New Articles

How CPG Brands can Deliver on Supplier Diversity Promises

Supplier global trade

How CPG Brands can Deliver on Supplier Diversity Promises

There are many good reasons for global consumer packaged goods (CPG) brands to have supplier diversity programmes. For one, they face expectations from regulators, shareholders, and consumers, which if missed impact sales figures and share price. Further, brands that support supplier diversity may enjoy economic benefits as a by-product and of course, they can make a positive impact. 

Reasons aside, supplier diversity is a top-level issue with at least eight of the world’s top 10 CPG brands by spend1 having stated goals in this area. For example2, Unilever has committed to spend €2 billion annually with diverse businesses by 2025. By the same year, Mars intends to reach £1 billion globally in diverse business spend and have at least 60% of its suppliers actively promoting diversity programmes within their organizations. Other brands including Mondelēz International, Coca-Cola and Nestlé are also dedicated to sourcing from businesses that are 51% owned by a historically under-represented group. 

Likely, more CPG brands will continue to make supplier diversity a priority. 

While the leaders of global brands embarking on this journey plan to drive spend to diverse suppliers, in practice, their teams on the ground face an obstacle: diverse suppliers are difficult to find. Only a portion are indeed certified as ‘diverse’, and those who are certified wouldn’t necessarily be skilled to match specific market needs.  

The challenge of discovering diverse suppliers must be addressed for progress to occur. This presents CPG leaders with an opportunity to tee up their teams for success by helping them add robust sourcing processes. To achieve this, Supplier Diversity teams can follow a three-phase approach…  

  • Take stock of your existing supplier diversity status

Before teams can deliver on supplier diversity commitments, it’s sensible to determine how many diverse suppliers the brand already works with. This is done through a combination of surveying suppliers and using data enrichment services to match against existing databases of diverse suppliers. 

When it comes to actioning these surveys, teams should take care to offer suppliers a positive and helpful experience, because it will impact the quality of results. For example, if suppliers receive questions that don’t apply to them or that aren’t in their first language, this will obstruct their ability to respond most helpfully. At best, it will slow them down and at worst, they may not even respond. 

So, the idea is to remove any barriers to them providing reliable feedback. A great way to do this is through segmenting suppliers into categories and communicating with them accordingly. Whatever the approach to surveying suppliers, let it be congruent with acting like a “customer-of-choice” because this is likely to get the most out of them. A recent HICX survey revealed that a staggering 73% of suppliers for some of the world’s biggest manufacturers would “go the extra mile” for their most important customer if this was also a customer-of-choice. 

  • Proactively grow your number of diverse suppliers

Once the number of diverse suppliers working with the brand has been determined, teams can grow their selection by improving how they source. 

First, buyers and requestors should be guided to proactively work with diverse suppliers. This can be done with education and policies, and by applying some practical steps. For instance, teams should define their criteria for what qualifies as a diverse supplier in their business and territories, and then use online directories and desktop research and ask contacts for recommendations. Any potential diverse suppliers can then be evaluated for suitability. 

Next, once new diverse suppliers are found, they must be onboarded with processes that capture their information reliably so that the brand can offer them a helpful experience going forward. 

In establishing these policies, Supplier Diversity teams will benefit from the help of Procurement because the function already works with and onboards suppliers. Should Procurement, then, be taking an advisory role in helping buyers to drive spend with diverse suppliers? 

  • Lock-in progress by maintaining supplier data

Finally, with diverse suppliers found and onboarded, their data must remain accurate. This step is crucial because teams need a clear view of the supply chain to deliver supplier diversity promises. But in reality, many supplier diversity teams from CPG brands face a barrier: they can’t see who their suppliers (some tens of thousands of them) are and what they’re doing. For instance, teams need to know: where is this supplier based? What qualifies them as ‘diverse’? Do we have the same number of suppliers from diverse businesses today as we did yesterday? Taking too long to resolve these questions, or not being able to answer them at all, can expose the brands to report errors and inefficient operations. 

If leaders can keep supplier data accurate, then they can reveal a bright and clear supply chain view and arm their teams to deliver the least risky most impactful supplier diversity plans possible. Encouragingly, there is a route to solving the supplier data problem, in which some forward-thinking brands, such as Mondelez and Unilever, are taking the lead. 

There are three tried and tested ways to tackle supplier data quality. First, reject anything less than 100% accuracy in supplier master data. Create the conditions in which this goal can be realised by transforming the digital procurement environment so that master data can take priority. Next, ensure that data related to every new supplier relationship – diverse or standard – gets captured upfront with structured, controlled, and dependable processes. And finally, this and any new data that enters the system must be protected with data governance, so that a reliable golden record can be maintained. 

At the end of the day, by supporting Supplier Diversity teams to add robust sourcing processes, CPG leaders can arm them with the tools needed to deliver on ambitious goals and leave a positive impact.

About the author

Costas Xyloyiannis is co-founder and CEO of HICX, the leading supplier experience management solution. Costas founded HICX in 2012 to address the challenges of bad supplier data in the enterprise. 

He holds a Master’s degree in Computer Science from Imperial College London and has 20 years’ experience in helping some of the world’s largest companies to take control of their supplier data and deliver a superior supplier experience.

He strongly believes in the importance of data and supplier-centricity, as a foundation for digital transformation in business, and is a regular speaker and contributor on this topic. 

 About HICX

HICX helps Global 5000 companies to take control of their supplier data and to deliver a great supplier experience.  The HICX Supplier Experience Platform enables businesses with thousands of suppliers to efficiently on-board and manage the end-to-end lifecycle of all suppliers, to achieve a single version of truth for all supplier data, and to remove the friction from supplier relationships. Some of the world’s largest companies trust HICX for the management of their supplier data, these include Unilever, Mars, Mondelez, Lenovo, Baker Hughes and BAE Systems.

 

shutters

Vietnam Strengthens Position in American Plastic Shutter and Blind Imports

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Plastic Shutters And Blinds – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

American imports of plastic shutters and blinds jumped by +11% y-o-y to 97M units in 2020. In value terms, imports grew to $887M, steadily rising during the past decade. Cambodia, China and Viet Nam constitute the largest suppliers to the U.S., accounting for 75% of the American imports. Viet Nam emerged as the fastest-growing exporter of plastic shutters and blinds to the U.S. last year. The average import price for plastic shutters and blinds dropped by -8.9% y-o-y $9.1 per unit in 2020.

 American Imports of Plastic Shutters and Blinds

In 2020, imports of plastic shutters and blinds into the U.S. expanded remarkably to 97M units, growing by +11% on the year before. In value terms, plastic shutters and blinds imports rose slightly from $879M in 2019 to $887M (IndexBox estimates) in 2020. Over the past decade, American imports increased from $549M to $887M.

Cambodia (28M units), China (27M units) and Viet Nam (19M units) were the main suppliers of plastic shutters and blinds imports to the U.S., together comprising 75% of total imports.

Among other suppliers, Viet Nam (+74.1% per year) recorded the biggest increases in export volume of plastic shutters and blinds to the U.S. in 2020.

In value terms, Cambodia ($264M), China ($199M) and Viet Nam ($198M) constituted the largest plastic shutters and blinds suppliers to the U.S., with a combined 75% share of total imports.

The average import price for plastic shutters and blinds stood at $9.1 per unit in 2020, with a decrease of -8.9% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Viet Nam ($11 per unit), while the price for Taiwan (Chinese) ($6.9 per unit) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Viet Nam, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced mixed trend patterns.

Source: IndexBox Platform

acetic acid

India’s Acetic Acid Imports Doubled in the Past Decade

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘India – Acetic Acid – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In the past decade, India doubled acetic acid imports in physical terms. In 2020, they grew by +7.7% y-o-y to 953K tonnes. Malaysia, Singapore and China constitute the most significant suppliers, accounting for 70% of India’s acetic acid imports. Taiwan featured the highest growth rate of exports to India in 2020. Last year, the average acetic acid import price dropped by -22.9% y-o-y to $349 per tonne.

India’s Acetic Acid Imports by Country

India’s acetic acid imports increased twofold, from 457K tonnes in 2010 to 953K tonnes in 2020. In 2020, imports grew by +7.7% on the previous year’s figure. In 2020, imports grew by +7.7% on the previous year’s figure. In value terms, acetic acid imports dropped notably from $401M in 2019 to $333M (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

Malaysia (294K tonnes), Singapore (220K tonnes) and China (153K tonnes) were the leading suppliers of acetic acid imports to India, with a combined 70% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Taiwan (Chinese), Saudi Arabia, Iran and South Korea, which together accounted for a further 28%.

Taiwan saw the highest growth rate of export volume among the key exporters. Indian imports from Taiwan rose from $50M in 2019 to $136M in 2020.

In value terms, the largest acetic acid suppliers to India were Malaysia ($104M), Singapore ($79M) and China ($53M), together comprising 71% of total imports. These countries were followed by Taiwan (Chinese), Saudi Arabia, Iran and South Korea, which together accounted for a further 27%.

The average acetic acid import price stood at $349 per tonne in 2020, waning by -22.9% against the previous year. Average prices varied noticeably amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the highest prices were recorded for prices from Singapore ($358 per tonne) and South Korea ($355 per tonne), while the price for Iran ($326 per tonne) and Saudi Arabia ($337 per tonne) were amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced a decline.

Source: IndexBox Platform

mineral wool

European Mineral Wool Imports Fall Owing to Declining Purchases in France and Italy

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Slag Wool, Rock Wool And Similar Mineral Wools And Mixtures – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2020, European mineral wool imports dropped by -6.5% y-o-y to 1.3M tonnes. In value terms, they declined to $1.3B. France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Romania, the Czech Republic and Belgium account for 74% of the total import volume in the EU. Last year, France, Germany and Italy saw a reduction in the volume of purchases from abroad. In 2020, the mineral wool import price in Europe remained relatively unchanged compared to the figures of the previous year.

Mineral Wool Imports in the EU

In 2020, approx. 1.3M tonnes of slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures were imported in the EU, which was -6.5% lower compared with the year before. In value terms, mineral wool imports declined to $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.


France (182K tonnes), Italy (147K tonnes), Germany (139K tonnes), Austria (102K tonnes), Poland (82K tonnes), Sweden (81K tonnes), Romania (79K tonnes), the Czech Republic (64K tonnes) and Belgium (56K tonnes) represented roughly 74% of total imports of slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures in 2020. The following importers – Latvia (37K tonnes), Slovenia (34K tonnes), Finland (30K tonnes) and the Netherlands (30K tonnes) – together made up 10% of total imports.

France (-3.9% y-o-y), Italy (-10.0% y-o-y) and Germany (-10.0% y-o-y) reduced their purchases in physical terms against the previous year. Among other countries, Poland (-16.4% y-o-y) saw the most prominent drop in terms of import volume.

In value terms, Germany ($193M), France ($165M) and Italy ($128M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2020, with a combined 38% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Finland, the Netherlands, Latvia and Slovenia, which together accounted for a further 45%.

In 2020, the mineral wool import price in the EU amounted to $1,014 per tonne, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Finland ($1,548 per tonne), while Romania ($650 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox Platform

footwear

The American Footwear Market Lost Growth Momentum

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Footwear Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

After two years of growth, the U.S. footwear market decreased by -3.1% to $25.7B in 2019. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Over the period under review, consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 when the market value increased by 6.4% year-to-year. As a result, consumption attained a peak level of $27.6B. From 2016 to 2019, the growth of the market remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Taking into account the closure of the retail sector due to the pandemic, a decrease in consumer incomes, and possible disruptions in the work of international supply chains, the footwear consumption in the U.S. is expected to drop somewhat in 2020. Afterward, the start of gradual market growth is expected as the economy recovers from the effects of the pandemic. The market is forecast to expand with an anticipated CAGR of +0.9% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to $28B by the end of 2030.

Footwear Production in the U.S.

In value terms, footwear production dropped slightly to $1.6B in 2019. In general, production saw a perceptible curtailment. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 with an increase of 3.4% year-to-year. Over the period under review, production hit record highs at $1.9B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2019, production remained at a lower figure.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2019, shipments abroad of footwear increased by 1.5% to 83M pairs, rising for the third consecutive year after two years of decline. Overall, exports showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 with an increase of 10% y-o-y. In value terms, footwear exports reduced modestly to $1.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

Canada (36M pairs) was the main destination for footwear exports from the U.S., with a 43% share of total exports. Moreover, footwear exports to Canada exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, China (8.8M pairs), fourfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Mexico (8.8M pairs), with an 11% share.

From 2013 to 2019, the average annual growth rate of volume to Canada stood at +1.8%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of export growth: China (+54.5% per year) and Mexico (+3.7% per year).

In value terms, Canada ($485M) remains the key foreign market for footwear exports from the U.S., comprising 44% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($92M), with an 8.2% share of total exports. It was followed by Mexico, with a 7.6% share.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2019, purchases abroad of footwear decreased by -9.2% to 2.2B pairs for the first time since 2016, thus ending a two-year rising trend. In general, imports showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 with an increase of 5.9% y-o-y. As a result, imports attained a peak of 2.4B pairs. From 2016 to 2019, the growth imports remained at a lower figure. In value terms, footwear imports shrank to $25.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Imports by Country

In 2019, China (1.4B pairs) constituted the largest footwear supplier to the U.S., accounting for a 65% share of total imports. Moreover, footwear imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Viet Nam (452M pairs), threefold. Indonesia (113M pairs) ranked third in terms of total imports with a 5.2% share.

From 2013 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume from China totaled -4.6%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Viet Nam (+12.5% per year) and Indonesia (+4.9% per year).

In value terms, China ($12.2B), Viet Nam ($6.8B) and Indonesia ($1.6B) appeared to be the largest footwear suppliers to the U.S., with a combined 81% share of total imports. Cambodia lagged somewhat behind, accounting for a further 1.8%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2019, the average footwear import price amounted to $12 per pair, with an increase of 6.9% against the previous year. Over the period from 2013 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.7%. As a result, import price reached the peak level and is likely to continue growing in the immediate term.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was Viet Nam ($15 per pair), while the price for China ($8.7 per pair) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Viet Nam, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Nike, Wolverine World Wide, Reebok International, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Crocs, Red Wing Shoe Company, Skechers U.S.A., New Balance Athletic Shoe, Kenneth Cole Productions, Steven Madden, H.H. Brown Shoe Company, Rocky Brands, Allen Edmonds Corporation, Lacrosse Footwear, Justin Brands, K-Swiss, Nine West Group, C. & J. Clark America, Strategic Partners, Lucchese, Belleville Boot Company, Tony Lama Company, Vans, K-Swiss Sales, Safety Products Holdings, US Test Company 340, B. H. Shoe Holdings, Kcp Holdco

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

companies

Free Trade in Free Fall: How Companies Can Navigate the Pandemic

Even before the global pandemic arrived in every corner of the globe, free trade and the globalized trading system were in critical condition. The bruising U.S.-China trade war, along with regional conflicts such as the Japan-Korea trade war, Brexit, import tariffs, the decline of the WTO, left companies struggling to adjust supply chains and many wondering whether the globalized trading system will survive.

Yet these challenges pale in comparison to the trade and supply chain issues the COVID-19 pandemic generates on a nearly-hourly basis. Demand has plummeted around the world for goods and services as vast portions of humanity are isolated in their homes and left without incomes. Export restrictions on medical supplies, food and other critical products, while still limited, are on the rise, creating fears of reverse protectionism. Airfreight capacity has dropped as tens of thousands of flights are grounded. Logistics companies are struggling to deliver goods as nearly every country in the world has implemented ever-tightening border restrictions in a matter of weeks.

As a result, companies and individuals are struggling to keep our grocery stores, pharmacies, and retailers stocked with the cheap and plentiful products consumers have grown accustomed to, not to mention supply the medicine and equipment that our frontline healthcare workers desperately need. While these are dark days in trade, there are ways to immediately protect your company and your supply chain.

First, companies must protect their workers from the disease. Crisis management procedures to keep people healthy, whether that means remote working procedures or social distancing policies to keep production facilities running, should be implemented and revisited as the crisis moves on. While most companies have implemented these policies as a result of government orders, companies should continuously evaluate how to both keep their employees safe and their companies running. Fighting this disease and its economic ramifications is a marathon, not a sprint, so companies should find ways to maintain continuity as long as possible.

Next, now is the time to be hands-on with your supply chain. Companies need to examine every aspect of their supply chain and logistics: every container, every ship, every truck, every port, and every border crossing. In this way, you can understand how your goods must pass to understand how the pandemic will affect each shipment. Seafreight remains stable, though that could change, so companies with any slack in their supply chain should consider moving goods in advance through slower means.

Companies also need a proactive examination of their legal risks.  This assessment must include a review of which contracts may be broken through force majeure and other similar break clauses, whether initiated by you or the other party. At first, only producers were using force majeure as they realized they did not have the raw materials, labor shortages, and logistical support to deliver products. Now, importers and end-users are breaking their contracts as demand drops and shops close. Similarly, insurance markets are struggling to find ways to insure goods, services, and even projects as supply chain issues threaten to slow projects around the world. A holistic examination of your legal risks will save your company money and time when legal challenges arise.

Companies also need to find help from their governments. Governments are looking to help companies stay afloat, keep people employed, and keep goods and services flowing, but they are frequently looking for answers from companies. If you are not part of a trade association, join one. And if you do not have representation in Washington, now is the time to make sure that government authorities know how best to help your company and industry navigate this crisis and to remind them of the value that trade brings to communities around the world, and where you need help.

The COVID-19 crisis will leave the global trading system permanently altered, but it is also a reminder that, just as our physical health is intertwined with our neighbors, our economic health is also dependent. Long-standing trade relationships are under strain, contracts will be voided, and shipments unfulfilled. Yet a healthy dose of compassion and understanding that your business partners are facing the same challenges as your company may help you maintain your trading relationships through these hard times and allow them to rebound faster when the crisis is over.

 _______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Kostrzewa is a Registered Foreign Lawyer at Hogan Lovells, working in Hong Kong and Washington serving the needs of clients on both sides of the Pacific. Before joining Hogan Lovells he served as Assistant General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.