Why Companies Shouldn’t Abandon Supply Chain Visibility
2025 has so far proven to be a year of regulatory chaos for global supply chains. From the constant whiplash around tariffs and trade exclusions to the EU’s introduction of omnibus legislation for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), it has been challenging for brands and retailers to keep abreast of all of the changes and ensure their businesses are compliant. Companies shouldn't abandon their strict supply chain due diligence practices amidst this regulatory uncertainty; rather, they should invest further in supply chain due diligence to ensure they're prepared for the next evolution of regulatory requirements.
There's no excuse for opaque supply chains in 2025. In fact, it’s vital for companies to have full visibility into their upstream supply chain. Regulatory requirements aside, supply chain visibility is tremendously advantageous for brands and retailers alike, as it allows them to better predict costly shortages and disruptions while sourcing safer and higher quality goods. Building an end-to-end supply chain map isn’t rocket science, however, not all approaches are created equal.
Automated supply chain mapping that uses a combination of artificial intelligence and supplier-attested data collection can give companies the assurance they need that their supply chain map is more than just an educated guess. The addition of supplier-provided documentation is key. Without it, companies risk noncompliance with global due diligence regulations, many of which employ audits, shipment detentions or seizures as their primary methods of enforcement.
While a full upstream supply chain map can be built in a matter of weeks, companies shouldn't wait until they’ve undergone an investigation or enforcement action to begin mapping. In the U.S., companies must respond to a shipment detention by Customs and Border Protection within 30 days lest that shipment be permanently excluded from the market. Thirty days is insufficient time to not only map your upstream supply chain but to also collect the requisite corroborating evidence tracing the chain of custody for your goods.
A proactive approach will save a company’s compliance and procurement teams endless headaches and days — if not weeks — spent trying to cobble together documents at the last minute. Supply chain mapping shouldn't be considered a one-time exercise; rather, it should be a continuous process, accounting for the frequent changes that define most global supply chains.
Yet even the most efficient and proactive data collection processes can be derailed by unresponsive suppliers. Companies with strong relationships with their suppliers see the most success when mapping their supply chains. To bolster those relationships, consider factors like language — e.g., requesting information in your supplier’s native language significantly increases the likelihood that they will respond completely and accurately.
Suppliers that are suspicious of why information is being asked of them, perhaps due to a fear of losing an existing contract, may be less likely to respond. As many supply chain due diligence laws require companies to provide additional evidentiary documentation in the event of an audit, companies should periodically “test” their supplier’s ability to produce chain-of-custody documents for their goods. This can come in the form of a pressure test, determining a select supplier’s ability to produce chain-of-custody documents within the 30-day window allotted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) when a shipment is detained. Many companies ultimately have their goods permanently excluded due to their inability to meet this tight turnaround time to collect these documents, review them for accuracy, and then submit them to CBP. It's better for companies to proactively identify gaps in data and work to remediate those gaps than to wait until it's too late.
While regulatory requirements will continue to evolve over time, a transparent supply chain is a foundational requirement across most supply chain due diligence laws. Take, for example, the recently proposed omnibus legislation for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). While many stakeholders considered the EU Commission’s proposal to limit due diligence to a company’s direct suppliers — rather the full upstream supply chain — as a means of weakening the legislation, other related EU due diligence legislation will still require upstream visibility. This includes the EU Forced Labor Regulation, the EU Batteries Regulation, the Digital Product Passport, and more.
In such examples, a company would risk exposure to any issues of noncompliance amongst their direct and indirect suppliers. The only way to properly identify and remediate those risks is to map your end-to-end supply chain as soon as possible. Companies which operate in multiple global markets are exposed to numerous due diligence regulations and should ensure their data collection processes are compliant with the strictest standards.
Marissa Brock is director of policy and government affairs at Sourcemap, a supply chain regulatory software provider.
Marissa Brock is director of policy and government affairs at Sourcemap, a supply chain regulatory software provider. She primarily focuses on how supply chain mapping and due diligence can address regulatory requirements for more resilient and risk-free supply chains. Brock holds a Bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and a Master’s degree from George Washington University's Trachtenberg School of Public Policy.
