疫情带来的教训：必须加强供应链弹性
正常情况下，即使盈利出现小幅下降，也会让高管团队如坐针毡。但与供应链中断造成的损失相比，盈利下滑只能算小问题，而且这还没有考虑到新冠疫情爆发之类重大突发事件。
如何增强供应链弹性方面，已经有诸多文章面世。但多年来，不少公司担心降低短期效率，所以一直推迟采取未来能够降低业务中断影响的预防措施。疫情再次迫使人们认识到，运营和供应链风险管理的必要性，也迫使首席执行官格外重视相关问题。现在，必须考虑到意外事件发生的可能性，至少要将意外情况当作业务中断造成损失的基准水平纳入财务规划。相关信息可以帮助企业更明智地决定如何利用资金维持供应链稳定。分析表明，一般大公司即便将年利润的45%用于维持供应链，仍能确保10年领先。相关投资可以让“及时”系统更好地应对“万一”的偶然情况。
业务中断越发频繁和严重
这并非集体焦虑的虚构想法，世界确实变得更危险。环境和全球经济变化都导致了更高频率和更大规模的供应链冲击。
每年造成超过10亿美元损失的气象灾害多达几十起，最极端事件造成的经济损失也不断上升，飓风劳拉和加州山火就是例子。经济体系相互冲突的多极世界出现了更多贸易争端、关税和不确定性。根据世界银行评估，与世界政治稳定排名靠后的国家相关的全球贸易份额已经从2000年的16%上升到2018年的29%，目前80%的贸易涉及政治稳定分数下降的国家。企业越发依赖数字系统，也越来越容易受到网络攻击。相互关联的供应链和全球数据流、金融流和人员流加大了风险暴露“面”，而连锁反应可以迅速传遍整个网络。
为判断出现问题的频率，我们走访了汽车、航空航天、消费电子和医药行业数十位供应链专家。专家的反馈令人吃惊：每两年都会遭受一次导致供应和生产中断一到两周的冲击。更长期的事件发生频率也比预期中频繁。制造商预计，平均每3.7年业务就会中断一到两个月，而持续两个月或更长时间的中断则大约每五年出现一次。绵长的全球供应链确实能够提升利润率，但在该结构下开展业务时，必须充分考虑问题频繁出现引发的实际成本。
企业已经能够适应某些类型的经常性风险。数据泄露、盗窃和工业事故时有发生，制造商都有相应的系统和功能来防止。近年来，贸易争端频频占据新闻头条，一些跨国公司也随之改换了经营地。
其他类型的冲击可能比较少见，但可能造成更大损失，也需要注意。其中包括极端天气、地震、金融危机、重大恐怖袭击，当然还有疫情。即使有些目前全世界成功避免的灾难，比如全球基础系统遭受的网络攻击，也应该加入情景规划。如果说2020年提供了什么教训，那就是不要愚蠢地认为极端情况永远不会发生。
当然，并不是每家公司或行业受到的潜在冲击程度都一样。我们分析了23条价值链，考察了足迹、生产要素和其他变量。某些行业由于存在专业化和规模经济，供应商集中在单一的地理区域，如果该地区遭逢自然灾害或局部冲突，就会出现供应严重短缺，导致整个网络陷入混乱。近年来，移动电话和通信设备等行业越发集中，而医疗器械和航空航天等行业集中度降低。总的来说，我们发现贸易强度和出口集中度最高的价值链比其他价值链更容易受到冲击。其中包括高价值和广受欢迎的行业，如通信设备、计算机和电子产品、半导体和组件等。然而，服装等劳动密集型价值链易受疫情、高温和洪水风险影响。由于企业关注供应链恢复能力，决策者也在重新思考哪些因素对国家经济安全至关重要，相关价值链都已经成熟，可以转移到其他国家。
10年中，公司可以预期业务中断至少会抹去半年的利润
我们使用25家大规模上市公司的实际数据，为13个不同行业里假设公司搭建了具有代表性的损益表和资产负债表，然后进行压力测试，看看停产100天的财务损失如何。针对如此严重的事件建模可能看起来很极端，但一项研究发现，仅在2018年五起最具破坏性的供应链事件就影响了全球2000多家工厂，22周到29周后才恢复。
我们的假设显示，对多数行业公司来说，仅仅生产周期拖长就能够抹去一年息税折旧及摊销前利润（Ebitda）的30%至50%。[1]如果某事件同时影响到分销渠道，可以导致某些行业的亏损大幅上升。
有了相关信息，就能够根据发生概率和频率估计十年内可以预期的最低影响。不同行业的结果各不相同，但平均而言十年内预计有可能损失一年利润的近45%。航空航天、汽车和采矿业公司潜在的财务损失最大。该数字还不包括恢复受损资产的额外成本以及股东价值损失，震荡后相关损失可能持续一段时间。
在风险更大的世界里，业务如果涉及复杂的供应链还有隐藏和经常性成本，此类成本只是基准。类似新冠疫情的灾难性事件可能对企业的底线造成更大损害，实际损失可能让一些制造商无法承受。
当然，事情也有另一面。有些公司或许能够将外部冲击转化为机遇。如果某事件对一家公司运营和供应商造成冲击却未影响到竞争对手，至少在短期内甚至是永久性地提升对手的市场份额。其他公司可能抓住危机的时间窗口，在压力下迅速成功创新推动长期增长。
对风险的新认识可以促使企业采取行动
多年来，人们已经广泛讨论让供应链更透明也更具弹性的实际战略。不过要实现确实需要长期投资或接受略高的商品成本。因此，只有小部分业界领先的公司在疫情来袭之前果断采取了行动。
如今变革正在酝酿之中。2020年5月，麦肯锡调查了全球60位供应链高管。多达93%的受访者表示，正在计划采取措施提高供应链的弹性，其中一半受访者表示比起短期盈利更看重供应链弹性。总体来看，53%的受访者计划增加供应商数量并增加冗余从而实现供应商网络多元化；47%的受访者计划持有更多库存以应对关键时期；40%的受访者计划选择靠近海边地区的供应基地，38%的受访者打算分地区安排供应。
稳定性可能成为衡量公司业绩的关键指标。投资者和客户评估公司时，弹性可能是与环境影响和社会使命共同考虑的新因素。
总体来说，我们估计因为企业重组供应链，政府采取行动促进国内生产，全球商品贸易中15%至25%可能转移到别的国家，按照2018年价值估算，约在2.9万亿美元至4.6万亿美元之间。
除了改变生产地点，要解决供应商的生产风险还有其他很多方式。疫情爆发时技术正在向工业4.0时代转型，通过数字化转型提升供应链透明度，可以同时提高生产率和弹性。
数字化可以加强对供应商上游的了解，发现隐藏在网络深处的漏洞。航空航天公司提升数字化水平后发现，有20种不同部件采购自同一家次级供应商。发现该问题后，公司能够与其竞争对手谈判价格，消除潜在的瓶颈。当新冠病毒爆发时，耐克公司利用数字化供应链能够迅速将销往实体店的产品转移到中国的电商配送中心。因此，在竞争对手遭受打击之际，其收入受到的冲击减到最低。
一些公司已经将建模区分风险当成工作重点，但往往将冲击视为各自独立的事件。现在分析工具支持更复杂的方法，在更广泛也更综合的场景下量化风险，从而可以将极端的一次性事件与连带效应和持续的商业周期结合，同时也会考虑相关性。情景还可以整合一系列风险缓解策略，测试哪种策略效果最佳。研究结果能够为战略规划和资本配置决策提供依据。
为将来的假设做准备有时现在要付出一定代价。不过，如果投资时格外注重实现价值链从端到端的数字化连接，随着时间推移就能够收获回报，不仅可以将未来的损失降到最低，还能够提高生产力，改善当前整个行业的生态。（财富中文网）
[1] 以净现值计算的亏损。如果不将亏损值折现，亏损幅度将大幅上升，一年大部分利润都会消失。
苏珊·隆德是麦肯锡合伙人，也是麦肯锡全球研究所负责人。凯蒂·乔治是麦肯锡高级合伙人，负责北美业务。
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
正常情况下，即使盈利出现小幅下降，也会让高管团队如坐针毡。但与供应链中断造成的损失相比，盈利下滑只能算小问题，而且这还没有考虑到新冠疫情爆发之类重大突发事件。
如何增强供应链弹性方面，已经有诸多文章面世。但多年来，不少公司担心降低短期效率，所以一直推迟采取未来能够降低业务中断影响的预防措施。疫情再次迫使人们认识到，运营和供应链风险管理的必要性，也迫使首席执行官格外重视相关问题。现在，必须考虑到意外事件发生的可能性，至少要将意外情况当作业务中断造成损失的基准水平纳入财务规划。相关信息可以帮助企业更明智地决定如何利用资金维持供应链稳定。分析表明，一般大公司即便将年利润的45%用于维持供应链，仍能确保10年领先。相关投资可以让“及时”系统更好地应对“万一”的偶然情况。
业务中断越发频繁和严重
这并非集体焦虑的虚构想法，世界确实变得更危险。环境和全球经济变化都导致了更高频率和更大规模的供应链冲击。
每年造成超过10亿美元损失的气象灾害多达几十起，最极端事件造成的经济损失也不断上升，飓风劳拉和加州山火就是例子。经济体系相互冲突的多极世界出现了更多贸易争端、关税和不确定性。根据世界银行评估，与世界政治稳定排名靠后的国家相关的全球贸易份额已经从2000年的16%上升到2018年的29%，目前80%的贸易涉及政治稳定分数下降的国家。企业越发依赖数字系统，也越来越容易受到网络攻击。相互关联的供应链和全球数据流、金融流和人员流加大了风险暴露“面”，而连锁反应可以迅速传遍整个网络。
为判断出现问题的频率，我们走访了汽车、航空航天、消费电子和医药行业数十位供应链专家。专家的反馈令人吃惊：每两年都会遭受一次导致供应和生产中断一到两周的冲击。更长期的事件发生频率也比预期中频繁。制造商预计，平均每3.7年业务就会中断一到两个月，而持续两个月或更长时间的中断则大约每五年出现一次。绵长的全球供应链确实能够提升利润率，但在该结构下开展业务时，必须充分考虑问题频繁出现引发的实际成本。
企业已经能够适应某些类型的经常性风险。数据泄露、盗窃和工业事故时有发生，制造商都有相应的系统和功能来防止。近年来，贸易争端频频占据新闻头条，一些跨国公司也随之改换了经营地。
其他类型的冲击可能比较少见，但可能造成更大损失，也需要注意。其中包括极端天气、地震、金融危机、重大恐怖袭击，当然还有疫情。即使有些目前全世界成功避免的灾难，比如全球基础系统遭受的网络攻击，也应该加入情景规划。如果说2020年提供了什么教训，那就是不要愚蠢地认为极端情况永远不会发生。
当然，并不是每家公司或行业受到的潜在冲击程度都一样。我们分析了23条价值链，考察了足迹、生产要素和其他变量。某些行业由于存在专业化和规模经济，供应商集中在单一的地理区域，如果该地区遭逢自然灾害或局部冲突，就会出现供应严重短缺，导致整个网络陷入混乱。近年来，移动电话和通信设备等行业越发集中，而医疗器械和航空航天等行业集中度降低。总的来说，我们发现贸易强度和出口集中度最高的价值链比其他价值链更容易受到冲击。其中包括高价值和广受欢迎的行业，如通信设备、计算机和电子产品、半导体和组件等。然而，服装等劳动密集型价值链易受疫情、高温和洪水风险影响。由于企业关注供应链恢复能力，决策者也在重新思考哪些因素对国家经济安全至关重要，相关价值链都已经成熟，可以转移到其他国家。
10年中，公司可以预期业务中断至少会抹去半年的利润
我们使用25家大规模上市公司的实际数据，为13个不同行业里假设公司搭建了具有代表性的损益表和资产负债表，然后进行压力测试，看看停产100天的财务损失如何。针对如此严重的事件建模可能看起来很极端，但一项研究发现，仅在2018年五起最具破坏性的供应链事件就影响了全球2000多家工厂，22周到29周后才恢复。
我们的假设显示，对多数行业公司来说，仅仅生产周期拖长就能够抹去一年息税折旧及摊销前利润（Ebitda）的30%至50%。[1]如果某事件同时影响到分销渠道，可以导致某些行业的亏损大幅上升。
有了相关信息，就能够根据发生概率和频率估计十年内可以预期的最低影响。不同行业的结果各不相同，但平均而言十年内预计有可能损失一年利润的近45%。航空航天、汽车和采矿业公司潜在的财务损失最大。该数字还不包括恢复受损资产的额外成本以及股东价值损失，震荡后相关损失可能持续一段时间。
在风险更大的世界里，业务如果涉及复杂的供应链还有隐藏和经常性成本，此类成本只是基准。类似新冠疫情的灾难性事件可能对企业的底线造成更大损害，实际损失可能让一些制造商无法承受。
当然，事情也有另一面。有些公司或许能够将外部冲击转化为机遇。如果某事件对一家公司运营和供应商造成冲击却未影响到竞争对手，至少在短期内甚至是永久性地提升对手的市场份额。其他公司可能抓住危机的时间窗口，在压力下迅速成功创新推动长期增长。
对风险的新认识可以促使企业采取行动
多年来，人们已经广泛讨论让供应链更透明也更具弹性的实际战略。不过要实现确实需要长期投资或接受略高的商品成本。因此，只有小部分业界领先的公司在疫情来袭之前果断采取了行动。
如今变革正在酝酿之中。2020年5月，麦肯锡调查了全球60位供应链高管。多达93%的受访者表示，正在计划采取措施提高供应链的弹性，其中一半受访者表示比起短期盈利更看重供应链弹性。总体来看，53%的受访者计划增加供应商数量并增加冗余从而实现供应商网络多元化；47%的受访者计划持有更多库存以应对关键时期；40%的受访者计划选择靠近海边地区的供应基地，38%的受访者打算分地区安排供应。
稳定性可能成为衡量公司业绩的关键指标。投资者和客户评估公司时，弹性可能是与环境影响和社会使命共同考虑的新因素。
总体来说，我们估计因为企业重组供应链，政府采取行动促进国内生产，全球商品贸易中15%至25%可能转移到别的国家，按照2018年价值估算，约在2.9万亿美元至4.6万亿美元之间。
除了改变生产地点，要解决供应商的生产风险还有其他很多方式。疫情爆发时技术正在向工业4.0时代转型，通过数字化转型提升供应链透明度，可以同时提高生产率和弹性。
数字化可以加强对供应商上游的了解，发现隐藏在网络深处的漏洞。航空航天公司提升数字化水平后发现，有20种不同部件采购自同一家次级供应商。发现该问题后，公司能够与其竞争对手谈判价格，消除潜在的瓶颈。当新冠病毒爆发时，耐克公司利用数字化供应链能够迅速将销往实体店的产品转移到中国的电商配送中心。因此，在竞争对手遭受打击之际，其收入受到的冲击减到最低。
一些公司已经将建模区分风险当成工作重点，但往往将冲击视为各自独立的事件。现在分析工具支持更复杂的方法，在更广泛也更综合的场景下量化风险，从而可以将极端的一次性事件与连带效应和持续的商业周期结合，同时也会考虑相关性。情景还可以整合一系列风险缓解策略，测试哪种策略效果最佳。研究结果能够为战略规划和资本配置决策提供依据。
为将来的假设做准备有时现在要付出一定代价。不过，如果投资时格外注重实现价值链从端到端的数字化连接，随着时间推移就能够收获回报，不仅可以将未来的损失降到最低，还能够提高生产力，改善当前整个行业的生态。（财富中文网）
[1] 以净现值计算的亏损。如果不将亏损值折现，亏损幅度将大幅上升，一年大部分利润都会消失。
苏珊·隆德是麦肯锡合伙人，也是麦肯锡全球研究所负责人。凯蒂·乔治是麦肯锡高级合伙人，负责北美业务。
译者：冯丰
审校：夏林
In normal times, the prospect of having to announce even a small drop in earnings is enough to make an executive team sweat. But that kind of setback pales in comparison to the losses that supply chain disruptions routinely inflict—and that’s without taking into account huge outlier events like the COVID pandemic.
Much has been written about how to make supply chains more resilient. But for years, many companies, wary of eroding efficiency in the immediate term, put off the preventive measures that could minimize the impact of disruptions in the future. The pandemic has once again driven home the necessity of managing operational and supply chain risk—and it has catapulted these issues to the top of CEO agendas. Now the unexpected has to be considered probable, and at least a baseline level of expected losses from disruption should be embedded into financial planning. This information can help companies make better decisions about how to invest in supply chain stability. Our analysis indicates that an average large company could spend up to 45% of one year’s profits in resilience measures and still come out ahead over a decade. That investment can leave “just in time” systems better prepared for “just in case” eventualities.
Disruptions are growing more frequent and severe
It’s not just a figment of our collective anxiety: The world really has become riskier. Changes in the environment and in the global economy are increasing the frequency and magnitude of supply chain shocks.
Dozens of weather disasters each year cause damages exceeding a billion dollars each—and the economic toll caused by the most extreme events has been escalating, as Hurricane Laura and the California wildfires are proving yet again. A multipolar world with clashing economic systems is producing more trade disputes, tariffs, and uncertainty. The share of global trade conducted with countries ranked in the bottom half of the world for political stability, as assessed by the World Bank, has risen from 16% in 2000 to 29% in 2018, and 80% of trade now flows through countries with declining political stability scores. As companies become more reliant on digital systems, they are also more exposed to cyberattacks. Interconnected supply chains and global flows of data, finance, and people offer more “surface area” for risk to penetrate, and ripple effects can travel across these network structures rapidly.
We surveyed dozens of supply chain experts in the automotive, aerospace, consumer electronics, and pharmaceutical industries to gauge just how frequently things go wrong. Their responses were surprising: Every two years brings a shock that halts supply and production for one to two weeks. More prolonged events also come around more frequently than might be expected. Manufacturers can expect disruptions lasting one to two months to occur every 3.7 years on average, and those dragging on for two months or longer every five years or so. Lengthy global supply chains deliver real margin improvements, but events of this frequency have to be fully accounted for as a real cost of doing business with this kind of structure.
Companies are already attuned to some types of risk simply because they encounter them more often. Data breaches, theft, and industrial accidents happen, and manufacturers have systems and functions in place to try to prevent them. Trade disputes, too, have dominated the headlines in recent years, leading some multinationals to alter their geographic footprint.
Other types of shocks may be rare occurrences, but they can inflict much bigger losses and need to be on the radar screen as well. They include extreme weather, earthquakes, financial crises, major terrorist attacks, and, yes, pandemics. Even some calamities that the world has avoided to date, such as a cyberattack on foundational global systems, should be part of scenario planning. If 2020 has taught us anything, it’s the folly of assuming that extreme scenarios will never come to pass.
Not every company or industry is exposed to these potential shocks to the same degree. We analyzed 23 value chains, looking at their footprint, factors of production, and other variables. In some industries, suppliers are heavily concentrated in a single geography owing to specialization and economies of scale—but a natural disaster or localized conflict in that part of the world can cause critical shortages that snarl the entire network. Industries such as mobile phones and communication equipment have become more concentrated in recent years, while others, including medical devices and aerospace, have become less so. Overall, we find that value chains with the highest trade intensity and export concentration are more exposed to shocks than others. They include some high-value and sought-after industries, such as communication equipment, computers and electronics, and semiconductors and components. However, labor-intensive value chains such as apparel are vulnerable to pandemics, heat stress, and flood risk. All of these value chains are ripe for shifts to different countries as companies focus on resilience and policy makers rethink what is essential to national economic security.
Over the course of a decade, companies can expect disruptions to erase half a year’s worth of profits at a minimum
We built representative income statements and balance sheets for hypothetical companies in 13 different industries, using actual data from the 25 largest public companies in each. We then put them through a stress test to see what kind of financial losses a 100-day shutdown would produce. Modeling an event of this severity may seem extreme, but one study found that in 2018 alone, the five most disruptive supply chain events affected more than 2,000 sites worldwide and took factories 22 to 29 weeks to recover.
Our scenarios show that a single prolonged production-only shock would wipe out between 30% and 50% of one year’s Ebitda for companies in most industries.[1] An event that also disrupts distribution channels would push the losses sharply higher in some industries.
This information makes it possible to estimate a minimum bottom-line impact companies can expect over the course of a decade, based on the probabilities and frequency of occurrence. The results vary across industries, but on average, companies can expect to lose almost 45% of one year’s profits over the course of a decade. The potential for financial losses is largest for companies in the aerospace, automotive, and mining industries. These figures do not include the additional cost of rebuilding damaged physical assets or the destruction of shareholder value, which may persist for some time after the shock.
These are the hidden and recurring costs of doing business with complex supply chains in a riskier world—and they are only the baseline. Catastrophic events such as the COVID pandemic can inflict far greater damage to the bottom line, creating losses that some manufacturers may not be able to withstand.
There is a flip side, however. Individual companies may be able to turn external shocks into lemonade. Events that strike one company’s operations and suppliers but not a competitor’s can boost the latter’s market share, at least temporarily but perhaps permanently. Others may seize on a crisis, innovating quickly and successfully under pressure in ways that propel growth over the long term.
A newfound appreciation for risk is prompting companies to act
Practical strategies for making supply chains more transparent and resilient have been widely discussed for years. But they do require making long-term investments or accepting a slightly higher cost of goods. For that reason, only a small group of leading companies had taken decisive action before the pandemic hit.
But now change is brewing. McKinsey surveyed 60 global supply chain executives in May 2020. An overwhelming 93% reported that they plan to take steps to make their supply chains more resilient—and half of them were willing to prioritize resilience over short-term profitability. Overall, 53% of respondents plan to diversify their supplier network by qualifying more vendors and building in redundancies; 47% plan to hold more inventory of critical inputs; 40% plan to near-shore their supply base, and 38% plan to regionalize it.
Stability may be emerging as a key metric for measuring corporate performance. Resilience may be a new element considered alongside environmental impact and social purpose as investors and customers assess companies.
In total, we estimate that 15% to 25% of global goods trade, worth between $2.9 trillion and $4.6 trillion in 2018, may shift to different countries over the next five years owing to a combination of companies restructuring their supply chains and governments taking action to boost domestic production.
But there are many other ways to address risk that go beyond changing the physical location of production and switching to new suppliers. The pandemic has occurred at a moment when technology is leapfrogging forward into the era of Industry 4.0—and creating supply chain transparency through digitization can boost productivity and resilience simultaneously.
Digitization enables visibility into who supplies your suppliers and spots vulnerabilities hidden deep in the lower tiers of the network. One aerospace company that undertook this effort found that it was sole-sourcing 20 different components from sub-tier suppliers; identifying this issue enabled the company to bargain for better prices with competitors and to remove this potential bottleneck. When the COVID pandemic broke out, Nike’s digitized supply chain enabled the company to quickly shift products headed for brick-and-mortar stores to e-commerce fulfillment centers in China. As a result, it minimized the hit to revenue at a time when its competitors sustained much larger hits.
Some companies have made it a point to model prioritized risks, but they have often done so by looking at these shocks as discrete events. Now analytics tools enable a more sophisticated approach that quantifies risks in the context of broader and more integrated scenarios. This makes it possible to combine extreme one-off events with knock-on effects and the ongoing business cycle, taking correlations into account. Scenarios can also integrate a range of risk-mitigation strategies to test which would be most effective. The results can then inform strategic planning and capital allocation decisions.
Preparing for future hypotheticals sometimes has a present-day cost. But if those investments focus on digitally connecting the entire value chain from end to end, they can pay off over time—not only minimizing future losses but boosting productivity and strengthening entire industry ecosystems today.
[1] Losses measured in net present value. If losses are not discounted, they would range significantly higher, wiping out the majority of a year’s profits.
Susan Lund is a partner of McKinsey & Company and a leader of the McKinsey Global Institute. Katy George is a senior partner of McKinsey & Company and leader of the Operations Practice in North America.
