I was recently invited to moderate a panel at a conference addressing security matters. Prior to the session, I asked the organizer (whose firm runs a variety of supply chain events around the world) whether this was a popular subject. “Not as much as you would expect,” he admitted. “What is hot, then?” He answered immediately: “Collaboration and visibility.”

I certainly understand the importance of collaboration and visibility. Over the past five years that I’ve been editing World Trade, I’ve watched management’s approach to logistics morph into something considerably more grand and critical to the success of the enterprise - the supply chain.

A host of factors are changing the game. You know the secular list: expanding global trade flows, shrinking half-life of competitive advantages, cheap labor in emerging markets. Then there are cyclical concerns like spiking energy prices and the depreciation of the dollar.

The net-net of all this has been to put a premium on the agile enterprise that is able to off-load from its own balance sheet as much operational overhead as is optimal while still being sufficiently responsive to quickly adapt to changes in sourcing, demand and competition.

Hence the preoccupation with figuring out better ways to align the various components in the value chain all the way from R&D through to end-customer distribution (read: collaboration). And, once the value chain is in action, the need to know in real time where things stand at each step along the way (read: visibility).

“Anything new and earth-shaking you’re hearing about collaboration or visibility in your travels?” I asked my source. No, he allowed, mostly it is just a matter of elevating these subjects to top-of-mind, of giving people a networking opportunity to exchange war tales. We’re still in the first phases of the fundamental industrial realignment that is underway, far too soon for ‘silver bullet’ solutions. 

So, to repeat, the popularity of collaboration and visibility as topics is no surprise. What does surprise me, though, is the apparent limited interest in security. 

Waves of concern following 9/11 resulted in positive initiatives to secure trade. Coupled with it have been enhanced portfolios of responsibility for corporate security offices as their mandate expands from guarding against theft and ‘shrinkage’ to making the supply chain itself more resilient to disruptive threats. But, much of that original enthusiasm seems to have passed.  

Selling security upwards within senior management remains a challenge, as the panelists made clear. While there are anecdotal stories of improved business performance in the wake of heightened attention to security (on-time delivery, for example) there aren’t metrics that measure it. Meanwhile, it’s costly to insure the enterprise against disruption that, until it actually occurs, remains hypothetical.

On the governmental front, the Security and Accountability for Every Port legislation passed by Congress in 2006 marches forward. A next big step, according to Brad Skinner,  C-TPAT’s recently appointed director, will be the inclusion of 3PLs into the certification process, thereby according them ‘fast track’ customs status although he can’t say precisely when.

Voluntary compliance is a good first step but without mandatory official standards, the panelists concurred, it is not likely that most enterprises will-on their own-implement the level of precautions and procedures necessary to fully secure trade channels.

The way things stand now, it appears that the current cost/benefit equation doesn’t justify higher levels of precautionary security.  Let’s hope that someday in the future companies don’t look back at those choices they’re making now as short-sighted and misguided.