Supply Chain Preparedness Gap
Many supply chain operators remain unevenly prepared to respond to supply chain disruption, according to the 2026 State of Supply Chain Report from Sage, an AI-solutions company.
The report is based on a January 2026 survey of more than 200 operators across retail and wholesale, with annual revenues ranging from under $1 million to more than $500 million.
The past year placed renewed strain on global supply chains, driven by shifting tariff policies, cost volatility, transportation delays, and geopolitical uncertainty. The research shows that readiness to respond varies widely, with only half of consumer brands reporting strong confidence in their ability to respond effectively to supply chain disruptions in 2026.
Key findings from the report include:
Confidence gaps persist. Fifty percent of supply chain teams lack strong confidence heading into 2026, with preparedness closely tied to visibility and system maturity rather than awareness of risk alone.
Nearshoring is driven by quality, not cost alone. While nearly half of operators plan to shift sourcing closer to home, quality and compliance rank as the top drivers, underscoring the importance of execution discipline and supplier oversight.
AI adoption remains early stage. Only 10% of brands have AI live in supply chain workflows today, with adoption closely linked to data readiness and visibility maturity rather than interest or experimentation.
Cost pressure constrains transformation. Even highly optimized supply chain teams continue to prioritize cost reduction over large-scale modernization, reinforcing the need for investments that deliver near-term operational impact.
“Many supply chain operators are facing the same disruptions, but not with the same level of preparedness,” said Rodney Manzo, senior director of supply chain intelligence at Sage, in a statement. “The research shows that gaps in visibility and execution become more exposed as cost pressure and volatility persist. When disruption hits, those gaps translate into delayed decisions and higher operational risk.”