Source-based review, published and sources checked 3 November 2026. OECD findings are identified below; the enterprise decision framework is SUPERMIND analysis. No company-specific conclusion or SUPERMIND simulation run is claimed.
What the public research establishes
The OECD’s 2025 Supply Chain Resilience Review examines trade dependencies and alternative supply-chain structures. Its modeling finds that relocalization can impose substantial economic costs without consistently improving resilience. These are results of the OECD’s modeled conditions, not observed outcomes for an individual business. They do not establish a universally preferred company network. [1]
SUPERMIND analysis: define an operating package
For an enterprise review, specify each alternative as a package: source qualification, supplier capacity, transport, inventory, service commitments and working capital. A second supplier is only a usable alternative if qualification, available capacity and switching arrangements can be substantiated. This is a proposed decision framework, not a finding attributed to the OECD.
Compare options under the same disruption
In a hypothetical exercise, compare retaining and reinforcing the current network, qualifying a second source and regionalizing fulfillment. Apply the same delivery interruption and demand assumptions to each. Identify shared dependencies: alternative suppliers may still rely on a common component or route. Keep assumed reactions separate from verified capacity and contractual obligations.
Define the conditions for changing the network
Before changing contracts or adding fixed capacity, assign owners to check supplier readiness, customer requirements and cash constraints. Record what would justify a pilot, what would require redesign and what would pause the decision. No universal supplier score or uncalibrated probability is needed to make these conditions explicit.
What this review cannot determine
This article does not assess a named supplier, jurisdiction or company network. A live engagement would require current commercial and operational evidence, relevant specialist advice and an accountable decision owner. Public macro-level modeling can inform the questions; it cannot substitute for that project evidence.
Sources & review boundary
Source statements are cited above. Analytical implications are SUPERMIND interpretation. Sources checked: 2026-11-03
Explore a decision card, assumption register and action plan with explicit boundaries.
Decision assets →