According to Supply Chain Dive, geopolitical disruption has joined natural disasters and pandemic impacts as top threats to supply chains, with 82% of executives viewing geopolitical events as moderate to significant risks. A survey of 152 supply chain, operations, and IT executives revealed companies have lost a median of 5% of revenue to supply chain disruption over the past three years, with other estimates reaching 6-10% annually and up to 15% for small and mid-sized businesses. The biggest impacts include materials pricing volatility (36%), increased shipping costs (36%), and supplier access disruptions (33%), while 78% of respondents expect geopolitical risks to increase in the next two years. Surprisingly, traditional mitigation strategies like increasing inventory and diversifying suppliers ranked lower in effectiveness compared to underutilized approaches like scenario planning and policy engagement. This data reveals a critical disconnect between current practices and proven solutions.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Dangerous Comfort of Familiar Strategies
What’s most alarming in these findings isn’t the revenue loss figures themselves, but the cognitive dissonance in how companies are responding. The survey reveals executives are defaulting to familiar playbook moves—increasing inventory, diversifying suppliers, dual-sourcing—while admitting these aren’t their most effective strategies. This represents a fundamental failure in risk assessment methodology. Companies are treating geopolitical disruption like traditional supply chain risks, when in reality, they’re dealing with systemic, policy-driven challenges that require entirely different toolkits. The comfort of familiar strategies creates a false sense of security while leaving organizations exposed to the very risks they’re trying to mitigate.
The Unseen Financial Contagion
Brittany Caskey’s observation about stock price impacts reveals a deeper vulnerability that extends far beyond direct supply chain costs. When geopolitical tensions can trigger stock buyback programs, pension funding shortfalls, and immediate market valuation changes, we’re looking at financial contagion that traditional supply chain management isn’t equipped to handle. This creates a dual-threat scenario where companies face both operational disruption and financial market punishment simultaneously. The research from Supply Chain Brain showing 15% revenue impact for smaller businesses suggests this could become an existential threat for companies without substantial cash reserves to weather both the operational and financial storms.
The Execution Challenge
While the survey identifies more effective strategies like scenario planning and real-time monitoring, the implementation reality is far more complex than the data suggests. True scenario planning requires sophisticated modeling capabilities that many organizations lack, and real-time monitoring demands integration across multiple data sources that often don’t communicate well. The Economist Impact research indicating 6-10% revenue impact suggests companies are underestimating the investment required for these advanced capabilities. Many organizations are trying to solve 21st century geopolitical challenges with 20th century technology stacks and organizational structures.
The Partner Dependency Trap
The finding that 89% of respondents consider suppliers’ geopolitical risk management in selection processes creates its own set of challenges. While theoretically sound, this approach assumes companies can accurately assess their partners’ risk preparedness—a capability that’s notoriously difficult to verify. Most supplier assessments focus on operational metrics rather than geopolitical resilience, and the due diligence required for true geopolitical vetting is resource-intensive. The 78% who’ve switched providers for geopolitical advantages may simply be trading one set of risks for another, without adequate understanding of the new partner’s true exposure.
Beyond Mitigation to Strategic Advantage
The most forward-thinking organizations aren’t just trying to mitigate geopolitical risk—they’re building capabilities that turn disruption into competitive advantage. This requires moving beyond traditional supply chain management into areas like government relations, policy analysis, and geopolitical intelligence. Companies that master this integration can potentially gain market share during periods of disruption while competitors struggle. However, this demands C-suite commitment and organizational redesign that many companies remain reluctant to undertake, despite the clear financial stakes revealed in the survey data.
