Europe still builds world-class universities. It still produces great engineers. But in AI and robotics hiring, it has stopped producing the strongest candidates. That is the uncomfortable assessment now circulating across global supply chain and technology leadership circles, and the debate it sparked runs far deeper than one recruiter’s experience.

The discussion opened with a hiring anecdote out of Shenzhen. A young headhunter specializing in AI and robotics told peers that ETH and EPFL graduates are no longer her top candidates. She cited a Cambridge graduate who went through nine interviews and failed all nine. The client feedback was consistent. “Too much theory, not enough real building.” The story landed because it confirmed a pattern that operators, researchers, and executives had been seeing independently. Within days, the post by Fei Yu, a trusted talent advisor in executive search, drew commentary from China, Europe, and emerging markets. The consensus was uncomfortable for Europe. The disagreements were mostly about how uncomfortable.

Ecosystem, Not Talent

The central claim that emerged was that this is not a talent competition anymore. It is an ecosystem competition. In AI, execution is becoming the new intelligence. The US leads. China is catching up fast. Europe is behind in speed, capital, and real-world application.

Alexander Shapiro, a Head of Strategy, challenged the premise that Europe still holds the academic edge. “What is your justification for claiming ‘Europe still has world class Universities’ especially in the area of AI research and development? I would agree for classic engineering and finance but not AI.”

The counterargument that surfaced in reply was that European universities are not short on talent. They are short on the ecosystem that lets talent work on real projects. That requires government support, capital, and cross-border collaboration at a level Europe has not mobilized.

Seyed Yousefi, an AI architect focused on ASEAN-EU relations, went further. “Europe is a desert for real AI researcher. It feels like we are just waiting for something to happen. We are losing great inventions and talent because there is no real infrastructure here.”

The Translation Gap

The strongest reframing came from Fadzly Moftar, an operational friction strategist working in ports, shipping, and aviation. “What you’re describing is not a talent gap, it’s a translation gap between knowledge and execution.” Intelligence, he argued, used to be measured by what you knew. In AI and robotics, the metric has shifted to what you can build, deploy, and iterate under pressure. “That’s why some graduates struggle, not due to lack of intelligence, but lack of exposure to real friction.” His prescription for Europe: redesign ecosystems where students become builders early, not just graduates. “Execution is no longer the final step. It is the intelligence itself.”

Tanja Dysli, Chief Operations Officer at TVH, drew the same line from the corporate side. “Many AI use cases I have come across are not embedded to support businesses reality (both in US and EU). There is often a far too long, theoretical and complex project phase and no clear answers from the start how AI can improve a companies P&L, down to specific lines.” Her fix was pedagogical. “If we can teach student to marry tech with everyday business reality it will be a game changer.”

Lisa Durst, a supply chain specialist in sourcing and supplier management, confirmed the pattern spreads beyond AI. “This shift from theory to execution is also very visible in operations and supply chain. It’s not just about knowledge, but the ability to make decisions and deliver in real-world situations.”

The China Speed Premium

Several commenters argued that the real differentiator is tempo, not credentials. Sean Upton-McLaughlin, a 15-year veteran inside Chinese organizations including Huawei and vivo, captured it. “This will be no surprise to those who have worked with Chinese companies. They are very practical, focused on execution at speed, and need to see the end result (money).”

Baojun Shi, focused on industrial tech and robotics, warned European companies operating in China to abandon their posture as “mere ‘technology exporters’” and embrace deep localization in R&D and decision-making. His argument: elevate China from a sales market to an “innovation hub” and “global supply chain command center” or lose relevance in a market “where brand halo no longer guarantees success.”

Olga Alekseenko, a program manager with experience at Nestlé and PMI, pushed back on the speed-as-virtue framing. “Maybe it’s not just about speed. In some environments, there’s more focus on getting things right before moving, which can look slower but also builds reliability.” She asked a question few have answered clearly. Is AI already widely used in Chinese business, or is the difference more about how teams approach building and execution?

The Capital and Policy Layer

Sheng S., an investment research specialist in healthcare and energy, widened the frame. “I think this happens in all intelligence oriented sectors like healthcare and energy not just in robotics. It’s no longer about talent, IPs, governance, capital cost, economy policies and control of supply chains, but a purposely built ecosystem that can connect and serve them.” His harder question: how long before China or the US lock in as the next vertically integrated top dog.

Dr. Martin Lockstrom, a professor and consultant, offered the bluntest verdict. “The AI and robotics race is basically already lost. As long as people in Europe are even thinking about things like 4-day working weeks, don’t bother.” He added the reversal neatly. “The tables have turned. You’re in China for talent, and in Europe for low cost.”

Jules Thevenon, Founder and CEO of The Forge Humanoid Robotics, noted the opposite flow. “I’ve also seen many European companies in high-end technology leaving China because labor costs are no longer attractive. For the same cost, they prefer to build in their own countries.” The talent and cost maps are no longer aligned the way they were a decade ago.

Counterpoints

Not everyone accepted the hype map. Miguel Martins, a semiconductor quality and reliability director with experience at Infineon, NVIDIA, and Analog Devices, challenged the geography itself. “The best candidates are not defined by where they come from, but by what they can carry. And the people who can carry the future are far more widely distributed than today’s hype map suggests.”

Dessy Amirudin, who works in data, digital, and technology at Unilever, asked the question few were addressing. “Any comment for the rest of the world? Non US, Non China, Non EU. Do we still have a chance?”

Takeaways for Leaders

Three lessons run through the discussion. First, the hiring bar in AI has moved from credentials to shipped work. Candidates who can build, deploy, and iterate under pressure win.

Second, the ecosystem beats the individual. Talent without capital, real projects, and policy support does not convert.

Third, complacency is the most expensive cost. The firms that lost ground in Shenzhen lost it to speed, not to better talent.

How is your organization redesigning hiring and development so your people learn on real friction, not on theory?

Continue the discussion on Chain.NET, the global supply chain community, at www.chain.net. Ask questions, join events, and access exclusive resources.

Somewhere right now, a supply chain analyst is pulling data from an ERP, a TMS, a WMS and three spreadsheets nobody wants to admit still exist. They are reconciling numbers. Formatting slides. Building a deck for a Monday morning review that will arrive too late to change anything.

The meeting will follow a familiar script. Leaders will spend 80 percent of the time understanding what happened last week. Fill rates. On-time delivery. Freight cost overruns. Supplier nonconformances. By the time someone asks “what should we do about it,” the hour is up.

This ritual plays out every week in supply chain organizations around the world. Hundreds of hours spent assembling the rearview mirror. Almost no time left to look through the windshield.

It does not have to work this way.

The real problem is not data. It is thinking time.

Most supply chain leaders are not short on information. They are short on time to think about what the information means. The data exists. The dashboards exist. What is missing is a layer between raw metrics and strategic decisions.

That layer used to require a team of analysts or an expensive consulting engagement. Today it requires a 30-minute conversation with a large language model.

Not a chatbot. Not a glorified search engine. A properly configured AI supply chain strategist that understands your frameworks, knows your context and reasons through problems the way a seasoned Chief Supply Chain Officer would.

What an AI CSCO actually looks like

You do not need a consulting firm. You do not need custom infrastructure. You do not need a six-figure budget or a six-month implementation timeline.

You need three things.

First, a system prompt. This is the personality and expertise layer. Tell the model it is a senior supply chain strategist with deep expertise across procurement, logistics, demand planning and risk management. Give it frameworks. SCOR metrics. Total cost of ownership thinking. PESTLE dimensions for risk assessment. The Kraljic matrix for category strategy. Whatever mental models you use in your own decision-making, encode them explicitly.

Second, context. Upload your freight rate trends. Paste in your supplier performance data. Feed it your inventory aging report or your latest S&OP deck. The model does not need live access to your ERP. It needs the same information you would hand a sharp consultant on day one of an engagement.

Third, good questions.

“Which three suppliers represent the highest concentration risk in my electronics category?” “If transit times on our Asia-to-Europe lanes increase by 12 days, what is the downstream impact on safety stock for our top 20 SKUs?” “Draft a recommendation for our S&OP meeting on whether to dual-source our five highest-risk single-sourced components.” “Review this freight RFQ response and flag anything that looks off compared to current market benchmarks.”

A well-prompted model will not just answer. It will reason through the problem, identify assumptions, flag what it does not know and structure its response the way a good CSCO would brief a board.

Why this matters now

The gap between supply chain organizations that use AI for decision support and those that do not is widening fast. Not because the technology is expensive. Because the barrier has shifted from budget to knowledge.

Enterprise AI platforms cost millions and take months to deploy. A personal AI supply chain advisor costs almost nothing and takes 30 minutes to build. The difference in capability is smaller than most people assume. The difference in speed is enormous.

The professionals who will lead supply chain functions five years from now are not waiting for IT to approve a platform. They are building their own thinking tools today. Testing prompts. Refining frameworks. Learning what works when you feed a model your actual category data versus generic industry benchmarks.

This is not about replacing the supply chain leader. It is about giving that leader a thought partner that never sleeps, never forgets the framework and can process a 50-page supplier assessment in seconds.

Where to start

Build your AI CSCO in stages. Start with one use case. Pick the meeting you dread preparing for. The monthly business review where you spend two days pulling data and building slides nobody reads past page five. The quarterly supplier review where half the analysis arrives after the decisions have already been made.

Upload that data. Write a prompt that describes the analysis you wish someone would do for you. Iterate. Refine. Add more context in the next round.

Within 30 minutes you will have something that would have taken a consulting team two weeks and a substantial invoice to deliver.

Within a month of regular use you will have a customized supply chain intelligence layer that knows your categories, your risks, your metrics and your decision-making style. It will remember that you care about landed cost not unit price. That your CEO always asks about single-source exposure. That your Southeast Asia suppliers tend to underperform on quality in Q3.

The tool is already here. The only question is whether you build your version this week or wait another quarter for someone else to build it for you.

What does your weekly or monthly supply chain review process look like? Have you started using AI to accelerate your analysis or are you still building decks the old way? Share your experience on Chain.NET.

Ten years ago, supply chain leadership focused on three things: cost, service, and inventory. Today, the role has expanded to include geopolitics, tariffs, network resilience, AI-driven decisions, sustainability, and operational risk.

The job title may still say supply chain. The mandate is increasingly enterprise resilience.

“In many companies, operations has become the front line of enterprise risk management,” wrote Lisa Brown, a Chief Supply Chain Officer with over $180 million in value creation. “The role is evolving from efficiency leader to enterprise operator. And this shift is just getting started.”

The observation sparked extensive discussion among supply chain executives about what the profession has become, what it requires, and why so many organizations are hiring for a role that no longer exists.

The Scope Has Expanded Dramatically

Nuha Luqman, who works in supply chain and procurement for energy ecosystems, captured the magnitude of the shift. “The scope of supply chain leadership has expanded dramatically, but many job descriptions still reflect a world where stability was the default.”

She described the new reality. “Today’s leaders are expected not only to optimize flows, but to anticipate disruptions, interpret global signals, and translate uncertainty into operational decisions. The skill set has quietly shifted from operational excellence to strategic risk navigation.”

Angad Reyar, a global supply chain and eCommerce leader with 26 years of experience and $1.2 billion delivered, proposed a new title that better reflects the role. “Today’s mandate is closer to ‘Chief Network Risk Leader’: someone who can price geopolitical risk into design choices, use AI without outsourcing judgment, and keep track of margin, resilience, and sustainability.”

Tomasz Tyras, a senior supply chain and operations expert, identified what has fundamentally changed. “What has changed most is not only the scope of the role, but the consequence of getting it wrong. Supply chain is no longer a back-end efficiency function. It is where margin, revenue continuity, customer trust, and risk exposure now meet in real time.”

The Hiring Gap

KS Operations, a supply chain management solutions provider, identified a disconnect that explains why performance breaks down. “What I’m seeing is companies still hiring for execution roles, while expecting enterprise-level thinking. That gap is where performance starts to break down.”

They pinpointed the real shift. “The real shift is accountability. Supply chain leaders today are not just managing flow, they’re owning resilience, decision speed, and business continuity.”

Tyras expanded on why hiring processes miss the mark. “Many hiring processes miss the mark. They still screen for functional excellence, while the business actually needs decision quality under volatility. The strongest leaders today are not just operators of flow. They are translators between geopolitics, finance, commercial priorities, and execution.”

Brad Ferrell, an end-to-end supply chain recruiter, confirmed this shift from the hiring side. “I see this as well with clients. Instead of hiring managers asking candidates about savings and bottom-line accomplishments, it’s more about how they have adapted to the external environment.”

Not New, But Newly Critical

Jamie Mayer, a transformational supply chain executive with Lean Six Sigma Black Belt certification, offered historical context. “From being around a while, business continuity plans should have always been in place in supply chain which should cover resilience and managing operational risks. At least post 9/11 if not before, geopolitical risks are not new.”

He acknowledged the renewed focus. “I think COVID brought these back to the forefront but they are not new concepts.”

Björn Holmgren, Global Supply Chain Design Manager at Inter IKEA Group, framed it differently. “It’s not old or new, it is the same but the tradeoff and decision drivers have changed.”

Stanislav Gaida, an operational excellence leader in global supply chain and manufacturing transformation, challenged the framing of old versus new. “I would not fully agree that the 10-year-old model is old, it’s just different dimensions of the same. Every resilience program, every BCP will have a bill at the end, which will change balance of cost, service, cash. So it is not OR, it is AND.”

He emphasized what skilled executives must now deliver. “More than ever proper articulation and decision making of trade-offs is what skilled SC executives should drive in their organizations.”

Cost Still Matters

Craig Yao, Director of Supply Chain and Operations, reminded that fundamentals haven’t disappeared. “Every level of service has a cost, and every level of service has a different effect on net margins and profitability, and where service and cost break even, cost will continue to be part of supply chain management, maybe in a slightly different way.”

Jorge M., a global supply chain operations and transformation leader, framed the choice organizations face. “That’s the difference between considering your supply chain a ‘cost center’ vs a ‘competitive advantage.’ One is a race to the bottom. The other one looks at ROI.”

The Orchestration Challenge

Patrick Webb, Senior Director of Intelligent Industry and Supply Chain Transformation, introduced a useful metaphor. “I think the term ‘Orchestration’ has become more relevant across supply chains. The composer consistently adds more instruments and the conductor leads this deeper complexity.”

He noted the tools have evolved too. “However, the evolution of the instruments such as AI, robotics, integrated applications and human education bring the symphony together in a much more refined manner than 10 years ago. Today’s supply chain leader still needs to learn the colours and practice in the best use of these tools to succeed in overall operational performance.”

Mitchell Taylor, from Supply Chain Excellence, raised an infrastructure concern. “The transition to ‘enterprise operator’ requires a level of functional depth many organizations lack. Most are trying to run this new model on infrastructure that isn’t built to support AI-driven decisions.”

The Career Implications

Guillermo Silva, early in his supply chain career, asked what capability junior candidates should build to be useful in this newer version of the role.

Brown responded with a clear priority: “Decision-Making With Imperfect Information. The most valuable operators today will be the ones who can analyze incomplete signals quickly, understand trade-offs between cost, service, inventory, and risk, make sound decisions under uncertainty, and adjust quickly when conditions change.”

Her conclusion: “Supply chain professionals have to become decision-makers, not just planners.”

JP Doggett suggested the role description needs even more additions. “I’d add tech market analyst, big ticket negotiator, influencer, change management specialist and psychologist to that description.”

The Organizational Consequences

Jan Steenberg, President of CILT and Senior Partner at TCS, asked what the consequences of this change will be.

Brown outlined several implications. “The biggest consequence of the evolving supply chain role is that operations is moving from a support function to a strategic leadership function.”

She predicted structural changes ahead. “More CEO/COO roles will require more direct supply chain experience. Supply chain leadership will have expanded skillset requirements. Supply Chain, Finance, and Strategy structures will integrate or at least sit closer together. There will be greater accountability in Supply Chain leadership as decision making rights are redefined.”

Corey Weekes, an SCM executive and author, asked whether CEOs and CFOs recognize this shift. Brown acknowledged work remains. “It is a work in progress.”

The Tariff Example

Subhash Chowdary, founder of a company innovating financial supply chains, highlighted tariffs as a prime example of the new complexity. “Tariffs certainly add a lot of work across the enterprise again and again as they change faster than an enterprise can respond.”

Brown agreed, pointing to technology as part of the solution. “This is where the control tower designed for the needs of the business is best suited. The right solution can assist with scenario building and decision speed tremendously. It is not to replace people but to enable visibility across the enterprise to remove the obstacles of decision layers and enhance the value of the outcome.”

The Bottom Line

Diego Muñoz Hernandez, an Executive MBA with multinational operations experience, captured the stakes. “Supply chain is no longer just about optimizing flows. It has become the operating system of the business. The real shift is from managing efficiency to orchestrating resilience, data-driven decisions, and risk across the enterprise. Companies that still hire for the ‘old’ role will struggle to compete in the next decade.”

Hemant Agarwal, founder of LocatR, summarized the transformation. “We’ve moved past the era where supply chain was just a back-office cost center. It’s now the literal frontline of enterprise risk management.”

Abdulmajeed Al Sheraim, a procurement and contracting leader, framed where supply chain now sits. “Supply chain roles have evolved far beyond cost and service metrics. Today, they sit at the intersection of risk management, strategy, and resilience, making supply chain leaders key contributors to enterprise-level decisions.”

The title may still say supply chain. The job has become something else entirely.

Continue the discussion with supply chain and operations professionals on Chain.NET.

Every supply chain decision between 2020 and 2025 made sense at the time. Nearshoring to reduce dependency on a single region. Dual-sourcing to protect against supplier failure. Inventory buffers to absorb demand swings. Digital monitoring tools to see further ahead.

A recent study from HFS Research, authored by Ashish Chaturvedi, Executive Research Leader covering supply chain operations and retail, puts a number on what those decisions actually produced. The firm estimates that 12% to 18% of supply chain cost in consumer goods companies is now structurally hidden. It does not appear in any single budget line. It lives in inflated cost-to-serve on long-tail SKUs, redundant warehousing for promotional inventory, and carrier fragmentation across channels.

HFS calls this “structural complexity drift.” The gradual accumulation of redundant nodes, overlapping capabilities, and conflicting optimization targets. Each layer added during the disruption years was individually rational. Collectively, they created architectures that are more expensive, slow to adapt, and hard to govern.

The data makes the point sharply. Complexity creates three compounding effects. First, cost leakage at 12% to 18% that hides across budget lines. Second, decision latency that slows every choice touching the supply chain by a factor of three to five. Third, what HFS calls “resilience theater,” where organizations maintain eight backup co-packers and five demand-sensing platforms but cannot activate the right response when a key retailer changes order patterns. Redundancy without coherence is not resilience.

The pattern extends well beyond consumer goods. Any company that expanded its supply chain footprint during the disruption years faces the same structural question. Where did we add capability, and where did we just add cost?

Five domains where complexity concentrates

HFS identifies five domains where supply chain complexity tends to concentrate: Network, Supplier Base, Product and SKU, Process and Planning, and Technology and Data. Each has distinct causes, symptoms, and cost profiles.

The Product and SKU domain carries disproportionate weight. SKU proliferation, promotional complexity, and retailer-driven assortment requirements compound on each other. One question from the HFS diagnostic makes the point: if you eliminated the bottom 20% of SKUs by revenue contribution, how would your supply chain cost structure change? Most leadership teams know the answer intuitively. Few have run the numbers with full supply chain cost loaded in.

In Process and Planning, the research highlights a simple test: how many hours per week does your planning team spend reconciling data versus making decisions? If the answer is more than 20, complexity has eaten your planning capacity.

Technology and Data is equally revealing. How many systems in your organization produce a version of “demand forecast”? Which one does leadership trust? If you built your supply chain tech stack from scratch today, how much of the current stack would you replicate?

From diagnosis to action

The HFS framework provides a structured path through four modules. Module 1 is the complexity diagnostic itself, scoring each domain across cost impact, resilience impact, and decision impact. Module 2 offers a library of seven rationalization levers across four intervention types: Eliminate, Consolidate, Standardize, and Automate. Module 3 compares three scenario archetypes (Surgical at 6 to 12 months, Accelerated at 12 to 24 months, Structural at 24 to 36 months) and produces a decision-sequenced roadmap. Module 4 establishes governance.

The governance module matters more than most leaders expect. HFS found that organizations that rationalize successfully but skip governance see 60% to 80% of complexity return within 18 to 24 months. Each addition is small. A new co-packer for a retailer-exclusive SKU. A line extension launched without a corresponding retirement. A planning tool adopted by one region. Collectively, they reconstitute the complexity that was rationalized.

The research frames governance around four pillars: complexity budgets with hard limits per domain, quarterly rationalization reviews with decision authority, clear decision rights specifying who can add complexity and who is accountable, and incentive alignment ensuring that performance metrics do not reward volume additions without accounting for cost-to-serve.

What leadership teams should take away

First, complexity is not a feeling. It is measurable. Score your organization across the five domains and you will see where the hidden cost concentrates.

Second, the highest-ROI moves are often subtractive. Exiting tail suppliers, retiring underperforming SKUs, and compressing planning cycles deliver faster results than adding new tools or platforms.

Third, governance is not optional. Without it, rationalization is a project with a start and end date. With it, rationalization becomes an operating discipline.

How much of your supply chain architecture was built in response to a disruption that has already passed? What would you change if you scored each domain honestly?

Try the free diagnostic

The GSCC Decision Lab has adapted this framework into a free self-assessment tool. Score your five complexity domains in 10 minutes and get your complexity radar, heat map, and priority ranking at https://complexity.gscc.app.

GSCC members get the full Excel toolkit on the Decision Lab: scoring worksheets with conditional formatting, the complete lever library, scenario comparison frameworks, decision-sequenced roadmap templates, and the governance operating model. Start your 14-day free trial at www.chain.net/checkout/individual-membership. No credit card required. See all benefits at https://gscc.co/benefits.

We want to hear from you. Share your feedback, your scores, and your experience with supply chain complexity.

Continue the discussion on Chain.NET, the global supply chain community, at www.chain.net. Ask questions, join events, and access exclusive resources.

Federico Marchesi serves as Vice President of Global Supply Chain at SIG Group. With a background spanning engineering, M&A, transformation programs, and end-to-end global operations across multiple industries, he brings a uniquely analytical yet pragmatic approach to modern supply chain leadership. Over the past decade, he has led complex transformation initiatives, designed adaptive supply chain models, and driven large-scale operational improvements across Europe.

How did you move into your current role? A short overview of your background and career.

My journey hasn’t been linear, and that is one of my greatest strengths. I hold a Master’s degree in Automation and System Control Engineering, and early on I expected to build my career in R&D. After leading several M&A and strategic projects, I realized I was drawn to supply chain because it offered exactly what I enjoyed in engineering, dealing with complex systems, making data-driven decisions, and seeing a tangible daily impact.
Over the last 10 years, I’ve worked across distribution, transformation, and global supply chain operations in three industries. For the past three years, I have been leading the European Supply Chain at Haier.

What is your current role and your main responsibilities?

I lead the End-to-End Supply Chain for Haier Europe, covering everything from factory to customer delivery. My scope includes:
• End-to-End Planning (demand, inventory, supply)
• Physical Logistics (warehousing, ocean freight, customs, inland logistics, last-mile distribution including D2C)
• Customer Service
To give scale, my team supports around $3B in revenue, manages over $250M in logistics spend, and controls roughly $600M in inventory.

What does a typical workday look like? Any morning routine you follow?

I’m not rigid with routines because supply chain days are unpredictable. However, I am disciplined about focus.
About 30 percent of my time is devoted to designing and driving digital transformation. I treat it not as continuous improvement but as targeted upgrades to how we operate.
Another 30 percent is dedicated to people. I aim to challenge, coach, and support my team so that we continue developing a true learning organization, something I am proud to lead.

What lessons did you take from the pandemic? What positive changes came out of it?

The pandemic taught us that macroeconomics and geopolitics influence us far more than we previously admitted. It broke long-standing supply chain assumptions—such as inventory always being bad, or forecast accuracy being the ultimate goal.
The biggest shift was embracing resilience as a design principle. We moved from pure efficiency toward building systems capable of surviving shocks. The positive outcome is a stronger focus on resilience-driven design rather than traditional lean dogma.

What are the biggest challenges in your current role? How do you address them?

Volatility is our biggest challenge. With a multi-channel go-to-market strategy and unpredictable consumer behavior, deterministic planning no longer works.
We address this through:
• Scenario Planning: Training teams to plan for multiple futures.
• Governance: Empowering bottom-up decisions from those closest to the data.
• Adaptive Supply Chain: Using AI and Machine Learning to guide decision-making.
This lets us respond faster and more intelligently to sudden shifts.

Which tools or technologies are you most excited about right now?

Our major investments focus on:
• Demand Driven MRP, the core engine of our adaptive model.
• Machine Learning, mixing commercial tools with custom-built algorithms for unique challenges.
• Large Language Models (LLMs), which we are piloting for automating transactional work and improving data-heavy reporting.
These technologies support faster, smarter, and more consistent decision-making across the supply chain.

How do you integrate sustainability or ethical practices into your operations?

Sustainability is driven by both ethics and efficiency. Ethics is non-negotiable—we evaluate operations through that lens and encourage open debate.
From an operational standpoint, maximizing output per resource spent naturally reduces waste and improves environmental performance. Efficiency and sustainability reinforce each other, not conflict.

How do you stay informed about new trends and technologies?

I benchmark across industries and maintain a strong network of passionate experts. I also spend personal time studying History, Philosophy, and Geopolitics. History reveals patterns, while Philosophy helps with the ethical and cultural dimensions of leading large teams. Technical knowledge alone is not enough.

Which skills matter most for supply chain leaders today?

First, systemic thinking, the ability to understand an ecosystem rather than just its components.
Second, data analytics, approached as an engineer looks at causality and relationships.
Whether through visualization or mental simulation, leaders must find the way data “speaks” to them so they can cut through noise and make decisions with clarity.

Which trends will most impact the profession in the coming years?

We are entering a period of talent scarcity and shifting career expectations.
At the same time, supply chains must master Human-Machine Collaboration. We must learn to let go of tasks that AI and ML do better, and focus entirely on where humans add unique value. The challenge is not technical, but cultural and behavioral.

What advice would you share with someone starting a career in supply chain?

You must be ready for high pressure, complex problems, and limited external recognition. If you need constant applause, this is not the field for you.
Find motivation in solving the puzzle and in the camaraderie of your team. If you can do that, supply chain is one of the most rewarding careers you can choose.

Federico Marchesi
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/federico-marchesi-supplychain/
Chain.NET profile: https://www.chain.net/u/dffe88cc

Federico, along with many other supply chain leaders, participates in the regular events and discussions organized by GSCC. See the full event calendar at www.chain.net/c/events.

Join our global community on Chain.NET and become a GSCC member to access expert-led events, reports, replays, and professional groups: www.chain.net

Nike just redrew the corporate power map. The sportswear giant eliminated two cornerstone C-suite positions and handed their responsibilities to a newly empowered Chief Operating Officer. The move has executives across industries debating whether this signals a broader shift in how companies should organize leadership.

The restructuring, part of CEO Elliott Hill’s “Win Now” strategy, removed the Chief Technology Officer role held by Muge Dogan and the Chief Commercial Officer position occupied by Craig Williams. Both executives are leaving the company.

In their place, long-time supply chain leader Venkatesh Alagirisamy, known as “Venky,” steps into an expanded COO role starting December 8. He now oversees supply chain, planning, operations, manufacturing, sustainability, and technology.

The changes don’t stop there. Regional heads for Greater China, EMEA, North America, and Asia Pacific/Latin America now report directly to Hill. Global Sales and Nike Direct (e-commerce and retail stores) now report to CFO Matt Friend.

The reaction from operations and supply chain executives has been swift and divided.

The Case for Consolidation

Dr. Francois Gourd, a strategy and executive management consultant, welcomed the return to simpler structures. “In the ‘old times’ there were only CEO, COO and CFO and it was working very well. The inflation of CXOs that came afterwards created silos, unnecessary structure, inefficiency, additional costs and confusion. The most efficient organizations are the simplest ones.”

His comment drew strong agreement, with nearly 80 reactions from executives who have watched C-suite proliferation complicate decision-making.

Dirk Fischer, COO at Huf Group, appreciated the validation of his role but raised a practical question. “Being a COO, this is of course nice to hear. But reading what you said, for what you need then a CEO? But one thing is also clear. It is the person that qualifies for these roles, not the title.”

Michael Stanier, a managing partner and brand builder, questioned why Nike ever diluted the COO role. “The surprising thing here is why Nike ever diluted the role of COO in the first place. It is the obvious C-Level operational integration role to enable fast decision-making and to deliver accountability.”

Technology Moves from Silo to Operations

The decision to fold technology under operations drew particular attention. Frederic Gomer, who analyzed the restructuring, framed the shift clearly: “Tech is no longer ‘IT’s job.’ It’s ops work. If tech touches service, lead time, inventory, delivery, allocation, store flow, forecast… it belongs with the people who run the system.”

Habeeb Rahman, a Group Deputy CTO, endorsed the logic. “Right move. Technology is the core driver of business. If COO does not understand technology, it becomes difficult to compete in the market.”

Nico Bac, founder of Digital Procurement Now and formerly at P&G, saw the move as part of a broader trend. “Technology is a real game changer and needs to be better embedded into every part of the business. There is still some way to go here for most big businesses.”

Marcela Escobar-Alava, a CIO and CDO, shared her perspective on integration. “I’ve always seen my role much more integrated into operations than a standalone tech silo. I love the less aligning part. Personalities and fiefdoms always get in the way of alignment and progress.”

The Skeptics Raise Valid Concerns

Not everyone sees the consolidation as wise. Ghassan Kabbara, a fractional CIO, warned of role overload. “This feels like the Peter Principle in action. Leaders are being loaded with responsibilities far beyond their core strengths. A strong COO now owns tech, sustainability, planning, supply chain and integration. That’s not operations anymore. That’s five professions in one.”

He extended the concern to the CFO’s expanded remit. “Same with the CFO: finance plus sales, customer experience and growth execution. This isn’t promotion. It’s sideways overload. Role saturation.”

Davide Petruzzi, founder of OrygoAI, shared similar reservations. “That looks risky. Too much stuff under one person. Plus tech is very fast moving and most COOs don’t have technical backgrounds. Let’s see if it works out well for them.”

Josep Ragull, a supply chain and ESG executive, questioned whether fewer voices improve decisions. “Not sure though how reducing the number of voices in the management team can help run the business better. Less debate, less opinions, faster decisions indeed, but better ones?”

He added a pointed concern about the commercial reporting line. “Putting Sales and Marketing under Finance is the best way to kill any creativity, innovation and disruption, which is what made Nike great.”

George Saives, a consulting executive, was more blunt about sales reporting to the CFO. “Sales reporting to the CFO! YIKES! CHIEF PREVENTION OFFICER.”

Integration as the Scarce Capability

Michael Allen, a global operations and supply chain executive, offered perhaps the most nuanced analysis. “This is less about org design and more about accountability. What Nike is signaling is that integration has become the scarce capability. When demand, supply, capital, technology, and sustainability are decoupled, performance degrades quietly until it breaks loudly.”

He continued, “Placing technology under operations isn’t a demotion of tech. It’s an admission that value is created where systems meet execution. Code doesn’t move product. Operating models do.”

Stefano Bianchetti, a senior supply chain lead, reinforced this view. “The point is not that the COO role is getting ‘bigger.’ The point is that someone has to own the real trade-offs when demand, capacity, technology and capital collide. When that ownership is missing, organizations fill up with functionally correct roles that are systemically irresponsible.”

Context Matters

Several executives cautioned against treating Nike’s move as a universal template.

Patrik Paňko, a commercial and omnichannel strategy specialist, emphasized timing. “This feels less like a universal org blueprint and more like a phase-specific decision. When scale, inventory risk and capital efficiency dominate, integration under a strong COO makes sense. In a growth or disruption phase, separating Commercial, Tech and Ops often creates more speed and tension, in a good way.”

Puneet Dua, an FMCG specialist, agreed. “If this OM is what Nike needs to turnaround, great for them. Others don’t copy paste. Find your own OM. Context is important.”

Bruno Pontinha, a senior client partner, noted the model doesn’t fit all industries. “This logic is not totally true for Telco. The CTO remains a key role in this industry as CSPs still deeply rely on the mobile and fixed network tech infrastructure that enables their services.”

The Execution Question

Sotiris Karababas, a senior business leader and interim supply chain executive, raised a critical implementation concern. “IT moves under the COO, and the press release promises ‘faster decision-making’ and ‘operational synergy.’ But let’s be realistic: A change at the top doesn’t guarantee a more efficient company.”

He continued, “The real impact depends entirely on the structure one layer below. If you install an IT Director between the technical teams and the COO, you haven’t shortened the loop. You’ve likely lengthened it.”

Ingo Winterhoff, a former Adidas executive, emphasized that execution requires more than restructuring. “Customer centricity, product obsession and proper inventory levels are key ingredients to lasting success. Executing this or any operating model successfully requires team play at the highest level.”

What This Means for Operations Leaders

Maria S. George, a global supply chain strategy executive, posed the question many are asking. “The faster now and more complex cycles ‘idea to market’ call for streamlined decisions and end-to-end ownership to best serve ever demanding customers. The BIG QUESTION is: do companies have ‘ready now’ COOs to take on the larger scope?”

Gabriele Tagliavia, a global COO, suggested the evolution continues. “Running the operating model is clearly the future and I would push it even more: running the operating model by making a clear separation between what is still human-led vs AI.”

The debate over Nike’s restructuring reveals a profession in transition. The COO role is expanding from operational execution to enterprise integration. Whether that expansion creates clarity or chaos depends entirely on the leaders who fill these seats.

As Colin Emberson, who scales complex multi-market businesses, summarized: “Running ops is table stakes. Owning the operating model is the job now.”

Continue the discussion with operations and supply chain leaders on Chain.NET.

For decades, supply chain was underpaid.

But 2026 will be a breakthrough year for supply chain professionals.

This is not a feel-good moment. It’s a structural reset in how companies value supply chain talent, especially the CSCO office. The most acute shortages sit in middle management and transformation leadership roles, where fewer ready successors are available as experienced leaders retire.

When companies struggle to fill director and CSCO positions - roles that directly impact business resilience—that’s not a staffing problem. That’s a leverage moment.

The real problem wasn’t pay. It was pipeline collapse.

Supply chain salaries are expected to climb as the need for logistics, procurement, and supply chain analysis experts grows. But this isn’t generosity. It’s desperation.

Supply chain roles have grown 22% year-over-year since 2020, with demand for supply chain talent continuing to outpace supply. Yet the talent pipeline has quietly collapsed.

Read more

You’ve delivered results. You’ve built credibility. You’ve been promoted to a mid-tier supply chain leadership role. Yet something feels stuck.

You want to move into a senior position. You’d love to become a Supply Chain VP or the next Chief Supply Chain Officer. But opportunities to expand your scope aren’t materializing internally or externally.

Add one more concern. Some experts warn that increased AI adoption will make senior supply chain roles even more competitive. So what happens now?

The answer lies in five specific capabilities that ambitious supply chain professionals must build to lead in an AI-enabled future.

1. Stay close to supply chain technology

Many supply chain leaders reached their current level by mastering operations, forecasting, and vendor management. As they climbed, they moved away from the technology underlying those functions.

That era is ending.

Today’s most successful supply chain leaders combine operational expertise with deep technology understanding. They stay current on AI developments. They understand demand sensing platforms. They know what modern supply chain software can and cannot do.

This matters because AI is fundamentally reshaping supply chain work. Demand forecasting, inventory optimization, supplier risk management, and logistics planning are all being augmented by machine learning.

Future supply chain executives are expected to be expert resources on pioneering technology. They demonstrate how AI fulfills supply chain responsibilities. They ask sophisticated questions about deployment, integration, and business impact.

The supply chain leaders who win are the ones who stayed close to technology as they advanced.

2. Get hands-on with digital and AI

Promotion often means stepping back from day-to-day technology work. Resist that temptation.

The most career-minded supply chain professionals remain technically hands-on. They experiment with AI tools. They understand capabilities and limitations. They test forecasting models. They explore optimization algorithms. They build proof-of-concepts.

This hands-on experience creates competitive advantage. You understand what AI can actually deliver versus the hype. You know deployment challenges. You recognize when AI adds value and when it creates problems.

The key questions every supply chain leader should ask are: How do I deploy AI into my specific supply chain? What business problems does it actually solve? How do I re-envision my supply chain processes using these tools?

Ambitious supply chain professionals answer those questions through direct experience, not secondhand knowledge.

3. Develop a can-do attitude

The disconnected supply chain function of the past relied heavily on consultants and external expertise. That model is outdated.

Today’s supply chain is embedded in business strategy. It’s recognized as a strategic lever for competitive advantage. This shift demands a different mindset from supply chain leaders.

The days of leaning back and blaming external providers are gone. Supply chain is now everyone’s responsibility, and leaders must drive outcomes directly.

This requires a can-do attitude. Pick your biggest supply chain challenge. Test solutions. Fail fast. Learn quickly. Scale what works.

“I’d rather people try something, succeed at two initiatives, and stumble on a third, than get nothing done,” should be your philosophy. Success comes from action and iteration, not endless planning.

4. Learn to adapt

AI tools and supply chain technologies will always evolve faster than professionals can master them. Chasing every new platform or technology is exhausting and ineffective.

The real competitive advantage lies in developing adaptive capacity. This means cultivating curiosity. Building critical thinking. Developing collaboration skills. Understanding human behavior and organizational dynamics.

The supply chain professionals who thrive are those who understand how systems interconnect. Why organizations resist change. How incentives shape behavior. Why people adopt certain innovations and reject others.

An AI system isn’t just an algorithm. It raises operational, ethical, financial, and strategic questions. Futureproofing your career means learning to ask the right questions across all those dimensions.

Build resilience in your thinking. The professionals who succeed won’t be those who memorize today’s tools. They’ll be those who make sense of tomorrow’s complexity.

5. Build your network intentionally

Continuous learning requires staying connected to peers, mentors, and market developments. Create contacts that accelerate your career path.

Stay curious about new technologies. Explore and experiment with AI. Look for opportunities to test new tools. Avoid fear of change.

Regularly audit your skills. Assess what you know today and what you’ll need tomorrow. Don’t focus only on hard skills like supply chain analytics or AI certifications, though those matter. Develop soft skills equally. Critical thinking. Emotional intelligence. Communication. Creativity. Stakeholder management. These are increasingly vital as supply chain silos dissolve.

Build a modular skill set that applies across supply chain domains. Software engineering basics. Project management. Data literacy. These cross-domain capabilities compound your value.

Then activate your network. Being part of professional communities like GSCC keeps you current on industry developments and emerging best practices. Participate regularly in forums and roundtables. Connect with peers facing similar challenges. Stay visible in your professional community.

Keep your network fresh. The more you stay current and the more you maintain your relationships, the more likely opportunities will emerge to advance your career.

Start this week

Pick one AI tool or supply chain technology you haven’t fully explored. Spend time this week getting hands-on with it. Understand its capabilities and limitations. Ask yourself how it could reshape your supply chain.

Reach out to one peer or mentor working in a supply chain role you aspire to. Ask what keeps them current. Learn what they prioritize professionally.

Identify one supply chain challenge where you could take a can-do approach. Something with limited downside where you can experiment and learn quickly.

The supply chain leaders who reach the C-suite aren’t the ones who wait for perfect information or complete mastery. They’re the ones who stay close to technology, work hands-on with emerging tools, adopt a can-do mindset, build adaptive capacity, and intentionally build networks.

You can be one of them.

What’s your supply chain career strategy?

Which of these five areas is your strongest? Where do you need to develop capability? What’s one step you’ll take this month to future-proof your supply chain career? Share your thoughts in the comments. What advice would you offer ambitious supply chain professionals building careers for an AI-driven future?

This article is part of our Strategy & Leadership coverage on The Chain.

In today's volatile, global business environment - marked by inflation, geopolitical shocks, and the rapid expansion of AI - supply chain leaders have transcended their traditional operational roles. Modern organizations increasingly rely on strategic procurement, resilience planning, digital expertise, sustainability, and innovation. These critical capabilities place talented Supply Chain Management (SCM) professionals in an elite leadership role, often becoming a direct path to the CEO seat.

However, the competition is still intense. Executives from sales, marketing, operations, and finance continue to dominate CEO pipelines. To stand out, SCM leaders must evolve from operational experts to enterprise strategists who speak the language of value, risk, and growth.

1. What Makes Supply Chain a Powerful CEO Pipeline

A. Operational Agility Meets Business Strategy

Supply chain leaders often manage global delivery networks, crisis response, supplier dependencies, and demand flows. That translates to real-time involvement in capital allocation, customer satisfaction, and competitive positioning—critical skills for any CEO.

B. Data, Analytics, and Digital Transformation

From AI-enabled sourcing tools to real-time logistics dashboards, SCM leaders generate, standardize, and act on vast data flows. Executives who leverage that data to drive strategy clearly differentiate themselves from peers relying solely on intuition.

C. ESG and Sustainability Leadership

With 90% of emissions lying in supply chains, SCM leaders are tasked with designing and managing deforestation-free sourcing, Scope 3 reductions, and circular economy models. Executives like Annette Clayton and Lisa Martin are prime examples of how procurement leadership now means climate leadership.

D. Resilience Through Complexity

Supply chain professionals train for scenarios—be it tariffs, climate disruptions, or labor crises. Toyota’s proactive shift of suppliers during COVID and IDEXX Laboratories’ use of AI to identify sanction-vulnerable suppliers demonstrate how SCM can be a company's first line of defense.

Read more

In the 1990s, transportation was seen as a necessary evil : a cost center to be optimized, rarely a strategic lever.

The focus was on inventory optimization, demand planning, and manufacturing efficiency — but rarely on trucks, transit times, or tracking.

Then globalization and e-commerce changed everything.

Supply chains stretched across continents, subcontracting spread worldwide, customers became more demanding, and lead times shrank.

Transport emerged as the glue of global performance: without it, no customer promise, no lean model, no advanced planning could hold.

And yet, in many Western organizations, transport has not received the strategic attention it deserves.

It is still viewed as technical, secondary, and often delegated to field specialists who lack influence in strategic decision-making.

A Blind Spot in the Education and Culture of Supply Chain Managers

In the past two decades, specialized programs and degrees in supply chain management have multiplied. They now produce generations of skilled managers, comfortable with Sales & Operations Planning, Demand Forecasting, IBP, and advanced planning tools.

Transport remains a marginal topic, sometimes reduced to a few hours in a multi-year curriculum.
The result: we are training supply chain experts but with significant gaps in transport knowledge.

Many managers can discuss forecasting algorithms, collaborative planning, or even AI but would struggle to explain the difference between full truckload and groupage, or between a TMS and a WMS, or to read a freight rate grid in road or ocean transport.

Yet understanding transport means understanding the real world of the supply chain — roads, ports, warehouses, drivers, and disruptions.

That’s where customer promises are kept, where environmental performance is played out, and sometimes where company survival depends.

A delegated and undervalued domain

In many organizations, transport is delegated to mid-level teams. These professionals, often technically excellent, have little or no access to strategic decision-making. They manage the day-to-day — tenders, disputes, carrier relations — but remain on the sidelines of strategic management.

The position of VP Supply Chain rarely goes to someone with a background in transport.

Preference is given to profiles from forecasting, procurement, or production planning — seen as more “analytical,” “clean,” and “corporate.”

This cultural bias perpetuates a misconception that transport is the weak link : costly, unreliable, and polluting. It reinforces the idea among Supply Chain Managers that it’s safer to keep transport at arm’s length rather than truly understand it.

The “Magic” 4PL solution

When the logistics equation becomes too complex with fragmented flows, driver shortages, rate increases, or customs constraints. The natural reflex is to hand the “mess” over to a major 4PL. Their pitch is reassuring: “We’ll take care of everything, while you retain strategic control.”

But this transfer of responsibility has a cost : the loss of internal expertise.
By outsourcing transportation management, companies gradually lose their detailed understanding of flows, costs, and performance levers.

The risk?
Becoming dependent on a single provider, unable to challenge KPIs or innovate in carrier relations. In other words, a supply chain blind in its own legs.

A cultural divide between strategy and operations

There is now a clear cultural divide between supply chain strategists and transport practitioners.
The former think in terms of flows, scenarios, models, and digital twins.
The latter speak in time slots, waiting times, port congestion, and driver shortages.

These two worlds coexist without truly understanding each other.
The first operates with modeled data; the second lives with raw data — the kind that comes from a broken truck, a closed border, or a sick driver.

Without mutual understanding, the supply chain cannot be resilient.
A strategy only works if it reflects the operational reality and that reality is transport.

Why does this situation persist?

Several factors explain this persistent disconnection:

• Historically, transport has often been outsourced.

• Culturally, logistics is seen as “execution,” while planning is seen as “intelligence.”

• Structurally, TMS tools have remained less integrated than ERP or APS systems, further isolating transport functions. Only 15% of manufacturing companies in Europe use a TMS, compared to 99% equipped with a WMS.

• Educationally, most programs focus on theory not on execution.

Over time, these biases have created a durable imbalance — one that even the most ambitious digitalization programs struggle to fix.

The new battleground for sustainable performance

Things are changing. The Covid crisis, the driver shortage, environmental pressures, trade wars, and geopolitical instability have all reminded us of one simple truth:
Without a controlled transport function, there can be no high-performing supply chain.

Today, transport is where the key battles are fought:

• CO₂ reduction,

• Service reliability,

• Agility in disruption management,

• Speed of decision-maing.

Transport is no longer an appendix of the supply chain, it is its beating heart.
And yet, few executives give it the strategic attention it truly deserves.

The Ugly Duckling or the key to maturity?

One might ask whether transport is doomed to remain the ugly duckling of an agile and resilient supply chain or whether it could finally become the engine of a new generation of supply chain leaders, grounded in the reality of physical flows.

This shift requires a rebalancing of skills:

• Training managers in transport execution and control,

• Giving operational experts a stronger voice,

• Promoting hybrid profiles who can connect data to the road.

Because it’s in this reconciliation, between strategy and execution, between data and reality that the truly intelligent supply chain will emerge.

It’s time to make transport great !

In thirty years, the supply chain has evolved from back-office to boardroom. But along the way, it left transport by the roadside.

If we want to build supply chains that are sustainable, resilient, and effective, we must restore transport culture to the heart of our organizations.

Alain Borri is co-founder and CEO of Sightness. He is based in Singapore. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alain-borri-91136617/

Sightness is a Data as a Service (DaaS) platform dedicated to freight. A leader in the European market, Sightness aims to expand its services to the ASEAN region. https://go.sightness.com/en/sightness-presentation-video

The world’s supply chains are breaking. Not slowly, not predictably, but in cascading waves that leave executives scrambling to react. From the Suez Canal to semiconductor shortages to geopolitical shocks, the traditional playbook no longer works.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your company is still choosing between cost efficiency and resilience, you’re already behind. A new Roland Berger report, “Supply Chains in Polycrisis,” released recently, exposes why the old toggle-switch approach to supply chain management has become a liability. The consulting firm’s analysis reveals that companies must fundamentally rethink how they design global networks or risk being outmaneuvered by competitors who adapt faster.

When Everything Breaks at Once

The numbers tell a stark story. Between 2009 and 2025, global supply chains endured more disruptions than in the previous four decades combined. Each shock didn’t just cause temporary pain. It permanently altered the landscape.

COVID-19 shut down global trade overnight, exposing just-in-time manufacturing as dangerously fragile. The Ever Given container ship blocking the Suez Canal in 2021 proved a single bottleneck could halt $9 billion in trade per day. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced manufacturers across Europe to tear up production maps they’d relied on for decades.

Then came 2024. US tariff policies exceeded even pessimistic forecasts. China’s economic slowdown rippled across Asia-Pacific. Climate disasters disrupted transportation routes with increasing frequency. Political upheaval across multiple continents created uncertainty that traditional risk models couldn’t capture.

CEOs and supply chain officers now face a reality their predecessors never dealt with: disruptions don’t happen in isolation anymore. They compound. They overlap. They create cascading failures that traditional contingency planning can’t handle.

Read more

Most supply chain managers still spend hours each week chasing status updates, shepherding projects, and nudging people for data. That work is getting automated. Fast. AI planning tools, control towers, and agent workflows now pull status in real time, create plans, and trigger escalations without a human in the middle. If your value lives in coordination, your role is at risk.

This is not doom. It is a reset. The managers who let software handle the busywork and step up to strategy, risk, and people development will be the ones left standing.

Why the coordination model is collapsing

• Live data killed the status meeting. Control towers ingest demand, supply, transport, and risk feeds. Everyone sees the same truth. Fewer check-ins. Fewer handoffs.

• Agent workflows handle the routine. AI agents chase ASN mismatches, request ETAs, draft vendor nudges, propose expedites, and book alternates within policy.

• Planning loops run continuously. Forecasts, replenishment, slotting, and routing update on fresh signals. Less scheduling. More supervising exceptions.

Translation: the old middle layer that lived on updates and reminders is shrinking. What remains is the hard stuff: trade-offs, resilience, design, and people.

What the new supply chain manager actually does

1. Design the system. Choose service levels, buffers, postponement, and supplier mix. Codify guardrails that AI executes.

2. Own risk and resilience. Model scenarios, run stress tests, and pre-wire playbooks for labor strikes, port closures, and upstream quality slips.

3. Coach teams. Teach analysts to question models, validate data, and escalate early. Grow judgment, not just dashboards.

4. Align the business. Translate ops trade-offs into finance and commercial language. Secure buy-in quickly.

5. Protect the customer promise. When the model says ship partial or hold for complete, decide with context and brand impact in mind.

Signs your role is at risk

• Your calendar is packed with update meetings that a shared dashboard could replace.

• You spend more time moving information than making decisions.

• Your most common tasks are scheduling, status consolidation, and ticket triage.

• You cannot explain your plan’s assumptions or how they would break under a shock.

• Your team waits for you to assign tasks instead of proposing options with data.

If three or more feel uncomfortably true, it is time to pivot.

A practical 30–60–90 day pivot plan

Days 1–30: Kill low-value work

• Replace status calls with a shared live view: orders at risk, fill rate, late lines, dwell time, expedite spend, forecast error, and inventory health.

• Automate triage. Route ASN misses, carrier delays, or MOQ breaches to an AI agent that drafts vendor or carrier outreach for you to approve.

• Standardize escalations. Define when the system can auto-expedite and when a human decides.

Days 31–60: Raise decision quality

• Institutionalize scenario planning. Monthly war-game for demand spikes, supplier outages, or lane disruptions. Document triggers and playbooks.

• Make assumptions explicit. Service levels, lead time distributions, and supplier reliability belong in writing with owners and review dates.

• Adopt two metrics for every decision. One efficiency metric (cost-to-serve). One resilience metric (time-to-recover or at-risk revenue).

Days 61–90: Build capability

• Run short AI drills. 20 minutes, twice a week. Example: “Rebuild yesterday’s S&OP summary and challenge two assumptions.”

• Coach for judgment. Review one exception per week as a team: what the model suggested, what you chose, and why.

• Map talent. Who is great at prompts and validation, who is strong at negotiation, who is ready for scenario ownership.

Useful AI prompts for modern supply chain managers

Copy, paste, and adapt to your context. These work in ChatGPT or your co-pilot.

1. Exception triage

Here are yesterday’s exceptions [paste list]. Cluster by root cause, estimate revenue at risk and cost to serve. Propose the 5 highest value actions that fit our policies: max expedite spend per order is [X], preferred alternates are [list], and promised service levels are [list]. Output a one-page action plan.

1. Assumption challenge

Our plan assumes service level [95%], supplier reliability [92%], and average ocean lead time [28 days]. Play devil’s advocate. Where are we overconfident, and which two assumptions should we pressure-test this week? Suggest quick tests.

1. Scenario playbook

Build a step-by-step playbook for a [two-week port closure at X]. Include early-warning signals, inventory reallocation, mode shift options with cost deltas, customer comms templates, and decision thresholds for each step.

1. Supplier risk brief

Create a risk memo on supplier [Name]. Use public signals: financial, geopolitics, ESG, labor news, and logistics disruptions. Rate probability and impact next 90 days, and recommend mitigation actions within our contract terms.

1. S&OP in one page

Summarize this S&OP pack for the exec team [paste bullets or link text]. Highlight three decisions needed, trade-offs, and expected P&L impact in the next quarter.

1. Policy codification

Turn these unwritten rules into operating policies the AI agent can follow [paste rules]. Add guardrails, thresholds, and exception routing.

1. Customer promise check

For these top 20 customers, simulate the next 8 weeks under a 15% demand spike. Where do we break our promise, what is the revenue at risk, and which levers recover service fastest with the lowest cost?

Case-style examples to learn from

• Apparel retailer rethinks meetings. A European fashion brand replaced three weekly status calls with a control tower view and exception queue. Meetings dropped 60 percent. Fill rate improved 2 points because decisions moved to where the data lived.

• CPG vendor creates guardrails. A food manufacturer encoded expedite policies into an AI agent. The bot drafted 70 percent of carrier and supplier messages for human approval. Expedite spend fell 18 percent with on-time delivery stable.

• Industrial distributor runs monthly war games. The team reviewed two shock scenarios each month and refreshed playbooks. When a key supplier’s plant flooded, time-to-recover dropped from four weeks to ten days.

What makes managers indispensable in the AI era

• Strategy first. You design service and cost trade-offs that match the brand and market, then let software run them.

• Human capability. You grow analysts into decision makers. You teach how to challenge, not just how to click.

• Psychological safety. Your team flags bad data and unpopular truths early because you reward it.

• Storytelling with numbers. You make operations decisions legible to finance and sales so alignment is fast.

• Ethics and trust. You know when an optimal plan is wrong for customers, partners, or people, and you steer accordingly.

Managers who master these will not go extinct. They will run the place.

Key takeaways

• Coordination is getting automated. Decision quality, resilience, and coaching are the new job.

• Kill status work. Codify policies. Raise the bar on scenarios and assumptions.

• Use AI as a thinking partner. Prompts plus guardrails beat ad hoc heroics.

Your turn

Where is coordination still clogging your week? Which prompt will you try first with your team? What would a no-status-meetings month look like in your operation?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Then keep the conversation going with peers inside our global community, Chain.NET. Joining is free and only takes a few minutes: www.chain.net

In the world of supply chain and transportation, trust in component quality is sacred. Tires - those black rings of rubber under 40-ton trucks - are expected to do their job silently and without fail. But when they don’t, the consequences can be fatal.

That’s precisely what happened in a growing scandal engulfing Goodyear. The American tire giant stands accused of knowingly distributing defective truck tires across Europe, concealing the danger for years, and engaging in calculated efforts to suppress the truth. The revelations are chilling: defective Goodyear Marathon LHS II and LHS II+ tires may have caused multiple fatal accidents. Instead of issuing recalls, Goodyear allegedly compensated logistics companies under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to buy their silence.

This isn't just a story about faulty tires - it's a story about systemic corporate deception within the supply chain.

A Timeline of Concealment

The central defect involves Goodyear's Marathon LHS II series tires, particularly those used on the steer axle of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). Independent investigations, notably in France, revealed that these tires suffered from tread separation, a potentially catastrophic failure mode that leads to sudden air pressure loss and loss of vehicle control.

“The tire didn’t just burst. It exploded like a grenade,” said one French forensic crash investigator, describing a fatal accident in Doubs.

Goodyear reportedly became aware of issues as early as 2013. Internal documents later revealed the company had flagged over 56,000 tires for removal from the market, citing the risk of tread separation. But instead of launching a transparent recall, Goodyear opted for a limited, under-the-radar “exchange program” in markets like Czechia. There was no Europe-wide alert. No formal notification to supply chain stakeholders.

And the silence came at a cost—human lives.

The Role of NDAs: Paying for Silence

When tire failures led to crashes, Goodyear allegedly moved fast—not to warn others, but to settle and silence. According to the Arte documentary Sophie Rollet Takes On Goodyear, numerous logistics companies who experienced blowouts or accidents were contacted directly by Goodyear and offered private settlements.

“We were told it was a known issue but that it would be handled quietly,” confessed a former fleet manager for a French transport company who requested anonymity. “They paid for the damage, but we had to sign a non-disclosure agreement.”

The most egregious example? A 2014 crash in France that killed a British national. Goodyear is said to have paid a “nine-figure” sum to the logistics company involved—on the strict condition that the cause of the tire failure and any connection to Goodyear not be disclosed.

Such tactics effectively buried the pattern of incidents, allowing the same tires to continue circulating across European fleets, unchallenged and unexamined.

How the Supply Chain Was Complicit—and Compromised

Many logistics operators suspected issues with Goodyear tires but were either appeased or intimidated into silence. These companies operate in fiercely competitive markets. A free replacement or a payout from a supplier, coupled with the avoidance of legal proceedings, was often too tempting to pass up.

“The risk of going public wasn’t worth the backlash,” said a senior executive at a Dutch transport group. “Our insurers told us: settle and move on.”

The result? A culture of willful ignorance, perpetuated across the supply chain. Transport companies, tire resellers, and maintenance managers turned a blind eye to what was increasingly evident: Goodyear had a defective product, and people were dying.

Whistleblower Bombshell: The USB Stick That Changed Everything

The silence was finally shattered when an anonymous whistleblower handed over a USB key to French authorities. Inside were dozens of internal documents, including emails and spreadsheets from Goodyear managers. These revealed the scope of the problem—and a shocking strategy of containment.

One document described a “risk matrix” used to assess which clients could be compensated quietly and which were considered a “media risk.” The goal was not to fix the issue, but to minimize exposure.

“Their entire focus was on brand protection,” said a source close to the French investigation. “Safety came second.”

The Regulatory Black Hole

What makes this scandal uniquely disturbing is the regulatory failure. Despite hundreds of accidents—including at least seven fatalities in France alone—there was no EU-wide recall or alert. How could such a massive defect escape detection?

One reason is that Goodyear avoided the official EU safety alert system (Safety Gate) by opting for internal “exchange programs” that were limited in scope and geography. By not issuing a formal recall, Goodyear avoided triggering wider regulatory action.

“It’s a loophole,” noted Dr. Anna Meyer, an EU transport law expert. “Exchange programs are treated as customer service gestures. They don’t show up on regulatory radars unless someone blows the whistle.”

Goodyear’s Defense: A Familiar Playbook

Goodyear has denied any systemic defect or cover-up. In official statements, the company says it is “fully cooperating” with ongoing investigations and insists that the Marathon LHS II and LHS II+ tires are “distinct products with no proven causal link to any series of accidents.”

However, the company’s credibility has been undermined by its history of similar behavior.

In the U.S., Goodyear’s G159 tire—used on RVs—was linked to at least eight deaths and dozens of crashes. There too, Goodyear used confidential settlements and fought to seal court records, effectively preventing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from acting for nearly two decades.

“This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a pattern,” said attorney Sean Kane, who investigated the G159 case in the U.S. “They’ve perfected the art of denying, deflecting, and delaying.”

Logistics Leaders React: “We Were Misled”

As more evidence surfaces, logistics leaders across Europe are reevaluating their relationship with Goodyear.

“We were never told there was a risk,” said the CEO of a Spanish freight company that experienced two blowouts in 2015. “We switched to Michelin after that, but we now know we were running defective tires for years.”

Another operator in Luxembourg confirmed they received Goodyear tires as OEM equipment in 2013–2014 and were never informed of any risk—despite internal Goodyear documents showing the tires were flagged for removal as early as 2013.

“We trusted the brand. That trust is now broken.”

Legal Reckoning: Manslaughter and Deception Charges

In May 2025, French prosecutors formally charged Goodyear France and Goodyear Operations SA (Luxembourg) with involuntary manslaughter and deceptive commercial practices. The charges cover three fatal accidents between 2014 and 2016, and authorities say more may follow.

Under French law, deception involving consumer products can lead to fines of up to 10% of global revenue—potentially billions in Goodyear’s case.

“This is one of the most serious legal threats Goodyear has ever faced in Europe,” said French prosecutor Etienne Manteaux. “And it all could have been avoided if they had acted transparently from the start.”

Lessons for the Supply Chain Industry

The Goodyear scandal is not just a cautionary tale about product defects. It exposes a critical vulnerability in modern supply chains: the over-reliance on supplier honesty and the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms.

• Suppliers can exploit fragmented regulatory systems.

• Logistics firms, driven by cost and convenience, may accept unsafe goods.

• Settlements and NDAs can prevent defect patterns from emerging.

As one industry watchdog put it:

“This case shows how a defective tire can travel through borders, fleets, and years of operation—killing people along the way—and no one stops it. That is a supply chain failure of epic proportions.”

Profit Over Safety, Silence Over Accountability

For over a decade, Goodyear allegedly prioritized brand reputation over road safety, engaging in what appears to be a calculated campaign to minimize liability, conceal risk, and silence victims. The use of NDAs, the lack of transparent recalls, and the quiet payouts to logistics firms all point to a disturbing reality: the world’s roads became more dangerous because a corporation feared the cost of honesty.

The Goodyear tire scandal is a wake-up call to the logistics and transportation sector. Accountability doesn’t begin in court—it begins in the warehouse, on the maintenance floor, in the boardroom.

And for once, thanks to whistleblowers, relentless investigators, and courageous voices, the truth is finally catching up.

Want to stay updated on this case?

Join the discussion at www.chain.net, where logistics professionals are uncovering how to safeguard operations from supplier risk, regulatory loopholes, and corporate misconduct.

Have a similar story? Share it in the comments. Your experience could protect others.