BCI Supply Chain Resilience 2012

4th Annual Survey

Supply Chain
Resilience 2012
Published November 2012

Supported by: Supported by: Supported by:
An international survey of more than 530 organisations from
over 65 countries, which considers the origin, causes and
Supply Chain Resilience 2012.  Copyright © 2012 The Business Con nuity Ins tute.  All Rights Reserved.
consequences of supply chain disruption, along with proven 1

approaches to building confidence in supply chain resilience

Contents

03 Execu ve summary
04 Introduc on
05 Experience of disrup on
09 Supply chain con nuity
14 Business con nuity in tendering and contrac ng
15 Geographical and sector perspec ves
18 Lesson learned and key challenges

19 Review and conclusions
20 Respondent proﬁle
21 About the survey
22 About the BCI, CIPS, Zurich & DHL Supply Chain
26 Annex 1: Wri en comments by survey respondents
32 Annex 2: Full sector and geographical data
Supply Chain Resilience 2012. Copyright © 2012 The Business Con nuity Ins tute. All Rights Reserved. 2

Execu ve Summary: Disrup on more consequen al, outsourcers under scru ny

Introduc on  21% suffered more than €1M in costs for a Review & Conclusions
single incident; higher than 2011 and in Since 2009 consistently high levels of supply
This survey is the fourth in a series, star ng
spite of lower overall levels of disrup on chain disrup ons have been experienced and
back in 2009, that sets out to consider the
challenge of developing resilient supply  59% cited loss of produc vity as the        events are becoming more consequen al
chains.    primary impact of the disrup on                with absolute levels dipping a er 2011,
even
experienced, up from 49% in 2011. Across a year, which saw the Great East Japan
Key Findings
all indicators there was a deepening on   Earthquake and extensive flooding in
 73% of survey respondents experienced at impact experienced with an average of Thailand.
least one disrup on with an average of three dis nc ve consequences per incident Business con nuity is widely seen as effec ve
five.  This  high level is consistent with the
 25% of respondents have s ll to consider in resis ng the impact of disrup on, alongside
trend‐line over the past four years
supply chain disrup on in their business its core benefits of enabling con nuity and
 39% of analysed disrup ons originated    con nuity programmes, and 44% of        faster recovery from incidents.
below the immediate er one supplier,   respondents have weak supply chains, The drama c rise in disrup on through
underscoring for the second consecu ve while major sector differences persist      outsourcer service failures requires further
year the deep‐rooted nature of disrup on especially in manufacturing and  retail and study into service chains and the specific
 Unplanned IT or telecom outages jumped between countries such as the UK and USA challenges inherent in them.
to the top of sources of disrup on with  While 47% now look for evidence of a     Given the dominance of supply chain
52% affected to some or a high degree.   business con nuity programme over a    disrup on through unplanned IT or telecom
The level was 41% in 2011 simple  plan and 23% run joint exercises— outages, there is now a need to evaluate the
 Adverse weather maintained its prominent all improvements on 2011—15% s ll do contribu on of “the cloud” to resilience.
posi on with 48% ci ng it as a cause of   not collect any informa on from key       The challenge of securing execu ve buy‐in
disrup on, but rela vely unchanged from suppliers, and 41% do not validate that key requires an understanding of the broader
51% in 2011 supplier plans might work in prac ce trends driving supply chain vulnerability and
 Failure of service provision by outsourcing  42% stated the biggest on‐going challenge its disrup on. In this way it will become
suppliers has doubled from 17% to 35% of is to secure buy‐in to implement supply possible to demonstrate that high levels of
disrup on and joins the top three causes chain con nuity prac ces in their firm disrup on are not going to go away, however
fragile corporate memory may be.

Introduc on: 73% experienced at least one disrup

ve supply chain incident with an average of five
This report is the fourth in a series that, tough challenges where they are s ll to find an Chart 1: How many supply chain incidents would you
es mate your organisa on experienced in the past 12
star ng in 2009, set out to consider the      answer, insights which inform the Business months that caused disrup on to your organisa on?
challenge of developing resilient supply chains.    Con nuity Ins tute’s thinking on next steps.
While we have con nued to track trends in So, what do we mean by supply chain?  Here is
supply chain disrup on, mi ga on and          a reprise of the defini on that we first used in
assurance methods employed, the 2012 survey 2011 (Christopher 2005):
is re‐focused on events that cause at least The network of organisa ons that are involved,
some if not high levels of disrup on, rather through upstream and downstream rela on-
than disrup on in general, much of which can ships, in the different processes and ac vi es
be dealt with as part of business as usual.    that produce value in the form of products and
services in the hands of the ul mate consumer.
When reviewing the results it is naturally
important to consider the profile of the          headline figure for disrup on in the 2012
The
respondents:  In this case 82% of respondents survey is that 73% of responding organisa ons
work “in‐house” i.e. they are employed to run experienced at least one disrup on in the
business con nuity, supply chain or risk        previous 12 months, with an average level of
programmes with 18% providing consul ng five incidents. In 2011, supply chains were Base:  389.  Excludes 97 who stated “Don’t Know”.
services in these domains. The organisa ons widely disrupted by the Great East Japan     affec ng supply chain disrup ons across the
responding are typically large ones—42%     Earthquake and flooding in Thailand causing a whole enterprise.  For 75% of respondents, this
employ between one thousand and fi y     jump to 85% in the deadline disrup on figure is therefore not the case, so the level of
thousand staff and 12% employ more than fi y and peaking above the established trend‐line, disrup on recorded here is likely to be an
thousand people. to which we have now returned. underes mate of actual levels, albeit major
The 2012 survey has also achieved a stronger It is also worth no ng that only one in four disrup ons are likely to be picked up across
balance of views from across risk, business   firms have the full picture on supply chain     company  boundaries.
con nuity and supply chain professionals.    disrup on, which would be achieved by record‐ We hope this year’s survey provides some new
Finally, we asked respondents to ar culate the ing, measuring and repor ng on performance‐ insights and would welcome your feedback.


Experience of Disrup on

Origin of disrup on down in the supply chain ( er three or four the full supply chain, I was able to review three
Following on from providing informa on on etc).  87% of respondents to this ques on were of the disrup ons that I was made aware of
able to provide an analysis of the source of dis‐
the number of disrup ve incidents                  and found one to be an immediate supplier
experienced in the last 12 months, those who rup on as seen in Chart 2. failure and two to be er two”
had experienced disrup on were asked    61% of disrup on originated with the             Causes of disrup on
whether they had analysed the original source immediate supplier according to this year’s When considering causes of disrup on in the
of the disrup on within their supply chain.  The survey meaning that 39% originated in the    2012 survey, we refined the main ques on to
ques on specifically asked whether the disrup‐ extended supply chain ( er two, three, etc).   dis nguish between disrup on that caused
on occurred with the immediate supplier ( er This level of disrup on is consistent with levels some impact from disrup on that had high
one) or their supplier ( er two), or much lower reported in 2011, and confirms the deep‐ impact in order to qualify the severity of the
rooted nature of disrup on. The disrup on. The results in Chart 3 show the
Chart 2: The source of disrup on.  Base: 204
comments suggest that buying     totals of each threat type experienced over the
organisa ons take it upon them‐ previous 12 months.
selves to scru nise their extended
Overall some 1,200 causes of disrup on were
supply chain rather than rely on
reported with 301 of them designated as high
their immediate supplier to audit
impact. The top five causes by high impact
their suppliers in turn, which would
represent 42% of severe events.
be an alterna ve method of
addressing a difficult challenge.    Unplanned IT or telecom outages are the most
commonly experienced source of some or high
“We reach to the original source of
levels of disrup on with 52% of responding
the supply chain to minimize
organisa ons selec ng this op on. Adverse
contamina on to produce high
weather drops from first place in the 2011
purity products. When suppliers of
survey to second place in 2012 at 48%.
original source are hired, we have
excep onal confidence they are not Failure in service provision by an outsourcer
contamina ng” reaches the top three with 35% sta ng they
experienced some impact or high impact from
“While we don’t rou nely analyse

such an event. This is a significant increase recorded.  The finding suggests that this threat list underscores the extended recovery mes
from the 17% level recorded in 2011. has a strong sector bias rather than one for all ‐ faced by some organisa ons following the
data from 2009, 2010, and 2011 support this 2011 disaster.
In 2011, we wrote that intellectual property
viola ons was one to watch and this has conclusion as well. Loss of talent/skills has slipped in 2012 from
proved to be the case in jumping to 16th place The prominence of earthquake/tsunami in the sixth posi on down to tenth.  The London 2012
above cyber a ack, industrial dispute
and act of terrorism with 11% and 26 Chart 3: How severely has
your supply chain been affect-
responses compared with 25th place ed by any of the following
in 2011 with just five responses.      sources of disrup on over the
Other significant climbers included   past 12 months?  Severity
levels can be considered in
energy scarcity in sixth place (14th in terms of ini al impact, ability
2011) and new laws/regula ons in to con nue to deliver key
products and services and
seventh place (17th in 2011).
recovery me, as well as the
Cyber threats tend to score highly in consequences on brand and
reputa on.  Base: 227
horizon scanning and the media, so it
is interes ng to note the low levels of
disrup on actually experienced: only
16% of respondents recorded severe
or some supply chain disrup on as a
result of a cyber threat, ranking it 18th
on the list of threats experienced by
severity out of 25, and 14th by
number of incidents registered. What
is notable is the concentra on of this
disrup on in the financial services
sector, which claimed 41% of incidents


Olympics registered as a source of disrup on at be seen from Chart 4, loss of produc vity is s ll 1% to 9%) mirrors the prominence of
the UK level but not in the overall interna onal the primary consequence, with 59% checking outsourcer failures among the top three
survey. this in 2012 compared with 49% in 2011. sources of disrup on. Incidents forcing a
product recall or withdrawal also increased
Consequences of disrup on Increased cost of working, loss of revenues,
from just 5% in 2011 to 11% in 2012. As
When comparing 2012 with 2011 data on the customer complaints all increased over 2011
iden fied in 2011, longer term impacts are be‐
consequences arising from disrup ons, the first levels.  Product release delay jumped from 17%
ing  experienced more frequently with damage
observa on is an increased level of responses in 2011 to 26% in 2012.  Further down the list,
to brand reputa on increasing from 17% to
across all 14 poten al areas of impact.  As can the jump in payment of service credits (from
24% in this year’s survey.
Overall the survey recorded 741 impacts from
215 respondents. Of the 195 survey
respondents who experienced ‘1‐5’ disrup ve
events, 18 stated they endured six or more
consequences (9%), i.e. evidence that there is
more than one consequence from a single
event. Events which lend themselves to this
cascading effect are unplanned telecom/IT
outages, outsourcer failure, loss of talent/skills
and currency vola lity.
Economic consequences
One in five responding organisa ons had
suffered a single loss event of more than €1M
in the past 12 months up from 2011, when 17%
registered a similar magnitude of loss. This
increase is noteworthy given the overall lower
level of disrup on experienced in this year’s
Chart 4: Which of the following impacts or consequences arose from the incidents/
survey, sugges ng an increase in the
disrup ons experienced in the last 12 months? Base 215.

consequen al nature of Considering the 29 cases where this              employees and 49% had revenues in
supply
chain              10,000
disrup on.    comparison can be made the average (mean) excess of €1BN (compared with 23% and 22%
The aggregate annual figure could clearly be minimum loss is €8M but there is significant respec vely in the overall sample). Larger
higher given that the average level of incidents varia on. For example, three firms experienced organisa ons tend to have business con nuity
experienced was five. a single event loss between €1M and €10M on programmes, even if they are not labelled as
annual revenues of €1M to €10M indica ng a such.
It is worth comparing the single loss event
significant bo om line hit. While another These organisa ons do have more key
against the annual revenues of organisa ons to
suffered a loss of between €51M and €100M suppliers than the average with 43% recording
understand the significance of the event.
on annual revenues greater
more than 100 key suppliers compared with
than €50BN. The economic
the survey average of 23%, indica ng increased
consequences will therefore
complexity and higher need for assurance
be subject to further study. resources.
One ques on that arises is What is also clear is that those affected had
around the profile of those stronger business con nuity programmes with
organisa ons suffering a 63% having BC in place for supply chain
single event loss of more
disrup on, and a more rigorous approach was
than €1M. Are these firms
taken across all assurance methods (more on
simply laggards in terms of the criteria will follow in the following sec on
business con nuity?
of the report).
The answer is, in fact, quite
Most noteworthy is that in spite of the
the opposite.
Chart 5: Considering the single most economic hit over the past 12 months, this
significant incident in the last 12 Firstly, the affected organi‐ group is convinced that business con nuity has
months what was the approximate
financial cost (loss of revenue and/
sa ons were much larger helped them resist the impact of disrup on
or increased cost of working)?   ones than the survey         (63%) and helped with con nuity and recovery
Please give your response in EUROs. average with 58%
(96%).
Base:182
employing more than

Supply Chain Con nuity—25% of in‐house BC programmes do not consider supply chain disrup

on
Does your business con nuity programme Chart 6: If you have BCM arrangements in place for your supply chain, how strongly would you agree with the following
consider supply chain disrup on? statements? Base: 237 (only those with BCM could respond to this ques on).

When asked whether the responding
organisa on had business con nuity (BC)
arrangements in place to deal with supply
chain disrup on only 58% stated that this was
the case with 25% sta ng they definitely did
not and a further 17% not knowing.
For those with BC in place for their supply
chain (237) a series of follow up ques ons
were asked. The first was to consider three
business con nuity benefit statements and
rate their strength of agreement with each
one based on a scale from strongly agree
through to strongly disagree (refer to Chart 6)
The conclusion is that BC is an essen al
companies, the next logical step is to seek to a level which is felt to be a manageable one.
component of supply chain resilience, as more
understand supplier BC arrangements. This
than 90% agree it delivers the capability of The survey found that 77% of survey
can be a daun ng task, even assuming
faster recovery and the capability to con nue respondents who have BC themselves took
resources are available to do so. The BCI
to deliver key products and services.  There is the step of asking their key suppliers whether
Partnership has published separate guidance they had business con nuity arrangements in
less agreement about BC allowing survey
on how to perform the task of iden fying key place for their own needs. 16% did not ask
respondents to resist any impact of
supply chain partners from among the wider this ques on.
disrup on, but even so, s ll more than 60%
supply base in a separate paper available to
agree with the statement.
download from the BCI website. In the case The response to this ques on provides an
As the supplier base for larger organisa ons insight into the state of supply chain resilience
of this survey, 77% of responding
can number hundreds if not thousands of
organisa ons had less than 100 key suppliers, across a wide range of sectors (and beyond

the BCI’s membership). This can be viewed in than half have BC arrangements in place. In to consider not just upstream supply chain but
Chart 7 below. the sector and country analysis that follows     also the presence of BC arrangements
In 2012 we can see that 55% of survey            in this report, the strength of supply downstream among channels, distributors,
later
respondents have key supply chains where at chains is one of the key indicators for           franchisees etc. Here 17% ensured that all
least half of the companies that comprise these comparison.  Nevertheless, we can report that have BC in place, while 50% focus on the key
supply chains do have business con nuity in their has been a modest strengthening of     channel partners. 19% do not take this step,
place for their own needs. However, 44% supply chains compared with 2011. leaving a major vulnerability in the end‐to‐end
have much weaker supply chains, where less Another new dimension in the 2012 survey was business con nuity picture.
Building conﬁdence
In order to understand what the presence of
Chart 7: Considering your key suppliers, what
percentage of them would you say have business
BC arrangements among the key supplier base
con nuity arrangements in place to address their may mean in prac ce, the  survey looked at the
own needs? informa on requested from key supply chain
partners, how this informa on was collected
and subsequently validated and reviewed.
These steps are clearly essen al in developing
a sense of conﬁdence in the resilience of
supply chains. Naturally the picture that is then
developed may require one or more subse‐
quent ac ons. Within the survey, we asked
about the measures taken to deal with any
uncertainty generated from feedback from key
supply chains.
Informa on sought by survey respondents
As set out in Chart 8 (overleaf) the most
popular ques ons to ask relate to the existence

programme.   In 2011 only 28% of respondents 48% in 2011. The self‐assessment ques on‐
Chart 8: What informa on do you seek in order to be er
understand the business con nuity management (BCM) were looking for the BC programme. naire retains its popularity in second place with
arrangements of key suppliers? Base 200. 45% of respondents selec ng this op on, while
Standards and codes of prac ce play an
important role in assessing the resilience of key there has been a rise from 37% to 42% of those
suppliers with 37% and 36% respec vely     who will retrieve informa on through audit.
looking for alignment or compliance.              Reques ng an independent audit is s ll the
least popular op on among those who collect
Cer fica on lags behind on 28%.
informa on at 9%, down from 12% in 2011.
One area with a significant increase from 2011, 15% s ll do not collect any informa on,
is asking where responsibility for BC is held in implying it is good enough for the supplier to
the organisa on and the involvement of senior just state they have business con nuity in
management.  This clearly provides evidence of place.
the level of commitment behind the BC
programme. In 2011 the figure was just 23% “We do not ask to see their BCP but rather we
ask that they state whether they have a BCP
but has jumped to 36% in this year’s survey.
and will only award the contract to those who
The least likely ques on to ask is around the have a BCP for key contracts”
creden als of those who run the BC
programme, such as statutory membership of There were a significant number of comments
the BCI, which would seem to be a cri cal one to illustrate approaches taken, which are listed
given the programme can only be as effec ve in Annex 1, but four are quoted here to reflect
as the people assigned to deliver it.  Only 18% the range of approaches undertaken:
of a business con nuity programme (47%), asked this ques on, albeit this level has        “Ini al ques onnaire followed up with further
whether its scope is appropriate (44%) and rel‐ doubled from 2011. ques ons, mee ngs and site visits as
evant to the product or service being pur‐ appropriate to nature of the service being
How is the informa on collected?
chased (44%). This may seem obvious but in supplied”
51% of survey respondents required copies of
earlier surveys the focus was on the business
supplier documenta on, up frac onally from “We would ask them to set out their BCM plans
con nuity plan rather than the overall
in response to par cular scenarios”

“We personally visit each key supplier each ‐top exercise were techniques used by 16% of In the 2012 survey, 44% of respondents s ll
year and if they have presented any significant respondents, unchanged from 2011.  One area wait un l contract renewal before reviewing
problems then have moved to audit them” that has grown in popularity is the running of their business con nuity requirements with
joint exercises based around likely scenarios, key suppliers and their ability to meet them.
“Ac vi es may be performed by various
disciplines , for example, internal audit, depart- which was selected by 23% of respondents
This has increased from 37% in 2011.
ment-level vendor managers and procurement” compared with just 17% in 2011. Having said this, only 8% never review,
One respondent summarises the challenge and significantly down from 18% in the 2011
Valida ng that plans may work in prac ce
benefit of valida ng supplier planning: survey.  Likewise ad hoc mee ngs have dipped
The crucial step of valida ng whether plans
from 24% in 2011 to 21% in 2012.   Scheduled
and inten ons might be effec ve in prac ce is “The extent we get involved does depend on
review mee ngs with key suppliers at
s ll one that 41% do not take.  The good news risk, coopera on and rela onships. Most key
appropriate me intervals as part of an exis ng
is that this level has fallen from the 49% figure suppliers are open to close engagement and
registered in 2011.   see the opportunity of shared learning and    governance process has jumped to 40% from
31% in 2011, providing a good example of
improved longer term rela onships and
A number of op ons were offered to respond‐ embedding BC in the organisa on.
resilience”
ents and naturally most would use a variety of
Three more dynamic op ons are less popular,
Reviewing requirements
techniques depending on the assigned
namely reviewing business con nuity
cri cality of the supply chain partner. The One of the biggest changes in the 2012 survey
whenever there is a major change event at the
most popular selec on was to request          comes in the sec on on reviewing require‐
buyer (21%) or supplier end (20%), and
documented outcome reports and ac ons ments. Given the frequency of change within
whenever a new significant external threat is
plans following recent exercises conducted by organisa ons, it seems highly likely that
iden fied (20%).
the supplier. 40% chose this op on, up from priori es, scope and resources around business
34% in 2011. Another angle on the same     con nuity programmes may change more     Again comments received provide some clues
into how prac oners approach this issue:
technique is to approve the scope of tests in frequently than key supplier contracts.
advance  and sign‐off all post‐test reports, this Likewise new threats or opportuni es may “We plan to develop a schedule, but have not
was used by 11% of respondents. Holding a arise that need to be considered within an    at this me. We have inadequate staffing to
workshop with a key supplier or running a desk organisa on and through its supply chain. execute at this me”


“Contracts are usually for three years, we audit posi ve trend. the least chosen op ons at 5%.
at the start of the contract and mid term” When key suppliers do not, cannot or will not Comments from respondents illustrate the
“Our concerns tend to be greater on companies meet alignment needs, then respondents will choices available:
that are smaller with less public informa on typically take a number of ac ons as set out in
“A er iden fying vulnerabili es, we implement
available” Chart 9.  48% of respondents are keen to work
mi ga on programs, generally around mul -
“On an annual basis we select four cri cal    with the supplier where there is a will on the sourcing”
suppliers for capability assessment”. other side to improve. Fewer in 2012 just
accept the risk at 26%, down from 39% in 2011.   “Un l we find a more cost effec ve solu on, we
Seeking alignment and adap ng
Bringing an addi onal supplier on board has are using inventory to decouple our supply
The next logical step is to check whether the become more popular at 38% (2011: 31%).   capability from our supplier”
BC plans of the supplier would help you.  In the Insurance or risk transfer is consistently one of
End of sec on.
survey we termed this alignment. As BC
programmes are organised around the
objec ves and priori es of the  supplying firm,
it is important for the buying firm to
understand where it fits in the picture should
an event occur. It is quite common for
organisa ons to priori se between services
and hence customers in terms of con nuing
and restoring impaired ac vi es. In prac cal
terms being able to respond that you have
been largely successful, i.e. most key suppliers
are aligned, would seem to be a good result.  In
2012, 23% could state this while a further 6%
stated all of their key suppliers were aligned.
The number who had not tried alignment was
14%, down from 24% in 2011, which again is a Chart 9: If your key suppliers do not, cannot or will not meet your requirements what approach have you taken? Base 203

Business Con nuity in Tendering and Contrac ng Processes

Being asked about BC in tendering Among those not seeing a customer pull are the start, a modest improvement on 47% in
Results show that more organisa ons are being retailers and local authori es, the emergency 2011, but a significant minority either ignore
requested to provide evidence of their business services and regulated monopoly service       business con nuity or make it a post‐purchase
con nuity arrangements when tendering for providers, who either do not seek to win     ac vity. However, the comments from
new business. The figure for those receiving business or whose customers don’t have the respondents are more encouraging, sugges ng
this request for the majority if not all tenders buyer power to ask for evidence of BC           this is one area of intense ac vity, so we
that
has increased from 28% to 33%. Mirroring this programmes (i.e. consumers). should see future improvements on this
increase, the number who stated they are     BC involvement in procurement processes indicator.  Here’s one example:
rarely, if at all asked to provide such evidence “Increasingly BCM is becoming an integral part
When considering the involvement of business
has fallen from 24% to 19%. Comments from of the procurement process and in some cases
con nuity prac oners in the procurement
respondents suggested the trend was driven by process, there is s ll a long way to go. 51% a key upfront objec ve. There are s ll
major global customers, the banking and       occasions where parts of the business make
stated that business con nuity featured as an
financial sector, the healthcare sector and large integral part of the procurement process from purchasing decisions before engaging on BCM,
automo ve manufacturers. though the frequency is fast reducing”

Chart 10: When tendering for new business
clients over the past 12 months, how o en have
you had to provide assurance to clients that your
own business con nuity arrangements are
sufficient?  Base: 207

Chart 11: Does business con nuity feature
as part of your supplier contractual
discussions?  Base: 202


Geographical and Sector Perspec ves

Sector comparisons
Table 1 provides a comparison of selected
industry sectors to highlight the significant
varia on in terms of disrup on, preparedness
and customer pull. A full sector lis ng is
available in Annex 2.
The criteria for comparison are as follows:
 The level of incidents reported with a focus
on those repor ng “zero”
 The origin of the disrup on in terms of ers,
with a focus below er one
 The top five causes of disrup on by levels of
high impact
 The number who state their internal BCM Table 1:  Comparison data for four selected sectors.  Refer to Annex 2 for full sector breakdown.
programme considers supply
chain            percentage relates to those who do so in the past 12 months.
the
disrup on every me or the majority of mes
Given the high reliance on technology it is not
And two further measures: The financial services sector is more advanced surprising to see IT and telecom outages as the
 The strength of supply chains, where the than other sectors in terms of extending BC
leading source of disrup on in financial
percentage against “weak supply chains” programmes to consider their supply chain at
services coupled with informa on and cyber
refers to how many respondents have key 78% and their key supply chains are stronger
security threats.
suppliers where less than half have BC     than other sectors, confirming a head‐start in
programmes in place for their own needs Manufacturing serves as a good contrast,
the introduc on of supply chain con nuity.
experiencing high levels of disrup on rela ve
 Customer pull, where this means the           sector also stands out for having to
This
to others (85% experienced at least one
frequency with which evidence of BC is       provide evidence of their BC programme in
disrup on) and a different range of disrup ve
requested in tendering for new business, and tendering, with 45% having had this experience
events consistent with the sector. At 47%

fewer in‐house BC programmes consider     standing assump on.   It’s also consistent with The UK sample is drawn from 14 different
supply chain partners than in financial services the nature of the sector that their supply chain sectors with 28% from financial services, 16%
and those that have addressed this issue face a may be affected by riots or civil disturbances as from public administra on, 11% from
major challenge with their supply base—52% these tend to occur in city centres.  The sector professional services and IT/communica ons
of respondents in manufacturing concede that does stand out from others for the lack of         transport/storage each sharing 7%. 80%
and
less than half of their key supply chains have in‐house BC programmes considering supply experienced at least one disrup on and 33%
business con nuity for their own needs (let chain disrup on at just 38%. found the disrup on originated in the
alone any a empt at alignment). It is also     Geographical comparisons extended supply chain. The London 2012
evident that to date there has been a low level Olympics registered as one of the top five
There is significant varia on in maturity with
of customer pull to change this situa on at causes of some or high impact disrup on and
respect to considering supply chain disrup on
20%. was ahead of industrial ac on but some way
within in‐house BC programmes when viewed
behind IT and telecom outages and adverse
With public administra on, we would not     on a geographical basis.  Respondents from the
expect to see a high level of customer pull but UK and USA form a substan al part of the     weather. The UK stands out from other
countries in considering supply chain
there are o en statutory requirements that survey response and therefore lend themselves
drive BC programmes.  The range of  sources of to comparison (Annex 2 provides a fuller       disrup on within BC programmes with 75%
confirming this compared with just 44% of US
disrup on provides some contrast with         geographical breakdown of responses).
outsourcer failure, insolvency and loss of talent
or skills causing disrup on.  Policy changes for
public administra ons to move to shared
service models and private sector providers
may well be exposing organisa ons in this
sector to these threats.
The retail and wholesale sector does not have
their customers reques ng evidence of BC
arrangements before making a purchase, and
it’s good that the survey confirms this long
Table 2:  Comparison data for the UK and USA  Refer to Annex 2 for country and regional breakdown.

respondents and similar levels in Australia,
New Zealand and Canada. The UK also differs
from other countries in respect of customer
pull for the provision of informa on around
business con nuity in tendering processes,
where 34% stated that they typically have to
do this compared with 23% in the US.  The US
sample in this survey was also drawn from 14
sectors, however manufacturing was the lead
sector in terms of response at 18% with retail/
wholesale at 13% and financial services at 13%.   Table 3:  Comparison data by size of organisa on. Base: 532 Comparison by organisa onal size
The US respondents reported lower levels of broader regional picture, we see that the       The size of an organisa on also has an impact
disrup on and the top threat profile reflects region which experienced most disrup on was on the experience of disrup on and business
the different mix in sectors with product       the Middle East & Africa where 78%               con nuity approach as Table 3 shows. The
quality incident and lack of credit featuring experienced at least one disrup on. 70% of results are consistent with expecta ons— the
prominently. respondents from con nental Europe and     larger the organisa on, the greater the
Although the US respondents may lag on     Central & La n America experienced at least likelihood of experiencing disrup on. 20% of
considering supply chain business con nuity, one disrup on, while respondents in Asia     firms with more than ten thousand staff
those that do are slightly ahead of the UK and experienced a quieter year with 43%               experienced more than ten incidents compared
registering “zero incidents”. There is a           8% in smaller sized en es. Larger
with
other countries in terms of having stronger
significant difference in threats when viewed organisa ons are also more developed in
supply chains, i.e. more than 50% of key supply
chain partners have BC arrangements, and they on a regional basis with energy scarcity and    considering business con nuity for the supply
exchange rate vola lity domina ng in Middle chain and more likely to have tried to align
are less likely to wait for contract renewal
East & Africa, while IT and telecom was the    their requirements with their key supply chain
before reviewing their business con nuity
primary source of disrup on in con nental    partners.
requirements with their key suppliers.
Europe.
Looking beyond these two countries to a End of sec on.


Lessons Learned and Key Challenges

“Assurance from suppliers can only go so far.  A
plan for dealing with the effects of a disrup on
is needed, even if the supplier’s business
con nuity arrangements are extremely robust”
Survey respondents felt the main lesson to be
taken away from the disrup on they
experienced was to improve their approach to
business con nuity in terms of risk assessment,
mi ga on efforts, planning and exercising.
“The plans we have in place and work we’ve
done with suppliers have helped an cipate
incidents, proac vely plan our response,
communicate to stakeholders and minimise
impact.  Several years ago this would not have
been the case”
Specific ac ons taken over the past 12 months Table 4: Base:  167 respondents provided free-form responses
can be divided into three broad areas of
Some changes in procurement policy were also The top 10 challenges (see Table 4) are led by
ac vity:   More analysis, securing new policies required including moving away from single two related subjects in the sense that resource
or introducing new processes, and taking the source (where possible), making provision for and budget availability in larger organisa ons,
extra step of running joint workshops or
alterna ve suppliers, transport routes and   where most respondents are, is really a ma er
exercises with partners, the la er generated payment methods, and introducing buffer of priority and buy‐in and not a lack of people
some very posi ve outcomes: stocks.    or funds. Beyond these leading factors, there
“Joint exercises with key suppliers and             have amended tender packs to request
“We is a wide range of issues to be addressed, in
observing their exercises. These really focus details of suppliers’ BCM.  We have introduced some cases it would warrant a re‐evalua on of
the minds and the general improvement in    a consistent ra ng methodology to assess    the strategy. For more comments, please
exercising is reassuring” supplier cri cality in line with our own BIA    refer to Annex 1.
process”

Review & Conclusions—avoiding a $4 million failure

Since 2009 consistently high levels of supply study into service chains and the specific     allow a calibrated response to the ques on
chain disrup on have been experienced and challenges inherent in them. “how confident are you in the resilience of our
events are becoming more consequen al even Given the dominance of supply chain            key supply chains?”
with absolute levels dipping a er 2011, a year disrup on through unplanned IT and telecom Another business con nuity specific
which saw the Great East Japan Earthquake outages, there is now a need to evaluate the perspec ve to track is whether the new
and extensive flooding in Thailand. contribu on of “the cloud” to resilience. interna onal business con nuity standard ISO
One area for further work is a be er              challenge of securing execu ve buy‐in     22301 will make efforts to seek alignment
The
understanding of the cascading nature of risks requires an understanding of the broader easier and thereby contribute to improved
and their consequences in supply chain
trends driving supply chain vulnerability and its resilience.
con nuity.  The research in 2012 has iden fied disrup on. In this way it will become possible The good news for business con nuity
that there are mul ple consequences from the to demonstrate the trend is not going to go professionals is that the BC methodology is
same event.    away, however fragile corporate memory may widely seen as effec ve in resis ng the impact
A number of non‐tradi onal business            be. of disrup on, alongside its core benefits of
con nuity risks have registered in this year’s More work is also required to understand the enabling con nuity and faster recovery from
survey, most notably disrup on caused by    economic impact of supply chain disrup on incidents. Good prac ce is documented in
exchange rate vola lity. Applying business including the value of investment in raising the abundance in the survey and there is li le
con nuity exper se specifically around        level of resilience in key supply chains. excuse for not trying out some of the ideas.
con ngency planning presents an excellent The value of moving from a documenta on
This la er work will help support the challenge
opportunity for prac oners to provide a more centric approach for evalua ng supply chain
of unlocking resources through execu ve
valuable service to their organisa ons. One resilience to one based on ac ve engagement
commitment. In addi on, the broader trends
other risk type also became more visible, and joint exercises is also clear.  In closing, let’s
that are driving supply chain vulnerability and
namely disrup on caused by intellectual     not find ourselves in the situa on that one
hence disrup on need to be be er
property viola ons, and this deserves further      person did:
understood.
analysis. “A major failure that impacted our customers
One useful next step from this research would
The drama c rise in disrup on through         drew management a en on to the issue. It
be to develop an assurance model that would
outsourcer service failures requires further took a $4million (US) loss to get any a en on.”


Respondent Proﬁle—base 532

Chart 12: Func onal role Chart 13: Primary ac vity of the organisa on

Chart 15: Size of organisa on by number of Chart 16: Size of organisa on by revenues
Chart 14: Geographical loca on employees or budget (public sector): 460 respondents


About the Survey

Fieldwork for the 4th Annual Supply Chain Resilience Survey commenced on 22nd June and closed on 31st August 2012 with
532 responses validated.  All members of the Business Con nuity Ins tute received an individual email invita on to complete
the online survey. This was complemented by the Chartered Ins tute of Purchasing and Supply invi ng its members to
contribute through their exis ng communica on methods.  In addi on, support is acknowledged from the following people
and organisa ons:
 Chartered Ins tute of Logis cs & Transport

 AIRMIC

 Colin Ive MBCI and the BRiSC community

 Buyers Mee ng Point

 Kuniyuki Tashiro MBCI for transla ng the survey into Japanese.

We would like to thank Zurich Insurance Group for sponsoring this research for the fourth successive year and DHL Supply
Chain for joining them for a second year.
We would also like to thank the BCI Partnership Working Party on Supply Chain Con nuity under Steve Wicks MBCI, and the
wider BCI Partnership Steering Group for their support in the development of the survey.
Author:  Lee Glendon CBCI, Head of Research & Advocacy, The Business Con nuity Ins tute
Reviewers:  Lyndon Bird FBCI, Technical Director, The Business Con nuity Ins tute.  Deborah Higgins MBCI, Technical &
Learning Manager, The Business Con nuity Ins tute


About

The Business Con nuity Ins tute Business Con nuity
Based in Caversham, United Kingdom, the Business Con nuity Ins tute Business Con nuity (BC) is the capability of the organisa on
(BCI) was established in 1994 to “promote the art and science of business to con nue delivery of products or services at acceptable
con nuity management” and to assist organisa ons in preparing for and predefined levels following a disrup ve incident.
surviving minor and large‐scale man‐made and natural disasters. The
Business Con nuity Management (BCM) is a holis c
Ins tute enables members to obtain guidance and support from their
management process that iden fies poten al threats to an
fellow prac oners, as well as offers professional training and cer fica on
organiza on and the impacts to business opera ons those
programmes to disseminate and validate the highest standards of
threats, if realized, might cause, and which provides a
competence and ethics. It has over 7,000 members in more than 100
framework for building organiza onal resilience with the
countries, ac ve in an es mated 2,500 organisa ons in private, public and
capability of an effec ve response that safeguards the
third sectors. For more informa on go to: www.thebci.org
interests of its key stakeholders, reputa on, brand and
The BCI Corporate Partnership, established in 2007, offers corporate value‐crea ng ac vi es.
membership of the BCI with over 90 member organisa ons including: Aon
Source: ISO22301:2012
Risk Consul ng, BAE Systems, BP, BSI Management Systems, BT,
ClearView Con nuity, Con nuitySA, Con nuity Shop, DHL Supply Chain, Contac ng the BCI
DNV Business Assurance, eBay, eBRP Solu ons, Hill Dickinson, iAgenci,
Lee Glendon CBCI, Head of Research & Advocacy
IBM, Itau‐Unibanco, KPN Corporate Market, LRQA, Link Associates, Milton The Business Con nuity Ins tute
Keynes Council, Na onal Grid, Phoenix, Pruden al, PwC, Reed Elsevier, 10‐11 Southview Park, Marsack Street
Royal Mail, Savant, T‐Systems, VocaLink and Zurich Insurance Group.        Caversham, RG4 5AF, UK.
To join as a corporate member, go to: www.bcipartnership.com Phone: +44 (0) 118 947 8215
E‐mail: research@thebci.org


About

The Chartered Ins tute of Purchasing & Supply
The Chartered Ins tute of Purchasing & Supply (CIPS) is the world’s largest procurement and supply
professional organisa on. It is the worldwide centre of excellence on purchasing and supply
management issues. CIPS has a global community of over 88,000 in 150 different countries,
including senior business people, high‐ranking civil servants and leading academics.  The ac vi es of
purchasing and supply chain professionals have a major impact on the profitability and efficiency of
all types of organisa on and CIPS offers corporate solu ons packages to improve business
profitability.
www.cips.org


About

Zurich
Zurich is a thought leader in supply chain risk management. It has developed supply chain risk
assessment tools and an innova ve and award winning supply chain insurance product. The company
has  extensive experience of working with clients to help them make their supply chains more resilient.

Zurich Insurance Group (Zurich) is a leading mul ‐line insurance provider with a global network of
subsidiaries and offices in Europe, North America, La n America, Asia‐Pacific and the Middle East as
well as other markets. It offers a wide range of general insurance and life insurance products and
services for individuals, small businesses, mid‐sized and large companies as well as mul na onal
corpora ons. Zurich employs about 60,000 people serving customers in more than 170 countries.
Founded in 1872, the Group is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd
(ZURN) is listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange and has a level I American Depositary Receipt program
(ZFSVY) which is traded over‐the‐counter on OTCQX. Further informa on about Zurich is available at
www.zurich.com

Zurich Contact Details
Nick Wildgoose, Global Supply Chain Product Manager
Phone: +44 (0) 0787 588 6068
Email: nick.wildgoose@uk.zurich.com


About

DHL
DHL is the global market leader in the logis cs industry and “The Logis cs company for the world”. DHL
commits its exper se in interna onal express, air and ocean freight, road and rail transporta on, contract
logis cs and interna onal mail services to its customers. A global network composed of more than 220
countries and territories and about 275,000 employees worldwide offers customers superior service
quality and local knowledge to sa sfy their supply chain requirements. DHL accepts its social  responsibility
by suppor ng climate protec on, disaster management and educa on.

DHL Supply Chain Service Capability
DHL Supply Chain provides solu ons for all industry sectors including retail and fashion.  By understanding
your business needs, DHL delivers cost effec ve supply chain solu ons that improve efficiency. From
consul ng and design, sourcing and transporta on through to warehousing, order assembly, distribu on
and returns, we manage the full supply chain opera on. DHL is part of Deutsche Post DHL. The Group
generated revenue of 53 billion euros in 2011.

DHL Supply Chain Contact Details
DHL Supply Chain enquiry line: 0800 316 0498


Annex 1


Annex 1—Respondent comments

On recording, measuring and repor ng on  Only lost sales measured and reported
budget for their requirements as a result
supply chain disrup ons monthly but effect on produc vity and      quan es had either to be reduced or
revenue not measured suspend the whole purchase; 4‐Sub standard
 Internal distribu on centre performance
products on the market due to forex
metrics are reported, but any impact on  This has only just started to be reported on,
shortage
third party vendor deliveries is not. Retail prompted by new ways of working brought
level sales impact is not measured  There was a na onwide labour strike in
about by the expected disrup ons
 Only those func ons who align to the BCMS associated with the Olympics Nigeria in January 2012. There was no
within the company will be aware to provide  All cri cal suppliers iden fied and working movement for a whole week
a post incident report with them on BC process  Back‐ordered computer equipment has
 Incidents or issues involving third par es are slowed a launch of a new area of business.
 We do provide incident management
logged in to risk event so ware. Output reports and follow‐ups when key suppliers  Key incidents include issues with a US
generated is exposure rela ng to third      cause or threaten to cause disrup on execu on broker, and power supply failures.
par es If we were to include short term weather
 Our firm mostly imports from our parent
 I use my own developed process called BVI disrup ons (impact on transport delivery
company of our own product
(Business Vulnerability Index) mes), it would be 51+. However, these
On levels of disrup on experienced impacts are nominal to the total business
 While a BCMS is being implemented a
central recording process is soon to be      Only product quality issues are tracked. This  Delivery of aid in war torn or fragile states
developed does not include issues with lead me or
 Thailand Tsunami affected produc on of
price
 Source of funding is usually a challenge such components used by our organisa on ‐
that the donor suggests direc ons, terms  1‐Scarcity of forex to import goods; 2‐Late or global shortage
and condi ons on procurement and supply no deliveries from local suppliers due to

chain management to name a few scarcity of forex. No inputs for their         We record near misses and events. 1 event
and several near misses. Event associated
 No post incident repor ng is conducted products; 3‐Unstable price markets for goods
and services. Prices increasing by almost 50 with delays in delivery of IT hardware
 All impacts, costs and learning logged and associated with impact of Thai floods
or 70% making it difficult for departments to
tracked

 Three different Internet providers. In one On incidents that caused financial losses  Country shut down in Nigeria due to a
case, two of them failed to deliver service week’s unrest following the government’s
 Packaging integrity is compromised when
few hours one day but the third (the mobile decision to withdraw a fuel subsidy
alternate materials are used without
phone network) worked well authoriza on causing contamina on outside  In the last year an organisa on who
On analysing the extended supply chain the typical specifica on provides a front line service became
insolvent and approximate cost to place a
 We reach to the original source of the supply  The biggest problems we face are late
business con nuity plan in place
chain to minimize contamina on to produce deliveries from machine shops.  This is turn
high purity products. When suppliers of     has required us to work addi onal over me  Warehouse was completely destroyed in a
original source are hired, we have                in order to not ship our product late fire with all stock and building completely
excep onal confidence they not                 destroyed
 The recent [Company A] bank failure caused
contamina ng disrup on to our accounts department. It  Riots impact on retail higher than on supply
 We only look at our immediate supplier took them a week to check that all           chain
 A prolonged power failure because of the payments had gone through. No financial  Cost to run generator during power outage
destruc on of the main power sta on, in   loss, just disrup on. Clients were
 Due to a delay in product delivery we had to
Cyprus understanding
postpone some surgeries with loss of income
 3PL Omani workers on strike  Principle supplier of control brand product
or delayed income
insolvency.  We incurred significant costs to
 The source of disrup on was not at our
transfer produc on and expedite orders  UK Government changed import laws
supplier but it was a na onal event in two
from an alterna ve vendor in me for a me  IT hardware delivery delays as a result of
different countries ‐ Nigeria and Kenya
sensi ve marke ng release Thai floods
 While we don't rou nely analyse the full
 IT issues and the supply of replacement  A major failure that impacted our customers
supply chain I was able to review 3 of the
drives due to issue in the Far East drew management a en on to the issue.  It
disrup ons I was made aware of and found
took a $4million (US) loss to get any
one to be an immediate supplier failure and  The withdrawing of a call divert service by
[Company B], so our office numbers couldn't a en on
2 to be er 2
be directly diverted to the new offices

Working with key supply chain partners— suppliers who have a BCP for key contracts for BCM requirements for the Dutch
what if they can’t or won’t meet your BC financial sector and its providers"
 A er iden fying vulnerabili es, we
needs?
implement mi ga on programs, generally  We also review SAS 70 or similar reports
 We would not take on a supplier unless we around mul ‐sourcing where necessary
were happy that they had measures in place  Un l we can develop a more cost effec ve  We now write the requirement for BCM into
to provide con nuity of service to our
solu on we are using inventory to decouple all our contracts, and judge this as part of
customers our supply capability from our supplier our selec on criteria
 Increased inventory coverage for key       Changing supplier is not always possible
 How do you collect this informa on?
components where government departments are            In person follow‐up as necessary and we will
 A mixture of the above [strategies provided involved
offer our assistance to aid the development
as answer op ons] depending on the         What BC informa on do you seek? of their plan
supplier / product and the market
 We rou nely check the financial stability of  We personally visit each key supplier each
 Ensure that supplier takes steps to mi gate poten al suppliers, number of employees, year and if they have presented any
the situa on with their infrastructure
years in business, credit availability significant problems then have moved to au‐
problems dit them
 BCM is not yet popular in [Country]! Being a
 In most cases we also have in‐house fall back government agency, we have to deal with  We don't collect subject informa on since
procedures
the rigors of a minimum of a 3 cost canvass most of the agencies and businesses in the
 In truth it could be any of the above
from different suppliers before ordering Philippines don't have BCMP yet
depending on circumstances, but our          from the lowest bidder, add to that the
 Contractual requirement
favoured approach is to work with a supplier policy that government agencies should first
to agree a plan to be er align their approach procure supplies from the [Government     We have internal procedure for outsourcing.
with our requirements Department] and you'll be le with no BCM is a major requirement on RFP (Request

 We do not ask to see their BCP but rather we choice but to make do with what the        for Proposals)
government mandates.  Not currently done for all ers; Only
ask that they state whether they have a BCP
and will only award the contract to those  We advise them to align to the "Principles enforced for third party supply chain

distribu on centre services  There is a regular internal and external audit  The extent we get involved does depend on
of sites and BCM risk, coopera on and rela onships. Most
 Audit when specified in contract
key suppliers are open to close engagement
 We also run face‐to‐face mee ngs, telecons/
 Request evidence from cri cal suppliers to
and see the opportunity of shared learning
live mee ngs and undertake site visits, all
validate the self‐assessment ques onnaire, and improved longer term rela onships and
depending on the risk analysis we undertake.
meet with cri cal suppliers if the ques on‐ resilience.
The higher the risk the deeper we look
naire raises concerns.
 We have plans to begin valida on
 We also now include standard provisions
 Ini al ques onnaire followed up with further
ques ons, mee ngs and site visits as         regarding BCM into our contracts with     How o en do you review your requirements
suppliers with them and their capability to meet them?
appropriate to nature of service being sup‐
plied.  We par cipate in joint tes ng of BCPs with  Contracts are usually for 3 years, we audit at
key suppliers the start of a contract and mid term (circa 18
 This depends on the cri cality of the
supplier. The more cri cal they are, the more  Ac vi es may be performed by various      months)
we ask for disciplines, e.g., internal audit, dept.‐level  Many of our key suppliers are large na onal
 We undertake full onshore and offshore due
vendor managers, procurement or mul na onal companies. Our concerns
Have you checked that key supplier               to be greater on companies that are
diligence site visits where appropriate tend
smaller with less public informa on available
 Self‐assessments have only been completed
arrangements may work in prac ce?
 Once we do our yearly BCP Simula on
for specific threats such as pandemic; also  In some cases the supplier / client refuses to
Exercise. Contact numbers are ensured to be
have the ability in our contracts to audit provide such informa on
the current ones
event though not a mandatory requirement
 Only specific key suppliers have been
that one be completed 
subject to these controls such as our         We proceed with relevant reviews according
to our "tes ng, reviewing and monitoring"
 We would also ask them to set out their BCM outsourced IT contractors
plans in response to par cular scenarios procedure under our BCMS
 We have not yet carried out any tests of
 On an annual basis we select 4 cri cal
 Carry out assurance reviews against our BC suppliers BCM plans, but are intending to do
suppliers for BC capability assessment
policy so in future


 Done once since 2010 training and templates by in‐house BC      We have introduced a consistent ra ng
manager methodology to assess supplier cri cality in
 Annual review of all documenta on, BCM
line with our own BIA process

and processes. Every 3 years desktop          We have reviewed the BCP, conducted
exercise audits and completed 2 desktop audits for  Set up supply chain intelligence department
each site. Target is 3 by the end of the year
 Will vary depending on the perceived risk  Implementa on of board approved due
associated with a contract and supplier,  Various drills and exercises have allowed us diligence policy for exis ng and poten al
though a minimum is at contract renewal to see weakness and strengths. We follow third par es
up on both to improve
 Typically work on an annual review cycle     Provision made to train all procurement

unless significant change occurs in the        New mandatory Purchasing & Procurement contract officers in BCM and have offered to
interim Policy introduced, driving the required risk support them in terms of audi ng cri cal
assessments prior to supplier appointments and strategic contracts
 We plan to develop a schedule but have not
at this me.  We have inadequate staffing to  We have sent our le er and survey forms to  Iden fied the truly cri cal suppliers and
execute at this me our key suppliers to find out whether they specifically what they provide as it related to
 Every two years as part of a new 3rd party
are BCM ready our value chain towards our customers, and
BCM ques onnaire process that is mandated  Defining and implemen ng a BCM Vendor developed a er structure for reviewing,
tes ng, etc. the suppliers plans based on the
by company policy standard. Rolling out a Vendor Con nuity
cri cality er each falls into
What ac ons taken by you have made the   Program and making Category Management
the owner  Full assessment of our cri cal suppliers
biggest difference to your confidence?
using a mix of self‐assessment ques on‐
 Every key supplier (as a first pass) now has a
 Joint exercises with key suppliers and
con ngency & con nuity score, which       naires and audits
observing their exercises.  These really focus
 Mapped key suppliers and developed
minds and the general improvement in      allows us to focus out efforts on single
source suppliers that have low scores incident management protocols including
exercising is reassuring
 We have amended tender packs to request
resources
 Workshops held for owners of private
details of suppliers BCM  Individual plant by plant, unit by unit risk
residen al care homes and the provision of
and mi ga on analyses

Annex 2


Annex 2 ‐ Sector breakdown across key data

Table 5A: Comparison data for individual sectors. Refer to page 15 of this report for a descrip on of the comparison criteria


Annex 2 ‐ Sector breakdown across key data

Table 5B: Comparison data for individual sectors. Refer to page 15 of this report for a descrip on of the comparison criteria.


Annex 2 ‐ And by country

Table 6A: Comparison data for individual countries. Refer to page 15 of this report for a descrip on of the comparison criteria.


Annex 2—And by region

Table 6B: Comparison data for individual regions. Refer to page 15 of this report for a descrip on of the comparison criteria.


BCI Supply Chain Resilience 2012

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to BCI Supply Chain Resilience 2012

More from haemmerle-consulting

Recently uploaded

BCI Supply Chain Resilience 2012