Supply Chain & Tariff Update | Q1 2025

Welcome to the first quarterly Supply Chain & Tariff Update, presented by Steptoe & Johnson attorney Randy Whitlatch.

Content Highlights:

• Case Updates & Takeaways
• Legislation Updates
• United States Tariffs

Watch Related Webinar          Sign Up for Quarterly Updates

Case Updates & Takeaways

(organized by month)

January 2025

• California – Securities Fraud
  In Ryan v. FIGS, Inc., the United States District Court for the Central District of California partially dismissed a securities fraud complaint against FIGS, Inc. The court dismissed some claims with prejudice and others without prejudice. See Ryan v. FIGS, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5329 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2025). The plaintiffs alleged that FIGS, Inc. made misrepresentations to the public regarding its supply chain management capabilities – specifically, that defendants allegedly “engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate FIGS’ share prices by misrepresenting to the public that FIGS possessed and used advanced data analytics and ‘unique inventory and supply chain management capabilities.’ … [which] were allegedly touted as ways FIGS could weather macroeconomic pressures and provide insight into possible market behavior.” While some claims were dismissed, some of these claims will progress to discovery.

Takeaway: Companies should take care to train executives and other employees on how to responsibly discuss supply chain management capabilities with investors and the public.

• Texas – ESG/ERISA
  In Spence v. Am. Airlines, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas partially granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and found that American Airlines breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty under ERISA by allowing ESG concerns to unduly influence retirement plan investment and management. See Spence v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11725 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2025). The court found that pursuing socio-political outcomes rather than exclusively financial returns, i.e., ESG investing, violated ERISA.

Takeaway: Companies should take care when deciding whether and to what degree it will incorporate ESG investing into its business practices, particularly where fiduciary duties to shareholders or others are involved.

• California – Commercial Contracts
  In Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Quantum Corp., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. See Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Quantum Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11067 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2025). This case arises from the alleged breach of a supply contract where Arrow and Quantum entered into a Master Agreement on September 30, 2020, and an Addendum on June 4, 2021, governing their supply relationship. Quantum provided forecasts to Arrow of its projected product needs. Arrow ordered and held inventory based on Quantum’s forecasts. Quantum later reduced its forecasts and did not purchase the inventory Arrow had ordered from Arrow’s supplier. Arrow claimed more than $4 M in damages relating to the unpurchased inventory. The court found several factual issues and held the case for trial on plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Takeaway: This case is worth reading to understand how courts may determine when a forecast becomes a firm order. Companies should take care to be specific about what forecasts represent and should also take care to understand that trade usage, course of performance, and course of dealing can impact what the plain and unambiguous language of a contract means under the UCC. Ambiguity is not necessarily required for courts to admit this sort of evidence under the UCC, which is why it is important to train front-line procurement and sales professionals on contractual terms and company expectations.

• Court of International Trade – International Trade/Tariff
  In Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, the Court of International Trade granted Honeywell’s motion for summary judgment challenging the classification of imported brake segments. The court held that imported brake segments should have been classified under the heading 8803.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 2025 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jan. 30, 2025). The court determined that the brake segments had no other substantial commercial application and were considered an integral part of the brake discs. The brake segments therefore fell under the parts of an aircraft classification rather than the classification pertaining merely to material from which the brakes are made.

Takeaway: Companies hoping for the most accurate tariff treatment should take care to maintain clear records demonstrating the intended and actual use of imported components and should expect Customs and Border Patrol officials to take a strict approach leaning toward higher tariffs in the near term.

February 2025

• New York – Commercial Finance/Supply Chain Finance
  In Raistone Purchasing LLC-Series XXXVII v. Comercializadora de Papeles y Cartones Surpapel S.A., the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action for breach of a supply chain financing agreement. See 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19135 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2025). This case arises from a Receivables Purchase Agreement for supply chain financing where the defendant represented it was selling paper products to a third-party corporation. It turned out that the defendant was merely a holding company and did not sell any products. Additionally, the third-party defaulted on payments to the plaintiff, and when plaintiff demanded that defendant repurchase the outstanding receivables per the terms of the agreement, the defendant refused, claiming that the outstanding receivables did not qualify as “Purchased Receivables” under the agreement. The court disagreed and granted summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

Takeaway: While the main takeaway from this case is that companies should take care to promptly pay under their supply chain financing agreements, this case provides a look at how supply chain financing agreements may operate for those who wish to learn more.

• Florida – ESG/Greenwashing
  In Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ unfair trade practices claims without prejudice. See Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29310 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon made several direct environmental claims about the company’s products and actions that were false, deceptive, and/or misleading, e.g., “[o]ur lives are one with the health of the planet. Our products and actions avoid environmental harm and contribute to restoring a healthy planet,” and “[b]y adopting and evolving practices and mindful solutions, we enhance the products we offer and contribute to restoring the environment.” The plaintiffs asserted claims under Florida, California, and New York unfair trade practices statutes and under common law for unjust enrichment. The Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of standing finding no factual connection between the value of Lululemon’s products and the alleged misrepresentations. The court explained that plaintiffs’ subjective beliefs about paying a price premium due to the allegedly false statements were insufficient grounds for standing. The court also found plaintiffs’ allegations of wanting to purchase products in the future only “if” certain conditions are met to be insufficient to establish a threat of imminent injury for injunctive relief.

Takeaway: Even though the court dismissed the Complaint due to lack of standing, companies should still take care to thoroughly vet the veracity of environmental and sustainability claims made in marketing and advertising materials.

March 2025

• Washington D.C. – International Trade/Conflict Minerals
  In Goetz v. Palluconi, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) actions were not arbitrary and capricious under the APA where the OFAC designated Goetz as a Specifically Designated National and denied two delisting petitions. See Goetz v. Palluconi, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38641 (D.D.C. March 4, 2025). The Court found that OFAC had substantial evidence to conclude Goetz indirectly supported armed groups in the DRC through gold trading and reasonably determined the circumstances resulting in Goetz’s sanction had not changed sufficiently to warrant delisting. The Court further determined that OFAC reasonably found that the proposed remedial measures were insufficient to negate the basis for the sanction. Goetz still owned mineral companies and had not demonstrated a change in his approach to sourcing gold.

Takeaway: Companies should take care to arrange supply chains to avoid conflict minerals and to promptly take concrete remedial measures in response to OFAC listings.

• California – Antitrust
  In Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. MediaTek, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California allowed most of the plaintiff’s antitrust claims to proceed to discovery. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. MediaTek, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42123 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 2025). The claims were based on alleged sham patent litigation funded and used by the defendant to cast doubt in the market about the plaintiff’s ability to sustain its microchip supply chain. The plaintiff alleged that the sham litigation triggered a lasting disruption in its perceived supply chain stability, causing it to lose bids and resulting in a subsequent increase in consumer prices due to defendant’s greater market share and anti-competitive pricing.

Takeaway: Companies should understand that their supply chain is incredibly valuable, and competitors may seek to compete by defaming a company’s supply chain.

• California – Commercial Contracts
  In Bon Appetit Danish, Inc. v. Delta Sys. & Automation, LLC, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to fraudulent inducement but denied cross-motions for summary judgment as to breach of contract. Bon Appetit Danish, Inc. v. Delta Sys. & Automation, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53233 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2025). The defendant had stated that its proposed timelines for delivery were achievable, despite ongoing supply chain delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the defendant was also warning of potential delays, noting that “supply chain delays of certain components may increase the lead time of equipment orders.” The court found that these inconsistencies did not amount to evidence of negligent or intentional misrepresentation. Defendant had also claimed force majeure as a defense, and the plaintiff sought to show that was false and that the delay was simply a result of the defendant wrongfully prioritizing other customers. The court found that the plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of fact to create a jury issue on that point.

Takeaway: Companies must take care to ensure contracts contain clear force majeure provisions, that all communications around force majeure are consistent and truthful, and that conditions of force majeure are truly met.

• Georgia – Securities Fraud
  In Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ securities fraud complaint. Here, a tier one bicycle parts supplier made public statements attributing increasing inventory to “safety stock to mitigate supply chain uncertainty” (rather than remedy flagging demand for the supplier’s parts). The court dismissed the case with leave to amend because the plaintiffs did not articulate what made the statements misleading. See Marselis v. Fox Factory Holding Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45469 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025). This has become a recurring theme in supply-chain-related securities fraud cases since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Takeaway: Companies should take care to train executives and others in a position to make public statements on how to responsibly discuss the company’s supply chain.

• Washington D.C. – ESG/Greenwashing/Federal Jurisdiction
  In Int’l Rights Advocs. v. Mars, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted plaintiff’s motion to remand this unfair trade practices case to the D.C. Superior Court. Here, the plaintiff non-profit organization brought a private attorney general claim under D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act against a trio of major chocolate manufacturers, alleging that their representations about their ethical cocoa sourcing practices are false and misleading. See id. at 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46055 (D.D.C. March 13, 2025). The plaintiff sought relief on behalf of the “general public”—that is, the residents of the District of Columbia—and was seeking declaratory relief, an injunction requiring the defendants to remediate their allegedly misleading public statements, and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute. The court found the claims failed to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold because the cost of compliance was to be disaggregated and attributed to D.C. residents pro rata.

Takeaway: Companies should understand that greenwashing claims brought under the DCCPPA in this fashion, according to the court’s own words, will almost certainly never qualify for federal jurisdiction.

• Washington D.C. – ESG/TVPRA
  In Mohammed Forhad Mia v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action complaint with prejudice under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. See id. at 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42876 (D.D.C. March 10, 2025). Plaintiffs were allegedly trafficked from Bangladesh to Malaysia and forced to work at a glove factory from which the defendant had sourced gloves for years. The court held that mere purchase agreements, even if large and longstanding, are insufficient to establish “participation in a venture” under the TVPRA. The court further held that the plaintiffs’ allegations about defendants’ audits and communications from a migrant worker specialist were insufficient to show the defendant knew or should have known of TVPRA violations.

Takeaway: Despite the dismissal in this case, companies should take care when entering into supply agreements and when conducting supply chain ESG audits to follow the mandates of the TVPRA.

• Illinois – Commercial Contracts
  In Lucent Trans Elecs., Ltd. v. Xentris Wireless, LLC, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment and found that Lucent successfully established breach of contract when Xentris ordered Lucent to stop production without proper notice and opportunity to cure. See Lucent Trans Elecs., Ltd. v. Xentris Wireless, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50092 (N.D. Ill. March 19, 2025). Xentris claimed it could not honor its purchase orders with Lucent because Lucent’s retail partner was experiencing a sales slowdown. The court found that a lack of demand from a customer down the supply chain did not justify stopping production under the supply contract at issue.

Takeaway: Companies should dig deeper into the supply chain to harmonize supply agreements with customer contracts and suppliers’ procurement contracts as well as train front-line supply chain employees on key contract terms including the bounds of their authority to alter any contract terms.

• Ohio – Constitutional Law
  In Block v. Canepa, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found that Ohio’s Direct Ship Restriction and Transportation Limit can be justified as public health and safety measures under the Twenty-First Amendment and does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. See Block v. Canepa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51537 (S.D. Ohio March 20, 2025). Ohio’s three-tier system for alcohol distribution was upheld despite having some discriminatory effect on out-of-state retailers. The predominant purpose and effect were not protectionist.

Takeaway: Companies should evaluate supply chain and distribution strategies with an eye toward local regulation, understanding that state-imposed supply chain structure and restrictions may be challenged under state and federal constitutions.

• Arkansas – Commercial Contracts
  In London Luxury, LLC v. Case Walmart, Inc., the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas denied Walmart’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and alternative motion for a new trial under Rule 59 as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding Walmart liable for breach of contract and London Luxury not liable for breach of contract. See London Luxury, LLC v. Case Walmart, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-5059, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59792 (W.D. Ark. March 31, 2025). Walmart and London Luxury entered into a non-cancellable and irrevocable agreement for Walmart to purchase 72 million boxes of nitrile gloves from London Luxury over 52 weeks. Walmart attempted to invoke its Conflicts of Interest policy to stop performance under the contract because London Luxury’s CEO had provided gifts and entertainment to a Walmart procurement employee in violation of Walmart’s Conflicts of Interest policy. The court found that because the policy was vague and discretionary, it was not an objective condition authorizing termination.

Takeaway: Ccompanies should take care when relying on Conflicts of Interest or Code of Conduct policies in stopping performance under supply contracts.

• Ohio – Antitrust
  In Brave Optical, Inc. v. Luxottica of Am. Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Brave Optical’s putative class action complaint for antitrust, deceptive trade practices, and other claims largely for being barred by the statutes of limitations. See Brave Optical, Inc. v. Luxottica of Am. Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60560 (S.D. Ohio March 31, 2025). Here, the plaintiff was one of defendant’s eyeglasses franchisees, and the defendant instituted a supply chain control software platform that automated the plaintiff’s procurement of frames and lenses. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the software platform restricted the brands and types of frames and lenses the franchisee could offer. The plaintiff filed suit on behalf of all similarly situated franchisees, but the court found the claims to be time barred. It was also found that the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act did not apply to extraterritorial conduct.

Takeaway: Even though this case was time-barred, companies should take care to assess any automated supply chain management software and other procurement practices under pertinent antitrust and unfair trade practices laws.

Legislation Updates

U.S./North America

• Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act
  On February 5, 2025, the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved the bipartisan Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act. The bill aims “[t]o improve the resilience of critical supply chains” by authorizing the Department of Commerce to work with the private sector “to anticipate and prevent future supply chain disruptions before they happen.” [https://www.congress.gov/] This legislation would create a “Supply Chain Resilience Working Group” that operates across the government and is led by the Assistant Secretary. This Group will work “to prepare for and respond to supply chain shocks by mapping, monitoring and modeling U.S. supply chains for critical industries and emerging technologies in consultation with the private sector.” In order to do so, the Group will be tasked with identifying “any gaps or vulnerabilities for critical goods, including any gaps in manufacturing, warehousing, transportation and distribution.” [https://www.commerce.senate.gov/] The Department of Commerce would annually report to Congress on the Group’s effectiveness. [https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61206]

• Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act
  The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also advanced the bipartisan Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act on March 12, 2025. This bill would require the Department of Commerce to “coordinate with State-level economic development organizations to increase foreign direct investment in semiconductor-related manufacturing and production.” This coordination would entail the Department of Commerce soliciting comments from “State-level economic development organizations” regarding current challenges faced in attracting foreign direct investment and recommendations for the Federal Government to strengthen these organizations. [https://www.congress.gov]

• Supply Chain Security and Growth Act of 2025
  The Supply Chain Security and Growth Act of 2025 was recently introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. This legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include Section 48F – Critical Supply Chains Reshoring Investment Credit. This new Section would provide qualifying taxpayers with a credit in the amount equal to 40% of the qualified investment to “any critical supply chain facility placed in service during such taxable year.” [https://www.congress.gov]

• Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act
  On March 31, 2025, following review by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. If enacted, the Secretary of Commerce would be required to provide recommendations “to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact” of current programs through the Department of Commerce designed to improve supply chain resilience. [https://www.congress.gov] This bill aims to bolster critical supply chains and provide U.S. manufacturers with technical assistance. [https://www.cbo.gov]

European Union

• Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
  The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is nearing the end of its transitional phase with the definitive phase set to begin on January 1, 2026. [https://www.spglobal.com] This means that importers of carbon-intensive goods into the European Union will pay a fee for the carbon emitted during the production of certain goods. [https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu] As of March 31, 2025, indirect customs representatives and importers are now able to submit applications for the status of “authorized CBAM declarant.” [https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu]

• EU-Chile Interim Trade Agreement
  The EU-Chile Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) entered into force on February 1, 2025. Under the ITA, the vast majority of tariffs on EU exports to Chile will be eliminated. The ITA also emphasizes the importance of commitment to ESG initiatives and the development of critical raw material production. [https://www.jdsupra.com]

United States Tariffs

President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, enacted during his second term, represent a significant shift in U.S. trade strategy, aiming to bolster domestic industries and reduce trade deficits. However, these measures have sparked global tensions and domestic economic concerns and have roiled supply chains.

Key Tariff Measures:

• Universal 10% Tariff: On April 2, 2025, Trump declared a national emergency and announced a 10% tariff on nearly all imports, effective April 5. This move aimed to address the U.S. trade deficit and was described as a step toward economic independence.

• Escalated Tariffs on China: The administration increased tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, prompting China to retaliate with 125% tariffs on U.S. products and restrictions on rare-earth exports, essential for high-tech industries. At present, tariffs on Chinese goods could be as high as 240%, although the Administration very recently indicated that they ultimately may be lower than 145%.

• Sector-Specific Tariffs: Additional 25% tariffs were imposed on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, with stricter rules on domestic sourcing to attain duty-free status.

• Trade Tensions with Canada and Mexico: In early 2025, tariffs of 25% were placed on most goods from Canada and Mexico, excluding energy exports. These measures were justified under national security concerns related to drug trafficking and immigration.

• Reciprocal Tariffs: On April 2, 2025, the administration announced reciprocal tariffs on several countries intended to remedy trade deficits with those countries. On April 9, 2025, the administration announced that the imposition of those tariffs would be delayed for 90 days until July 2025 to allow countries to take measures to address the issue and to engage with the administration to try to make a deal.

Supply Chain Effects:

While it is impossible to know just how the current tariff measures will unfold or exactly how they will affect global supply chains, one can make certain predictions based on what happened following the tariffs implemented during Trump’s first administration.

1. Possible Supply Chain Reconfiguration
   
   Diversification Away from China: Many companies began shifting parts of their supply chains out of China to avoid tariffs. Countries like Vietnam, Mexico, and India saw increased manufacturing activity. Of course, considering the prospective reciprocal tariffs on countries like Vietnam and India, it is unclear whether those or other countries could see increased activity this time around.

Nearshoring and Reshoring: Some U.S. companies started bringing production closer to home or back to the U.S. to reduce reliance on global suppliers and minimize tariff costs. While this could happen in some industries because of the 2025 tariffs, the extent remains unclear. Certain businesses and industries, particularly those that have invested significant amounts of money in setting up global supply chains and whose supply chains could take significant time or investment to rewire, may simply take a wait and see approach and try to survive until this or another administration employs a different policy. Certainly, to the degree businesses in whatever industry can quickly and relatively cheaply obtain inputs domestically in the short term, i.e., save money by nearshoring or reshoring low-hanging fruit, they may well do so.

2. Almost Certainly Increased Costs
   
   Higher Input Prices: U.S. companies importing raw materials or components (like steel, aluminum, and electronics) faced higher costs, which were often passed on to consumers, whether they were other businesses in the supply chain or actual end customers. The feasibility of shifting these costs will depend on each individual business’s procurement and sales contract terms, the strength of a business’ relationships within its supply chains, and possibly the severity of the net economic effect of the tariffs on a particular product or business. Any measures companies take to mitigate higher input prices should likely be taken only after consulting legal counsel.

Complex Logistics: Companies had to navigate new sourcing strategies, increasing administrative burdens and compliance costs. Whether logistics strategies will change significantly in response to the 2025 tariffs remains to be seen; however, they will likely change to the degree that significant geographic, or supplier diversification, resourcing, nearshoring, or reshoring take place.

3. Potential Retaliation and Uncertainty
   
   Trade Wars: Countries targeted by U.S. tariffs, especially China, retaliated with their own tariffs on U.S. goods, affecting industries like agriculture and automotive. This could occur in 2025, and there are signs indicating this may even be likely.

Business Uncertainty: The unpredictability of tariff announcements in 2018 led to hesitation in long-term investment and planning, disrupting supply chain decision-making. This very well could take place in many if not most sectors.

4. Inventory and Stockpiling
   
   Stockpiling Ahead of Tariffs: Some firms bulked up inventory ahead of tariff deadlines, leading to temporary supply chain bottlenecks. This could certainly happen in response to the 2025 tariffs, particularly with a purported 90-day delay for reciprocal tariffs and potential for continued escalation. In fact, this could spur suppliers in tiered chains to demand so-called expedite fees or to otherwise demand additional money to perform contractual obligations. Suppliers could be tempted to go along to minimize supply chain disruptions. This activity could cause shortages and scarcity in other spots within supply chains. Again, the answer lies in commercial contracts, and companies should be prepared and consult with legal counsel to best be able to respond.

Shift in Inventory Strategies: In 2018 and following COVID-19, just-in-time models were re-evaluated in favor of more resilient strategies, like increasing buffer stocks. Companies may explore other strategies again, but it will depend on how these tariffs continue to unfold. There is simply too much uncertainty to make any predictions on this point currently.

5. Strategic Supply Chain Shifts
   
   Focus on Resilience: The tariffs (and later the COVID-19 pandemic) accelerated a shift from purely cost-driven supply chains to ones that prioritize resilience and flexibility. It is safe to predict that this will be a consequence of the 2025 tariffs as well. In fact, companies may choose to partner with legal counsel to attempt to rethink traditional procurement and sales contracts to promote this sort of resilience and flexibility.

Digitalization and Transparency: Likewise, companies invested more in supply chain tech to track, trace, and manage disruptions better. It is safe to presume that companies will “double down” on digitalization and transparency to be more resilient and flexible. Of course, any measures companies take to mitigate higher input prices should likely be taken only after consulting legal counsel.