Supply Chain Resilience speakers
Experts who help organisations anticipate disruption, redesign networks and protect operations from systemic shocks
Speakers Associates represents 37 speakers on Supply Chain Resilience, including Henrik von Scheel, Tom Barton, Kailash Satyarthi, Penny Mordaunt, Parag Khanna, Richard Nugee, Isabel Garro, Manuel Maqueda, Mónica Muriel and Louise Laing.
Boards are being asked to bet capital across borders at the moment when borders feel least predictable. Sanctions, tariffs, China exposure, and supply chain restructuring all turn on a question most leadership teams cannot answer with data: how globalised is the world really, and where is it heading. Strategy under those conditions needs evidence, not narrative.
Boards are being asked to commit capital across a world where the rules of trade, alliance and supply have stopped holding. China exposure, sanctions regimes, climate-driven migration and the reordering of supply chains now sit inside investment cases that were once treated as macro background. Leaders need a way to read the new map before they price the next decision.
Most Western boards make capital allocation and supply chain decisions about China using mental models that are a decade out of date. The country has moved from copying Western products to setting the innovation standard in whole categories, while its political and economic logic remains opaque. The result is a steady stream of strategic misjudgements at the moment when getting China right matters most.
Boards built their growth strategies on the assumption that the rules of trade would hold. They no longer hold. Tariffs, sanctions, industrial policy and export controls have moved from the margin to the centre of capital allocation, and most leadership teams lack a coherent map of how the system is being rewired or where their exposure now sits.
Boards used to treat geopolitics as background noise. Sanctions, trade rerouting, US-UK alignment and supply chain exposure now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and operating plans. Most leadership teams lack a credible internal voice on what governments actually do next, and on how policy choices in Washington, Westminster and Brussels translate into commercial risk.
Boards are being asked to take real positions on geopolitics, sanctions exposure, hostile-state cyber risk and supply-chain dependencies that used to be someone else’s problem. Most do not have an intelligence-grade read on what is actually changing, or how fast. The gap between corporate risk registers and the picture inside national security briefings is widening, and the cost of getting it wrong is no longer theoretical.
Boards used to treat geopolitics as a tail risk that the strategy team would brief on once a year. That model is over. Capital allocation, supply chains, currency exposure, energy procurement and sovereign-customer relationships now shift on the back of decisions made in Washington, Beijing, Moscow and Brussels, and most leadership teams do not have the in-house literacy to read those decisions in time.
Most organisations cannot tell the difference between automation that works in a controlled environment and automation that transforms operations at scale. The gap between a proof of concept and a million deployed robots is a systems design problem, not a technology one. Leaders who understand that distinction make sharper decisions about where autonomous systems create genuine value – and where they create expensive distraction.
Trade has stopped behaving like trade. Sanctions, export controls, dual-use technology rules and supply chain reshoring now sit on the agenda of boards that were built for a globalised market. Most leadership teams cannot tell, in operational terms, what economic security means for their capital plans, their supplier base, or their next ten years of growth.
Boards keep being surprised by which economies grow and which stall. Standard indicators fail to capture the mechanism, because growth depends on productive capabilities that GDP figures and governance scores cannot see. The harder question is what an economy can actually make, and which adjacent industries that capability opens up.
Climate is no longer a sustainability function. It is a security, supply chain and capital allocation problem that boards now have to answer for. Most leadership teams still treat it as compliance reporting rather than as a live risk to operations, alliances and the resources their business depends on.
Most consumer brands describe sustainability as a value. Few have rebuilt their supply chain to pay for it. The harder question for any operator is whether ethical sourcing can survive contact with unit economics, scale, and a competitive high street.