2026年供应链风险报告

Sphera survey data (2025) What’s Inside Executive Summary. The 2025 survey data provides a perception-basedview of how organisations assess their supplychain risk readiness heading into 2026.The analysisdraws on four Censuswide surveys commissionedby Sphera quarterly throughout 2025, capturingresponses from 800 Chief Procurement Officersand Chief Supply Chain Officers across the UnitedStates, United Kingdom, Germany and Canada. Whenread alongside Sphera’s incident monitoring data,a clear pattern emerges: leaders express very highconfidence in their capabilities, yet the outcomes andconstraints they report, point to underlying structuralfragility that continues to drive disruption and loss. 4 SurveysCensuswide surveys by Sphera 800 Governance pressure is now continuous. Supplier andsupply chain risk decisions are challenged frequentlyby boards, CFOs and senior executives (48.5%weekly/monthly; 46.5% quarterly). This is not episodicoversight. It reflects an operating environment wheresupply chain risk decisions are treated as strategicand financially material, and where teams areexpected to justify recommendations with defensibleevidence. ParticipantsChief Procurement Officers andChief Supply Chain Officers 4 CountriesUnited States, United Kingdom,Germany and Canada But outcomes and detailed survey responses do notfully support that perception. Most organisationscontinue to experience financially material disruptionimpacts: 73% report financial or operational lossesdue to supply chain disruptions in the past 12 months,and in the financial-health/commodities survey themean number of material disruptions is 3.48. Whenthe survey moves from broad confidence statementsto practical questions about how visibility isachieved, barriers appear repeatedly: lack of suppliercooperation and data sharing, poor data qualityand completeness beyond Tier 1, fragmented tools,limited internal capacity, and the need to justify ROIfor further investment. Incident data reinforces that the risk environmentis not stabilising evenly. Viability remains thelargest category by volume and continues to rise;quality is the fastest-growing; ESG/compliancepressure is increasing with concentrated late-yearspikes; delivery improves in aggregate but remainsoperationally volatile. The overall picture is not asystem with uniformly declining risk, but one wherestress is clustering and shifting. Most organisations also report that they havealready executed the classic resilience playbook:diversification, near-shoring, buffer increases,expanded monitoring tools and AI adoption. Thatsuggests a plateau. The remaining constraintsare structural rather than tactical: verifiable N-tiervisibility, supplier engagement at scale, data integrity,and CFO-ready value justification. The defining 2026 story is therefore a gap betweenperceived maturity and measured exposure. Leadersfeel confident and are under constant scrutiny, yetdisruption remains common and key risk categoriescontinue to rise. Closing that gap will require lessemphasis on “more tools” and more emphasis onfoundational capability: auditable upstream visibility,validated data, integrated intelligence, faster decisioncycles, and targeted interventions where riskconcentrates. The Confidence Gap(the paradox lives here) Across all surveys, confidence is strongest whenquestions are framed broadly and weakest whenquestions become operational and specific. Thiscreates a consistent confidence gap: leaders expresshigh certainty about the quality of their supplierrisk intelligence, yet simultaneously acknowledgeconstraints that directly undermine that certainty—particularly beyond Tier 1. Headline confidence is near-universal. While respondents report near-universalconfidence at a high-level, the data revealsconflicting realities in operational execution. But the survey also surfaces structuralweaknesses that conflict with that confidence. Respondents cite: lack of accurate and up-to-date supply chain dataas a barrierto achieving visibility and effective contingency planning. 44.5% poor data qualityand/orcompletenessas a major challenge inobtaining accurate Tier-2+ supplier data. 32.4% 34.8% lack of supplier cooperationordata sharingas a major barrierto meaningful upstream visibility. Perceived depth of visibility conflictswith prioritisation and constraints. On perception-based questions, organisationsreport strong upstream visibility: Yet the same dataset contains clear signals thatvisibility is incomplete or inconsistent: claimextensivevisibilitybeyond Tier3 suppliers. acknowledgelimitedvisibilitybeyond Tier 1. prioritiseexpandingsupply chain mappingbeyond Tier 1 withinthe next 12–18 months. reportmoderatevisibilitybeyond Tier 2and some Tier 3. 43.6% This conflict suggests that “visibility” is often being defined loosely (partialTier 2 awareness, limited to critical suppliers or crisis response) rather thanas continuous, validated and usableN-tier intelligence. Disruption