Strategy & Horizon Scannning

Christopher Salmon

Chief Executive

An up-to-date guide for growth and risk

TLDR

In an era of geopolitical volatility and shifting trade rules, board-level leaders must look to integrate trade policy analysis as a strategic lever. From interpreting tariffs and agreements to modeling risk and growth, effective analysis drives informed decisions, protects margins, and uncovers market opportunities. Firms that embed trade intelligence into corporate strategy are the ones positioned to gain resilience, foresight, and competitive advantage.

In a trade world shaping up to be more fragmented and volatile than ever, policy has moved to become a frontline issue for boards and investors.

As of spring 2025, global GDP growth forecasts have been slashed, with UNCTAD (United Nations Trade & Development) warning of a probable slowdown to just 2.3% – a level dangerously close to recessionary territory – as trade policy uncertainty erodes business confidence and investment plans. 

Similarly, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and BIS (Bank For International Settlements) have both flagged the corrosive effects of regulatory unpredictability and tariffs on growth and market stability. 

Amid this climate – where sharp swings in trade rules, sanctions, or tariff regimes can disrupt sourcing, inflate costs, and upend market access – business leaders will need more than reactive risk-management. They will need strategic foresight grounded in robust trade policy analysis.

But what does that mean practically? 

The clearBorder perspective is that with clear understanding and insight, these global shifts can be transformed into growth opportunities and competitive advantage, while managing risk at the institutional level. 

Contact our team today for help optimising cross-border trade operations →

Why trade policy analysis matters. Now more than ever

A more strategic approach to trade policy analysis converts news headlines and tariff charts into actionable insights. To understand its importance, business leaders need a clear view of what trade policy analysis involves, along with where – and why – it matters at the boardroom level.

What exactly is trade policy analysis?

Trade policy analysis for business strategy (much more than tracking tariffs) is the systematic review of trade regulations, agreements, and geopolitical dynamics, together with modeling their real-world impact on business performance. 

It covers:

  • Tariff and non-tariff measure (NTM) monitoring: mapping duties, quotas, and rules of origin embedded in FTAs or customs regimes.
  • Scenario modeling: forecasting price, cost, or supply chain implications based on potential policy shifts.
  • Strategic intelligence: horizon scanning, and tracking emerging trends such as digital-protectionism, export restrictions, or regional trade blocs.

Experts typically use tools ranging from WTO and OECD data sources, to publicly available tariff simulation models and frameworks built on the GTAP platform. 

The World Economic Forum even reports that 87% of surveyed chief economists believe trade policy disruption is delaying strategic business decisions and elevating recession risk. 

Doing nothing in the face of such risk cannot be an option here. The answer? Those businesses that lean in, adapt, and actively build resilience are the ones best positioned to weather prolonged uncertainty. 

For a deeper dive into this theme, see our companion piece on risk mitigation in international trade. 

Linking trade policy analysis to business strategy

At clearBorder, we see trade policy analysis not as background noise for compliance teams, but as a central lever for business strategy. When boards integrate policy insight into decision-making, it shifts from being a reactive constraint to a proactive driver of value. 

Done well, it guides market entry, protects margins, shapes supply chains, and reassures investors; in short, elevating trade policy from an operational detail to a boardroom asset. Here’s how:

Market access and expansion

A nuanced understanding of preferential trade agreements and evolving FTAs enables companies to identify new geographies with lower entry barriers – and act swiftly to claim those advantages.

Cost management and supply chain insights

Unexpected tariffs or regulatory costs can erode margins overnight. 

Businesses can insulate themselves through scenario modeling, horizon scanning, and shifting sourcing before costs spiral.

Investor and board-level clarity

Increasingly, private equity firms and corporate boards demand transparency around compliance risk, regulatory exposure, and geopolitical disruptors. Trade policy analysis feeds directly into due diligence and governance frameworks.

Enhanced risk visibility

From sanctions to non-tariff barriers, sophisticated trade analytics help leaders anticipate disruptions – whether in input sourcing, market closure, or regulatory compliance – and build resilience accordingly.

Crystallising analysis into strategy

One of the biggest challenges in turning trade policy insights into boardroom action is a language gap – moving from technical trade jargon, into the language of business strategy. That requires not just expertise in tariffs and treaties, but the ability to frame them in terms of growth, risk, and competitive positioning. This is where we work with leadership teams: helping convert the theoretical into practical levers for resilience and competitive advantage.

1. Interpreting policy for strategic decision-making

Trade policy analysis empowers leaders to anticipate, not simply react, and to act proactively to shape competitive outcomes.

  • Tariff shifts and sourcing decisions: understanding the pros and cons of tariff changes informs whether to diversify suppliers, nearshore assembly, or consolidate. That moves procurement strategy from cost-cutting to value-generating.
  • Preferential trade access: companies that map out benefits from FTAs (like rule of origin thresholds) can capture new markets quickly and cost-effectively.
  • Regulatory alignment as market entry enabler: for instance, a UK firm preparing to join CPTPP can strategically position itself to tap Asian markets with reduced friction and improved governance. 

2. Embedding trade policy into governance

When trade policy insights are embedded into strategy and governance frameworks, they inform long-term resilience across the organisation:

  • Board oversight and early-warning metrics: KPIs like expected margin impact from policy changes, percentage of supply base exposed to tariff risk, and projected cost shifts – when presented to boardrooms – elevate trade policy from “compliance detail” to governance tool.
  • PE diligence and value protection: portfolio managers increasingly assess trade exposure during due diligence, and monitor shifts in policy to protect exit multiples.

3. Scenario modeling and planning

Boards equipped with horizon scanning and scenario-based policy modeling are better positioned for turbulent global shifts:

  • Forecasting models help business leaders compare “base-case” against “tariff-shock” or “sanctions-risk” outcomes (for example, the likely impact of US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs) – informing decisions on pricing strategy, inventory buffers, or alternative routing.
  • Scenario planning equips teams to better protect cash flow, especially in markets where policy volatility is high.

Trade policy analysis in practice

Bringing this into the real world, recently geopolitical volatility has created the conditions for effective trade policy analysis – or its absence – to significantly shape corporate strategy:

Temu sees the warning signs

As protectionism escalated in the U.S. and EU, ecommerce platform Temu responded swiftly. 

By analysing tariff risks to its low-cost model, it diversified sourcing from China, onboarded U.S.-based sellers, and established domestic warehouses to sidestep border tariffs. 

Strategic moves like these illustrate how trade policy foresight can preserve volume and price competitiveness in real-world terms. 

D’Addario builds strategic flexibility

The U.S. musical instrument maker D’Addario created a “trade war task force” to navigate rising duties – like 25% tariffs on Japanese inputs and 50% copper levies. Its strategy included applying for free-trade zone status, shifting manufacturing offshore, and localising packaging: all tactical and strategic outcomes of rigorous policy monitoring. 

EU–U.S. Trade Agreement: rapid boardroom action

In August 2025, the U.S. and EU struck a landmark trade deal: a 15% U.S. tariff on EU goods in exchange for tariff relief on U.S. autos and steel, plus massive investments and tech cooperation commitments. 

In response, the businesses that monitored talks closely could immediately adjust sourcing, renegotiate contracts, and carve new supplier relations – again, anticipating shifts, rather than reacting.

Mapping growth and risk

For today’s business leaders, success in international markets depends as much on managing uncertainty as on seizing opportunity. Trade policy analysis is not simply about flagging risks, but more so about mapping the interplay of both risk and growth potential, and understanding how the two are often inseparable.

Global supply chains and market access are shaped by shifting tariffs, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical dynamics. Each of these can constrain operations but also open unexpected doors. 

For instance, when the UK struck its first post-Brexit free trade agreement with Australia in 2021, it created friction for some sectors reliant on EU trade – but unlocked new export pathways for agrifood, digital services, and advanced manufacturing. Businesses that had proactively modelled both risk exposure and growth opportunities were able to adapt faster, redirecting investment and supply chains toward advantage.

At its best, mapping growth and risk involves:

  • Anticipating volatility: identifying where policies, elections, or geopolitical events may reshape the operating environment.
  • Quantifying exposure: assessing which parts of a business (supply chains, sales, investment) are most vulnerable to trade shifts.
  • Spotting the upside: finding where new agreements, policy reforms, or market openings can be converted into first-mover advantage.
  • Building optionality: ensuring strategies remain agile, so firms can pivot toward opportunity while insulating against disruption.

Rather than treating risk management and growth planning as separate exercises, modern trade leaders must view them as two halves of the same map. 

Those with a comprehensive, dynamic picture of both can navigate with greater confidence; protecting today’s margins, while charting tomorrow’s expansion.

The future of trade strategy: where analysis meets leadership

The future of trade will be defined not by certainty, but by adaptability. 

Policy shifts, technological change, and geopolitical volatility ensure that the global trading landscape remains in constant motion. For businesses, the challenge is no longer whether disruption will occur, but how prepared they are to respond – and how effectively they can convert insight into competitive advantage.

This is where trade policy analysis becomes a leadership tool. Those who can read the signals, frame decisions within broader economic narratives, and anticipate both constraint and opportunity will shape tomorrow’s markets, rather than react to them.

What separates resilient, growth-oriented firms from the rest is not simply access to information, but the ability to crystallise that information into clear strategic choices. In practice, this means embedding trade intelligence into boardroom discussions, investment planning, and long-term positioning.

Businesses that treat trade policy analysis as an ongoing discipline, rather than a one-and-done report, will be the ones setting the pace in a world where agility, foresight, and confidence define success.

Contact clearBorder today for expert, independent trade horizon scanning → 

Other interesting reads

Visit Our Insights Hub
Strategy & Horizon Scannning

Steel and Aluminium at a Crossroads: Supply Chains, Tariff Wars, Business Impacts

  TLDR 2025 reshaped steel and aluminium supply chains. U.S. tariffs, EU uncertainty, and Chinese overcapacity have all driven structural rerouting, pricing instability, and compliance pressure. Businesses elevating metals sourcing to a strategic capability – with stronger origin assurance, supplier governance, and scenario planning – typically outperform competitors in terms of resilience, cost control, and market access. Firms will need to adapt to preserve their position and competitiveness. 2025 saw the sharpest escalation in metals-trade interventions since the original, President Trump-era Section 232 measures, in 2018. What began as a series of “targeted” moves early in 2025 has evolved into a multi-jurisdictional reset, touching tariffs, origin rules, industrial policy, and supply chain governance. For global businesses reliant on steel and aluminium, this will represent a fundamental shift in operations and market position. Steel and aluminium are systemic commodities. They underpin every major industrial value chain: automotive, aerospace, defence, energy infrastructure, construction, household appliances, and large consumer goods. When trade conditions tighten around these materials, the shockwaves propagate quickly: rising input costs, margin compression, delayed production cycles, and forced redesign of sourcing strategies. Several trigger events collided in 2025: In May 2025, the U.S. raised tariffs to 50% on a wide range of steel and aluminium categories, materially altering the economics of imports. By Q4, Washington introduced tightened melt-and-pour origin rules, significantly raising the bar for compliance and due diligence. Meanwhile, the EU remained locked in slow-moving negotiations with the U.S. on tariff-rate quotas, while simultaneously confronting the long-running challenge of Chinese overcapacity depressing European prices. China’s own pricing volatility (driven by subsidised overproduction and domestic demand swings) continue to distort global markets. Taken together, developments like these show that steel and aluminium supply chains are not experiencing a temporary disruption – they are undergoing a deeper, structural reorganisation. Businesses will need to adapt to preserve their position and competitiveness. Why this matters Global metals policy is moving faster than most supply chains can adjust. The 50% U.S. tariffs, melt-and-pour rules, EU safeguard activity, and China’s continued overproduction are reshaping sourcing and pricing across entire industries. For manufacturers and importers, this is not just a cost issue; it’s a governance, compliance, and competitiveness issue. How firms respond will determine whether they stay ahead of regulatory pressure, or become ensnared in a rapidly tightening enforcement environment. Expert guidance on international trade Contact clearBorder today →  How tariffs reshape global flows The 50% U.S. tariffs  Under the administration of President Trump, the U.S.’s move to increase tariffs to 50% on a wide range of steel and aluminium products marked a pivot in metals trade. The measures affect core inputs such as semi-finished steel, rolled products, extrusions, and several aluminium categories. Downstream products such as cars, domestic appliances, and industrial machinery are increasingly examined for the embedded origin of their metal content. The tariff shock has created three immediate consequences: Domestic inflation in U.S. metals markets. Manufacturers face significantly higher input costs, prompting either price rises or margin erosion. Redirected flows from Asia to Europe. Exporters seeking to avoid U.S. duties have diverted excess supply toward the EU, exacerbating oversupply conditions and placing further pressure on European producers. A new compliance burden for global exporters. The tightened melt-and-pour rules raise the risk of inadvertent non-compliance. Trans-shipment scrutiny has increased; origin validation is now a core operational requirement. EU’s dilemma The EU finds itself between a rock and a hard place. On one side are slow, uncertain EU–U.S. negotiations on tariff-rate quotas and metals cooperation frameworks; on the other is intensifying pressure from the steel lobby to protect European producers from diverted Asian supply after the U.S. tariff shock. European manufacturers face irregular and unpredictable input costs, complicating price setting, inventory planning, and long-term contracting. The EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan adds further complexity, as imported metals are essential for its energy-transition ambitions, yet those same imports now threaten domestic competitiveness. The overcapacity question China’s long-standing overcapacity issue remains the gravitational centre of global metals instability. Production levels continue to exceed domestic demand, pushing subsidised excess onto global markets and driving renewed price volatility. This places other jurisdictions in a defensive posture. European and U.S. producers have reported intensified undercutting; Asian and Latin American manufacturers face narrowing margins; and developing economies risk deeper dependence on low-cost Chinese supply. Beijing may consider retaliatory measures, or deepen its alignment with Global South partners (such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand in Southeast Asia, or members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) to mitigate against Western trade interventions. Either path would add new layers of complexity to an already fragmented global steel and aluminium market. Re-routing, re-pricing, re-risking How supply chains are responding The reshaping of steel and aluminium trade is visible in operational patterns, with supply chains reorganising at pace. Businesses are re-routing in order to defend margin and meet compliance thresholds. According to emerging reports, Asian-origin metals that previously flowed into the U.S. are being diverted toward Europe, Turkey, and the Middle East. European manufacturers, in turn, are exploring alternative inputs from India, Brazil, and the Gulf to avoid the tariff spillover effects. This repositioning may also trigger changes in logistics: greater use of east-west routes into the EU, potentially more inventory buffering, and in some sectors (such as automotive and machinery) a shift toward nearshoring for critical components. Cost structures are being re-priced globally. The U.S. tariff shock has lifted domestic prices sharply, while excess supply has depressed segments of the European market. Producers in China and Southeast Asia have adjusted export strategies in real time, offering deeper discounts to maintain throughput. For buyers, this creates a two-speed market: inflationary in the U.S., deflationary or erratic elsewhere. Long-term contracts are harder to negotiate, and index-linked pricing is seeing a resurgence. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are being re-risked. Compliance is now inseparable from commercial decision-making – a cheap tonne of steel that ultimately fails melt-and-pour verification is a liability, not a saving. Manufacturers are mapping exposure at a deeper level than before, tracing inputs back to smelters (not mills), and stress-testing for tariff escalation or port inspections. Insurance markets are responding too, with new language around origin risk and misdeclaration liability appearing in trade credit and marine cargo policies. Rising compliance complexity The enforcement of the U.S. melt-and-pour rule is proving to be one of the most consequential compliance developments. By requiring origin to be established at the smelting stage – not the final manufacturing stage – regulators have effectively redrawn the documentation burden for the entire value chain. Finished goods manufacturers, especially in automotive, appliances, construction products, and machinery, must now evidence multi-layered provenance to avoid penalties or shipment holds. This comes alongside broader tightening: The EU is advancing anti-circumvention probes and designing new safeguard mechanisms around diverted Asian supply Tariff-rate quota negotiations with the U.S. remain uncertain, complicating long-term planning The UK faces a hybrid challenge: exporters into the U.S. or EU must meet foreign origin standards and navigate domestic decarbonisation requirements shaping the future of UK steelmaking For business boardrooms, this translates into elevated expectations around: Proving origin at smelter level Supplier vetting across multiple jurisdictions End-to-end documentation capable of withstanding audits Horizon scanning for tariff escalation and market fragmentation Avoiding unintentional trans-shipment exposure, especially in multi-country routing models Implications for business Cost structures will remain unstable for the near term. U.S. tariffs have created inflationary pressure domestically; Europe is facing oversupply; and Chinese volatility continues to inject uncertainty into global reference prices. Businesses should anticipate continued dual-market dynamics throughout 2026. Compliance risk has moved from operational to existential. The melt-and-pour rule, EU safeguard mechanisms, and intensified anti-circumvention enforcement mean that the regulatory exposure of a single misclassified input far exceeds the cost of the input itself. Boardrooms increasingly view origin assurance as part of corporate governance, not logistics. Supply chain strategy is entering a redesign phase. Nearshoring and multi-regional sourcing are gaining momentum Dual or triple sourcing for steel and aluminium is becoming standard in automotive, engineering, and construction Inventory models are shifting from just-in-time to strategic buffering Quality and compliance maturity are becoming as important as price when selecting a supplier Commercial positioning is changing, too. Companies that can evidence clean origin, stable sourcing, and strong governance are positioned to outperform competitors in tenders – particularly with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) facing strict regulatory exposure of their own. For some sectors, metals compliance is now a competitive differentiator. The last word Steel and aluminium have always been essential industrial inputs, but in the current climate, they’ve become a barometer of global economic and geopolitical tension. Tariffs, origin rules, and enforcement actions are all actively reshaping supply chains, capital allocation, and competitiveness. The businesses equipped to succeed in this environment treat metals not simply as commodities to be purchased, but as strategic exposures to be governed. This means that decision-makers have visibility deeper than tier-one suppliers; they can evidence origin at smelt stage. They plan for tariff escalation; not react to it. And they embed compliance into commercial decision-making. Early, proactive movement will help protect against price shocks, audit interventions, and market-access constraints, as the next phase of trade policy unfolds. For manufacturers, importers, and exporters, the question is not whether to adapt, but how quickly. The former era of (relatively) stable and predictable metals flows is over – strategic readiness is now the defining commercial advantage. For trade advisory tailored to your business and its operations Contact the clearBorderteam today → 

Steel and Aluminium at a Crossroads: Supply Chains, Tariff Wars, Business Impacts
Strategy & Horizon Scannning

Introducing our new podcast series ‘Borders for the Boardroom’

“Borders for the Boardroom” is a podcast series brought to you by the team at clearBorder. In these short episodes, we introduce you to all things trade and borders providing an insight and understanding that you may not have had before. We hope that this means when you return to your business you have a greater knowledge of the impact and challenges borders and trade will have on your organisation, as well as the opportunities available to perhaps do things differently, reduce risk and continue to grow. Each podcast introduces a new topic, led by one of the clearBorder team of experts. We hope you enjoy it. If you want to continue the conversation or have any questions then do get in touch with us at info@clearborder.co.uk. We’ll see you next time. Produced and edited by Yada Yada. Listen here: Spotify  |  Apple

Introducing our new podcast series ‘Borders for the Boardroom’
Strategy & Horizon Scannning

A fragile reset? What the US–China tariff truce means for cross-border trade strategies in 2026

In late October 2025, a diplomatic thaw between Washington and Beijing produced a narrowly scoped trade “pause” – a tactical (and temporary) easing of the headline tensions which have dominated the trade-sphere in recent months.  The agreement trimmed select U.S. tariff categories (for example, halving certain fentanyl-related duties), and opened the door to resumed Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans; while Beijing signalled a conditional scaling back of some export controls on rare earth elements.  For boardrooms, this pause buys time for resilience-building; what it does not do is remove structural levers that can reignite escalation. China retains decisive market power over rare earths and refining capacity, and Beijing’s export restrictions – introduced and then expanded in October 2025 – remain a latent threat to industries from EV batteries to defence suppliers. Financial and commodity markets treated the announcement as tentative: rare-earth prices and equities briefly eased, but analysts warned supplies and stocks could re-tighten if the geopolitical headwinds shifted.  Meanwhile, political and legal fault-lines persist in Washington. The administration’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is the subject of active judicial scrutiny at the U.S. Supreme Court; justices heard oral arguments on 5 November 2025 and raised serious questions about executive reach. A negative ruling could remove a major instrument of U.S. trade policy – or force the administration to pivot to other statutory levers. That legal uncertainty compounds the truce’s fragility.    Why this matters The US–China tariff truce offers a temporary pause, not lasting certainty. For boardrooms and global supply chain teams, understanding the risks, monitoring key signals, and proactively planning for multiple outcomes is critical to maintaining stability, protecting margins, and mitigating the operational and strategic impacts of potential renewed escalation.   More on the U.S., China, South Korea, and what trade talks mean for you: → Borders for the Boardroom: Sean Miner on the US-China trade deal Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music What changed in October 2025… and what didn’t What changed Targeted tariff adjustments and commitments. In the late-October negotiations, U.S. officials said certain tariff lines tied to fentanyl precursor chemicals would be halved – from 20% to 10% – lowering the headline U.S. tariff burden on Chinese imports by a reported few percentage points overall. The talks also included commitments for a sizeable uptick in Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans (Treasury officials cited a figure in the region of 12 million metric tonnes for the season). It’s likely these moves were partially influenced by the U.S. administration’s desire to appease what it sees as a core voter base of workers and farmers. A temporary easing of export control pressure. Beijing signalled it would pause, or at least temper, certain enforcement actions tied to rare-earth export controls, helping to calm thin but critical supply lines for some manufacturers. Markets interpreted the message as conditional rather than permanent, and subsequent industry commentary urged caution.  Regional tariff alignment moves. The U.S. also reached or reaffirmed tariff understandings with regional partners (notably arrangements that set some levies for Japan and South Korea at lower bands), reshaping near-term trade exposure for particular sectors such as autos and shipbuilding. Those regional moves probably form part of a broader attempt to compartmentalise tensions and avoid a wider regional fallout.  What didn’t change The strategic rivalry remains. The truce is tactical. China’s longer-term industrial strategy – including control over mining, processing and refining of many rare earths – has not been reversed. Beijing’s October 2025 expansion of export controls (adding multiple elements and equipment to control lists) shows the country still possesses structural levers that could be re-deployed if negotiations sour.  Legal and policy uncertainty in Washington. The Supreme Court review of IEEPA-based tariff authority introduces a material policy risk. If the Court constrains presidential power to impose broad tariffs, the administration may have to pivot to other mechanisms (e.g., Section 232, Trade Act tools) with different political, legal and operational implications. In short; the legal basis that enabled the rapid imposition of duties early in 2025 is not guaranteed to persist.  Domestic market realities limit quick wins. Beijing’s promise to increase U.S. soybean purchases was electorally useful for the U.S. administration, perhaps, but agricultural market signals suggest China’s immediate buying capacity may be limited by inventory and crush-margin dynamics. Reuters reports flag a soybean stock overhang that may constrain near-term purchases.  The net effect At least in the immediate future, the October ‘tariff truce’ reduces the near-term political temperature: selected tariff lines were eased, some procurement resumed, and short-term market volatility abated.  But – the structural levers that create systemic risk (rare-earth dominance, legal uncertainty over tariff authority, and the political incentives that drive tit-for-tat measures) remain very much alive.  For business leaders, the best operational position is not one of détente, but of time-boxed respite. That means acting quickly to shore up optionality, and avoid being caught in a reactive posture when the pause ends.  H2: Why the truce Is fundamentally unstable The agreement was engineered as a tactical and temporary de-escalation, not as a lasting settlement. While headline tariff lines were softened, the levers of critical economic power remain deeply asymmetrical. First, China’s rare-earth export controls remain a potent strategic weapon. Despite signaling an easing of enforcement, Beijing retains control over key mining and refining capacity. Prior expansions of export restrictions demonstrate that it is fully capable of re-tightening. Second, President Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA is in question. The U.S. Supreme Court’s current review directly challenges the administration’s legal basis to impose broad trade duties.  Third, domestic and political incentives complicate sustained cooperation. Beijing is under pressure to protect strategic industries; Washington faces conflicting demands from agriculture, manufacturing, tech, and national security voices.  Finally, the temporary nature of the pause itself speaks volumes. This is not a comprehensive reset but a time-bound, finite window, subject to the ebb and flow of geopolitical risk.  Implications for global business and supply chains This tactical pause in trade hostilities brings into focus certain risks for multinational companies operating across complex supply chains. Borders for the Boardroom: Christopher Salmon on supply chain resilience → Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music Import exposure and tariff risk Existing duties remain in place, and the legal jeopardy stemming from IEEPA challenges means the entire tariff infrastructure could change. For supply chain teams, this is the moment to re-assess import exposure: which products are most vulnerable, and what alternative sources exist if the truce unravels. Supply chain architecture and sourcing The pause presents a moment for strategic recalibration. Firms that once relied on ‘China +1’ sourcing strategies should re-evaluate: ‘China +N’ is the more resilient, risk-mitigated position. Near-shoring, alternate production hubs, and regional diversification offer possible solutions, but such shifts can be costly and time-consuming. Contracting, procurement, and pricing governance With uncertainty lessening in the short term, companies may be tempted to renegotiate contracts or lock-in suppliers aggressively. However, such moves should be structured carefully. Procurement teams should build scenario clauses into agreements, allow for tariff escalation or rollback triggers, and articulate pass-through mechanisms.  Capital deployment and investment strategy For capital-intensive operators (especially in autos, semiconductors, and clean tech) the pause is a window of opportunity to recommit capital, under conditional terms.  However, investment without horizon scanning is a high-stakes guessing game. Boardrooms must ringfence capital and create “if-then” gateways triggered directly by treaty developments and legal outcomes. Navigating the tariff pause: signals, strategy, and stability Timely, although seemingly never built to last, the US–China tariff truce represents a holding pattern amid unresolved geopolitical, legal, and economic pressures. For boardrooms, CFOs, and global supply chain leads, vigilance here is critical. The coming 6–9 months will reveal whether the pause becomes a platform for stability, or a prelude to renewed escalation. Key signals to monitor: Supreme Court IEEPA ruling: a decision limiting or upholding presidential tariff authority will immediately reshape strategic options. China’s compliance: soybean purchases, REE export controls, and shifts in blacklists or procurement rules will test the truce’s integrity. U.S. domestic pressures: farmers, retailers, tech, and security interests may prompt rapid shifts in U.S. tariff policy. South Korea and Japan: developments in semiconductor deals, export controls, and bilateral concessions could influence Beijing’s response. China’s geoeconomic posture: incremental moves in investment screening or sector targeting may accumulate into material operational risk. What cross-border companies should do: Refresh scenario models with tariff, legal, and geopolitical triggers Audit supplier and import exposure under multiple outcomes Advance diversification and dual-sourcing strategies Strengthen contractual protections for tariffs and disruptions Monitor policy daily, not quarterly Preparation builds stability Geopolitical uncertainty cannot be entirely eliminated; but it can be priced, planned for, and strategically contained. The U.S.–China relationship is unlikely to revert to pre-2018 norms: structural forces – technological leadership, critical minerals, industrial security – render volatility a recurring reality for multinational organisations. Boardrooms focused on embedding resilience into governance, procurement, investment, and supply chain design will be significantly better-equipped to face future scenarios and weather their impacts.   → Borders for the Boardroom: Christopher Salmon on supply chain resilience Listen now on Spotify and Apple Music

A fragile reset? What the US–China tariff truce means for cross-border trade strategies in 2026
Secret Link