WEBINAR RECORDING · 2022-02
Supply Chain Due Diligence and Trade Policy Risk
In this conversation: Stephen Adams and Maura Décosterd; moderators Ben Shepherd and Hanna Norberg.
Stephen Adams and Maura Décosterd explain how firms and investors assess trade-policy risk within real supply chains. The discussion moves from tariffs to origin, sanctions, reporting, and political uncertainty, highlighting the difference between understanding today’s rules and making defensible judgments about tomorrow’s exposure.
Session information draws on the recording and its original description. Affiliations and policy context refer to the time of the webinar.
FROM THE CONVERSATION
Three takeaways.
What they mean in practice.
Prepared from the session recording using automatic transcription and editorial review. Follow the timestamp links for the original wording and context.
Map policy exposure throughout the supply chain
Watch 11:18 ↗Adams describes separating policy-related costs from other commercial costs and assessing whether they are already reflected in an asset’s price. His bicycle example spans tariffs, preferences, trade remedies, end-use provisions, and supplier-reporting obligations. Décosterd extends the assessment upstream to suppliers’ suppliers and downstream to distribution.
Policy interpretation: Build a documented exposure map before choosing a response. Include the stability of existing advantages and obligations as well as possible new restrictions, and connect each exposure to the relevant production or distribution link.
Diversification has legal and commercial switching costs
Watch 30:42 ↗Both speakers reject the assumption that replacing suppliers is straightforward. Adams explains that reliance on preferential trade channels and origin requirements can make cross-country switching harder. Décosterd emphasizes the need for reliable information and a feasible playbook, rather than diversification as a slogan.
Policy interpretation: Test alternative suppliers against capabilities, total costs, origin eligibility, and implementation constraints. Reducing one exposure can create another; a contingency option must be commercially and operationally credible.
Transparency helps compliance but does not remove uncertainty
Watch 48:18 ↗In response to Shepherd, Adams distinguishes understandable policymaking from predictable future choices. Décosterd argues that firms also need guidance explaining overlapping rules in language usable by staff who are not lawyers. Publication alone can leave considerable interpretation costs.
Policy interpretation: Provide consolidated, timely rules and practical explanations, while treating future policy stability as a separate problem. For SMEs, public advisory capacity can complement information portals and specialist commercial advice.
From the discussion
At 33:41–35:25, Adams identifies a research need: valuing agreements that bind existing openness and reduce uncertainty without immediately cutting applied barriers. At 37:08–40:11, Décosterd challenges five-year forecasting; Adams responds that scenarios overlap and clients must understand residual uncertainty and their own risk appetite. At 53:25–55:59, the speakers offer complementary SME channels: investor-led governance improvements and publicly supported guidance.
Recording references
- Recording: identifying and pricing policy exposure — 11:18–21:36
- Recording: origin, uncertainty, and forecasting — 30:42–40:11
- Recording: transparency and SME support — 48:18–55:59
