manner.”

This means assembling a response team including individuals from IT, legal, operations, risk management, HR, finance and the board — each of whom must be well drilled in their responsibilities in the event of a breach.

“You can’t pick your players on the day of the game,” said Hogg. “Response times are critical, so speed and timing are of the essence. You should also have a very clear communication plan to keep the CEO and board of directors informed of recommended courses of action and timing expectations.”

People on the incident response team must have sufficient technical skills and access to critical third parties to be able to make decisions and move to contain incidents fast. Knowledge of the company’s data and network topology is also key, said Legassick.

“Perhaps most important of all,” he added, “is to capture in detail how, when, where and why an incident occurred so there is a feedback loop that ensures each threat makes the cyber defense stronger.”

Cyber insurance can play a key role by providing a range of experts such as forensic analysts to help manage a cyber breach quickly and effectively (as well as PR and legal help). However, the learning process should begin before a breach occurs.

Practice Makes Perfect

“Any incident response plan is only as strong as the practice that goes into it,” explained Mike Peters, vice president, IT, RIMS — who also conducts stress testing through his firm Sentinel Cyber Defense Advisors.

Advertisement




Unless companies have an ethical hacker or certified information security officer on board who can conduct sophisticated simulated attacks, Peters recommended they hire third-party experts to test their networks for weaknesses, remediate these issues and retest again for vulnerabilities that haven’t been patched or have newly appeared.

“You need to plan for every type of threat that’s out there,” he added.

Hogg agreed that bringing third parties in to conduct tests brings “fresh thinking, best practice and cross-pollination of learnings from testing plans across a multitude of industries and enterprises.”

“Collaboration is key — you have to take silos down and work in a cross-functional manner.” — Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions

Legassick added that companies should test their plans at least annually, updating procedures whenever there is a significant change in business activity, technology or location.

“As companies expand, cyber security is not always front of mind, but new operations and territories all expose a company to new risks.”

For smaller companies that might not have the resources or the expertise to develop an internal cyber response plan from whole cloth, some carriers offer their own cyber risk resources online.

Evan Fenaroli, an underwriting product manager with the Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY), said his company hosts an eRiskHub, which gives PHLY clients a place to start looking for cyber event response answers.

That includes access to a pool of attorneys who can guide company executives in creating a plan.

“It’s something at the highest level that needs to be a priority,” Fenaroli said. For those just getting started, Fenaroli provided a checklist for consideration:

  • Purchase cyber insurance, read the policy and understand its notice requirements.
  • Work with an attorney to develop a cyber event response plan that you can customize to your business.
  • Identify stakeholders within the company who will own the plan and its execution.
  • Find outside forensics experts that the company can call in an emergency.
  • Identify a public relations expert who can be called in the case of an event that could be leaked to the press or otherwise become newsworthy.

“When all of these things fall into place, the outcome is far better in that there isn’t a panic,” said Fenaroli, who, like others, recommends the plan be tested at least annually.

Cyber’s Physical Threat

With the digital and physical worlds converging due to the rise of the Internet of Things, Hogg reminded companies: “You can’t just test in the virtual world — testing physical end-point security is critical too.”

Advertisement




How that testing is communicated to underwriters should also be a key focus, said Rich DePiero, head of cyber, North America, Swiss Re Corporate Solutions.

Don’t just report on what went well; it’s far more believable for an underwriter to hear what didn’t go well, he said.

“If I hear a client say it is perfect and then I look at some of the results of the responses to breaches last year, there is a disconnect. Help us understand what you learned and what you worked out. You want things to fail during these incident response tests, because that is how we learn,” he explained.

“Bringing in these outside firms, detailing what they learned and defining roles and responsibilities in the event of an incident is really the best practice, and we are seeing more and more companies do that.”

Support from the Board

Good cyber protection is built around a combination of process, technology, learning and people. While not every cyber incident needs to be reported to the boardroom, senior management has a key role in creating a culture of planning and risk awareness.

David Legassick, head of life sciences, tech and cyber, CNA Hardy

“Cyber is a boardroom risk. If it is not taken seriously at boardroom level, you are more than likely to suffer a network breach,” Legassick said.

However, getting board buy-in or buy-in from the C-suite is not always easy.

“C-suite executives often put off testing crisis plans as they get in the way of the day job. The irony here is obvious given how disruptive an incident can be,” said Sanchez.

“The C-suite must demonstrate its support for incident response planning and that it expects staff at all levels of the organization to play their part in recovering from serious incidents.”

“What these people need from the board is support,” said Jill Salmon, New York-based vice president, head of cyber/tech/MPL, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance.

“I don’t know that the information security folks are looking for direction from the board as much as they are looking for support from a resources standpoint and a visibility standpoint.

“They’ve got to be aware of what they need and they need to have the money to be able to build it up to that level,” she said.

Without that support, according to Legassick, failure to empower and encourage the IT team to manage cyber threats holistically through integration with the rest of the organization, particularly risk managers, becomes a common mistake.

He also warned that “blame culture” can prevent staff from escalating problems to management in a timely manner.

Collaboration and Communication

Given that cyber incident response truly is a team effort, it is therefore essential that a culture of collaboration, preparation and practice is embedded from the top down.

Advertisement




One of the biggest tripping points for companies — and an area that has done the most damage from a reputational perspective — is in how quickly and effectively the company communicates to the public in the aftermath of a cyber event.

Salmon said of all the cyber incident response plans she has seen, the companies that have impressed her most are those that have written mock press releases and rehearsed how they are going to respond to the media in the aftermath of an event.

“We have seen so many companies trip up in that regard,” she said. “There have been examples of companies taking too long and then not explaining why it took them so long. It’s like any other crisis — the way that you are communicating it to the public is really important.” &

Antony Ireland is a London-based financial journalist. He can be reached at [email protected] Dan Reynolds is editor-in-chief of Risk & Insurance. He can be reached at [email protected]