Limits on China’s Rare Earth Mineral Exports?

Josh Green | August 28, 2009

Thanks to Paul Kedrosky for highlighting Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s article about China’s plans to limit exports of rare earth minerals.

Specifically, there’s discussion of limiting exports of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, lutetium, neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum.  We took a look at who’s sending shipments to the United States that include these rare earth minerals.  Results below:

If you dig into the searches, you can see the geographic distribution of these suppliers.  Some are the original suppliers; others are middlemen.

onPanjiva Thank You / Reminder

Josh Green | August 20, 2009

A month ago, we announced the launch of the onPanjiva program.  Through this program, information providers can apply to publish their information on the Panjiva platform — and anyone interested in promoting global trade transparency can nominate data providers to be onPanjiva.

onPanjiva

With about a week and a half remaining for first round nominations (deadline is August 31st for data sources to be considered for inclusion in the fourth quarter of 2009), we want to take this opportunity to thank those who have nominated data sources.  We’ve been thrilled by the diversity of people making nominations, as well as by the diversity of nominations.

The last month has confirmed two of our key beliefs:

  1. There are a lot of people interested in promoting transparency in global trade
  2. There are a lot of sources of valuable information about companies around the world

Thank you!

For those who have not yet nominated data providers, there’s still time.  Until August 31st, you can nominate data sources for inclusion onPanjiva.  And, remember, if you are the first to nominate an information provider to be onPanjiva– and that information provider ultimately publishes information onPanjiva– your company will receive a year of free access to this information.

Panjiva in the News: July Trade Data

Josh Green | August 14, 2009

Earlier this week, Panjiva released data showing that the number of global manufacturers serving the U.S. market increased 7% from June to July.  Here’s a sampling of the press coverage of Panjiva’s latest analysis:

Panjiva in The New York Times: Trade Deficit Widened as Imports Rose in June

The New York Times: “In July, the number of overseas manufacturers sending shipments to the United States increased by 7 percent, according to the private firm Panjiva, which tracks shipping.”

Panjiva in BusinessWeek: More Manufacturing Shipments Hit America’s Ports in July

BusinessWeek: “International shipments to ports have been on the rise since bottoming out in February at 120,000, the lowest since Panjiva started tracking in July 2007.”

Panjiva in Supply Chain Management Review — Signs are positive but economic recovery needs time

Supply Chain Management Review / Logistics Management: “Said Green…  ‘There is no question we are still vulnerable to additional shocks.’”

July Trade Data: Reason for Optimism

Josh Green | August 11, 2009

The word from Panjiva’s research team: there was a significant uptick in trade activity during July.  Specifically, from June to July, there was a 7% increase in the number of global manufacturers shipping to the U.S. market.

July Trade Data: Reason for Optimism - Panjiva

Further reason for optimism:

  • The percentage of significant manufacturers on the Panjiva Watch List declined slightly to 29%.

Pessimists, take note:

  • Seasonality — Last year, from June 2008 to July 2008, there was a 6% increase in the number of global manufacturers shipping to the U.S. market, indicating that there may be a strong seasonal component to this year’s increase.
  • Vulnerability — Last year’s increase preceded the free fall in global trade that unfolded from July of 2008 through February of 2009; if we were vulnerable to shocks this time last year, we’re even more so this year.
  • Low absolute level of activity — The number of companies shipping to the U.S. is about 10% down from where we were this time last year.
  • High absolute level of risk — The percentage of significant buyers having done business with a Panjiva Watch List supplier in the preceding three months remained steady at 40%.

Methodological notes for the data junkies:

  • Manufacturers that have suffered a 50% or greater decline in volume shipped to American customers in the most recent three month period, versus the same period a year ago, are on the Panjiva Watch List.
  • “Significant manufacturers” are companies that have sent 10 or more shipments to American customers within the last year.  As of the end of July, there were 86,570 significant manufacturers.
  • “Significant buyers” are companies that have received 10 or more shipments from overseas manufacturers within the last year.  As of the end of July, there were 73,570 significant buyers.

Inconvenient Sourcing Truths

Josh Green | August 6, 2009

This weekend, word spread that a major African supplier to Gap and Levi is suspected of harming people and the environment.  According to a report in London’s Sunday Times, the Lesotho facility of Taiwan-based supplier Nien Hsing is dumping harmful chemicals into a river that serves as a source of drinking water.  It appears that Gap and Levi are moving aggressively to investigate these claims, and we’ll likely learn more in the weeks ahead about what’s going on, and who’s to blame.

In the past, incidents like these have served as catalysts for positive change.  Will it be the same this time?  Yes, particularly if the sourcing community embraces two inconvenient truths:

1) This is not an isolated problem

It will be tempting to write off this incident as one-of-a-kind.  However, if pressed, most sourcing professionals will admit that “compliance” problems are widespread in global manufacturing.  Why don’t we hear more about these problems?  Because the only people interested in exposing these problems have limited power (those physically harmed), limited attention span (the press), or limited financial resources (NGOs).

Press and NGOs tend to focus their investigative efforts on big companies, which make big targets.  But these big companies — whether motivated by a desire to make a positive difference or a desire to protect their brands — have made the most progress in addressing compliance problems.  Yes, sometimes the big companies get caught doing something wrong, but it’s a good bet that the vast majority of abuses of people and the environment are happening in the supply chains of small and medium size companies, which are not under constant scrutiny and which lack the resources to effectively monitor manufacturers around the world.

2) Technology is not keeping up with changes in the sourcing organization

The role of the sourcing organization has expanded dramatically over the last few decades.  Today’s sourcing professional has to do much more than find low-cost suppliers of goods and services; indeed, s/he has to cope with an array of risks that come with doing business across borders (political, macro-economic, environmental, ethical, legal, etc.).  Unfortunately, as the role of the sourcing professional has changed, the tools at his/her disposal have basically remained the same.  Those tools?  Middle-men (that will check out a factory on your behalf) and airplanes (that will get you to a factory in case you want to do it yourself).

Given the many technology advances of the last few decades, why do today’s sourcing professionals not have better tools for tackling their many challenges?  In particular, why are there not more effective risk-management tools for companies of all sizes?  Primarily because we have failed to recognize the dangers of pervasive global supply chain risk and, as a result, we have failed to imagine how technology can be leveraged to manage risk.

But technology, while not a cure-all, CAN be leveraged to help sourcing professionals do their increasingly complex jobs — and, in particular, manage risk.  For instance, technology can help organizations capture information from a variety of stakeholders and intelligently use this information to spot risky behavior.  More on this in future posts.  In the meantime, I would love to hear your ideas for how technology can help sourcing professionals (josh@panjiva.com).  As they say in DC these days — we must not let this crisis go to waste.