SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Don't let Walmart Post-Audits catch you off guard in 2025. Join Allie and Bekah to learn best practices for preventing and disputing Post Audits.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Post Audits are preventable and disputable! Join Allie and Bekah to learn how to best prepare for Walmart Post Audits.

Articles

From Connected to Performing: What Modern EDI Needs to Deliver

There’s a version of a connected supply chain that looks great in a vendor demo and falls apart inside your first quarter of operations. Does this sound familiar? Your business is “connected.” Orders are being sent. Someone declared victory, and yet: chargebacks are arriving, shipments are arriving late,  invoices are bouncing, and your operations team is doing manual cleanup on transactions that were supposed to be automated. 

Before you know it, manual triage is the typical outcome, not a fringe one. 

Across 4,000+ buying organizations on the SPS Commerce network, the average supplier compliance rate across retail, grocery, and distribution sits at 43%. For most suppliers, with no clear visibility into where orders are going sideways, that 43% becomes the benchmark they manage and call “good enough.” Every missed ASN, incomplete PO, or inaccurate invoice is a chargeback waiting to happen and margin quietly leaking out of the business. 

That 43% deserves more scrutiny. Because the market conversation right now is almost entirely about connection speed: how fast a supplier can go live, how many days to first order, which platform onboards new trading partners faster. Speed matters, but it falls short if you can’t see, track, and fix what’s breaking in the process.  

There’s a difference between being connected and actually delivering.  When connection speed becomes the only scoreboard, EDI projects get declared wins while supply chains quietly underperform. 

“Going live” means credentials exist, a portal was provisioned, and orders can theoretically flow. However, ERP integration is often incomplete, trading partner certification is pending, and most critically, retailer requirements aren’t completely understood, and there’s nobody to walk you through it. 

“Fully operational” means something even more complex: ERP is fully integrated and operational, a full order cycle has been validated in production, compliance is verified, and you are delivering as expected. That’s how to measure if a supply chain is actually performing. 

The gap between those two milestones is where supply chain value lives or dies. And it’s precisely where technology, on its own, runs out of answers. 

When your business isn't fully prepared for how to deliver at every step, business suffers, costs pile up or revenue is lost due to chargebacks from short shipments, shipping to the wrong location, packing incorrectly, or late shipments. Each one is a direct margin impact, regardless of whether the technology went live on time. 

“The cost isn’t just the fine. It’s the time to dispute it and the drag every month it goes unresolved.” 

⁠⁠

- Accounts Receivable Manager, Mid-Market Supplier 

There's a version of the modern EDI pitch that sounds like freedom. API access. Self-serve onboarding. No more managed services overhead. What it doesn't mention is who does the work instead. 

It's a convincing pitch. It's just not what the invoices say six months later. 

We’ve watched it play out with brands that moved to self-serve or API-first platforms, attracted by pricing and the promise of control, only to find that control meant they were now responsible for the work the managed model was doing. 

One brand found that running connections through a newer platform required managing multiple third-party providers for logistics, building their own ERP integration, and absorbing 2-3 additional headcount just to maintain operations. They never went live with a single trading partner before returning to SPS.  

Another brand found that the promised NetSuite connector was immature, so they became the test case, spending months on manual field entry and rule writing that SPS already had automated.  

A third brand chose the cheaper option, never went live with any trading partners, and continued running through a VAN they’d already been using. 

In each case, the promise was speed and control. The reality was that “control” transferred the operational burden onto teams that weren’t built to carry it. 

“There’s always hidden things. If somebody is selling you something for less, either it’s not what you’re asking for, or they’re selling you the same package in pieces.” 
⁠
⁠

- Devendra Samdani, Head of Technical Operations, Ultimate Trading Corporation 

That’s what happens when the cost of managed expertise gets underestimated because it’s invisible until it’s gone. 

There's something worth understanding about how the "you've outgrown your EDI provider" conversation usually gets framed. It's almost always addressed to the supplier's IT team. The criteria are speed, API access, pricing transparency, and developer experience. These are real concerns, but they're not what determines whether a retail relationship stays healthy. 

The retailer's supply chain or operations leader is tracking something simpler: are their suppliers shipping correctly, on time, with complete ASNs, at the volumes they need? That's the scorecard. And 43% industry-wide compliance means most suppliers are regularly losing points without knowing exactly where or why. 

SPS network data shows the primary driver of low compliance is engagement infrastructure: suppliers don't have clear expectations, accessible tools, or real-time accountability into their own performance. An API addresses the connection layer. A network with embedded expertise, proactive monitoring, and managed enablement addresses the performance layer. Those are different problems. 

When onboarding, training, and support are treated as a project phase to be shortened, or a service tier to be skipped, the adoption gap stays open. The technology went live. The retail relationship didn't get stronger. 

“Modern EDI” has become shorthand for an API-first, self-service, and developer-friendly model. That’s a definition of modern that benefits vendors more than it benefits entire supply chains. It makes the technology easier to sell, because the evaluation criteria becomes legible to IT teams and procurement. On its own, it does nothing to make trading partner relationships more reliable. 

The more useful question is:  what does the intelligence underneath the technology actually know about how your orders succeed or fail?  

 capability, draws on 300,000 trading connections, 750M+ annual transactions, and decades of real supply chain outcomes. Built from watching how trading relationships actually behave, it knows which  behaviors lead to missed ASNs, which retailers have non-standard compliance requirements, and which exception patterns signal chargeback risk before the shipment leaves the dock. General training data and staging environments don’t produce that kind of knowledge, but years of real network activity do. 

Here’s the shift that follows: getting flagged after a chargeback is a reactive system. Getting guided before a shipment goes wrong turns you into a supplier that retailers can actually count on. That’s where the gap closes. 

Faster timelines are a different metric than a supply chain that works. Any platform can connect trading partners. The question is whether they transact, accurately, consistently, and at scale. That’s a business problem, and it takes more than technology to solve it. 

—————————————————————————————————————————

SPS Commerce connects 300,000+ trading relationships across retail, grocery, distribution, and manufacturing. To see what network-powered supplier enablement looks like in practice, 

What Is Supply Chain Health? 

What is Supply Chain Health?

In today's retail environment, suppliers have little room for operational mistakes. Retailers increasingly use automated systems to enforce compliance requirements in real time. A shipment may arrive successfully, but an issue like an incorrect label, a late advance ship notice (ASN), or early delivery can still trigger an automatic deduction. 

This shift has exposed an important difference between supply chain performance and supply chain health. 

 measures outcomes such as on-time in-full (OTIF) delivery rates and fill rates. 

 reflects the interconnected nature and overall operational and financial condition of a supplier's business. It includes forecasting accuracy, retailer compliance, fulfillment execution, deduction recovery, and working capital protection. 

The distinction matters because a supplier can report strong scorecard performance one month and find itself operationally fragile the next. Performance is what gets measured, but health is the underlying condition that determines whether the scorecard holds up under pressure.  

Supply Chain Performance vs. Supply Chain Health 

Supply chain performance typically focuses on scorecards and key performance indicators (KPIs). These measurements track specific operational outcomes, such as: 

In many organizations, separate teams manage these metrics independently. Logistics teams focus on shipping performance, while finance teams handle deductions and payments. 

This structure can create what industry professionals call a 

 where suppliers increase sales volume while operational inefficiencies reduce profit margins. A supplier may report strong scorecard performance while still experiencing recurring compliance violations, deduction issues, or cash flow pressure. 

Supply chain health takes a broader view. It evaluates whether operational systems work together effectively and whether the business can sustain performance during major disruptions. 

The Six Components of Supply Chain Health 

A healthy supply chain depends on several interconnected operational areas working together: 

 forms the foundation of retail compliance. Suppliers must maintain correct product dimensions, weights, case pack information, and units of measure across retailer systems. 

Accurate Forecasting and Inventory Planning: 

 helps suppliers maintain appropriate inventory levels and avoid fulfillment disruptions. 

 (EDI) transactions and ASNs play a critical role in retailer compliance. 

 Retailers require suppliers to follow detailed shipping and routing guidelines, including delivery windows, approved carriers, pallet configurations, compliant labels, and packaging standards. 

Suppliers must actively review deductions, identify root causes, and dispute invalid claims with supporting documentation. 

The result of strong operational coordination that prevents avoidable deductions and recovers invalid claims. 

These interconnected components work together to form a system of supply chain health. 

Why These Components Must Work Together: The Operational Interdependence Cycle 

This is where supply chain health reveals its power, and where the "health" metaphor does its real work. Just as physical health depends on interconnected systems (circulatory, respiratory, digestive) that fail together when one breaks down, supply chain health depends on operational systems that amplify problems across the entire business. 

 creates inaccurate demand signals. Suppliers either overstock (tying up capital in dead inventory) or understock (creating shortages). Either way, the forecast accuracy metric deteriorates. 

 lead directly to fill rate problems. When stock runs short, suppliers can't fulfill orders completely. When stock sits unused, it drains working capital. Both scenarios trigger consequent failures that compound. 

Fill rate problems trigger OTIF violations.

 Incomplete shipments or late shipments affect both the "in full" and "on time" metrics. Retailers increasingly charge automated deductions for these failures. One missed shipment in a quarter can mean a 3% penalty that flows directly to profits and losses. 

 As chargebacks accumulate, suppliers lose the cash flow they need to fund operational improvements. Every dollar that leaves the business as a deduction is a dollar that can't be invested elsewhere. 

Constrained cash flow limits investment in the systems that would prevent these problems.

 The supplier can't afford better forecasting tools, cleaner master data management, inventory optimization software, or the team capacity to dispute invalid deductions. The organization doesn't have resources to break the cycle. 

Without those investments, forecasting stays inaccurate.

 The cycle repeats as the supplier grows revenue but loses margin. Growth begins to become

This is the operational dynamic that plays out when suppliers manage these functions in isolation, because isolation turns local problems into systemic ones. 

When master data sits in IT, forecasting lives in supply chain, deductions get handled by finance, and working capital is a concern of the CFO, no one is watching the connections. A data quality issue in the master file doesn't get flagged as a compliance risk until it triggers a chargeback, or a forecast miss doesn't get reviewed as a cash flow event until deductions start arriving. By then, the damage is done. 

Healthy supply chains break this cycle by connecting these functions into one operational system. Instead of managing them separately, suppliers can: 

Retail compliance is tightening, and the grace periods that newer suppliers once relied on are disappearing. 

OTIF is one of the most common supplier performance frameworks used to evaluate inbound reliability. Retailers like 

 have shifted from monthly to quarterly OTIF charging without easing the financial consequence. Retailers are also automating compliance checks on EDI data, item attributes, and shipping documentation in real time. There's no longer a window to catch and correct mistakes before chargebacks are issued. 

At the same time, suppliers are absorbing new pressures: tariff volatility, freight rate swings, retailer-driven item data audits, and tighter inventory windows. These external shocks expose whatever operational debt a business has been carrying. A supplier with poor forecast accuracy, fragmented team visibility, and weak deduction recovery processes can’t absorb a tariff shock 

 a freight rateswing. Absorb both simultaneously, and the margin collapses. 

The operational ground is shifting fast enough that the disconnected-KPI approach (where each function optimizes its own scorecard) is starting to visibly break. Suppliers that can only manage performance metrics independently are running out of room to absorb the cost of that isolation. 

This is why supply chain health has moved from a strategic aspiration to an operating necessity. 

How Supply Chain Health Enables Profitable Growth 

Suppliers who connect forecasting, fulfillment, retailer compliance, deduction recovery, and cash flow visibility into one integrated system are better positioned to grow profitably. 

As suppliers grow, operational complexity increases. Healthy supply chains help organizations expand into new retail locations without proportionally increasing compliance violations, support higher shipment volumes without overwhelming internal teams, and adapt to retailer requirement changes more efficiently. Integrated operational systems create consistency as volume increases. 

Retailers expect suppliers to deliver products accurately, consistently, and compliantly. Strong supply chain health helps suppliers improve delivery reliability, maintainaccurate shipment information, reduce compliance issues, and support successful product launches and expansions. Operational consistency builds retailer confidence and strengthens long-term partnerships. 

Turn Compliance into an Operational Advantage

Retailer requirements can help suppliers identify operational weaknesses before they become larger financial problems. Organizations that treat deductions and compliance violations as operational signals can identify recurring process failures, improve operational discipline, reduce recurring chargebacks, and strengthen cross-functional collaboration. Instead of repeatedly reacting to the same issues, suppliers resolve root causes and improve long-term performance. 

Profitable growth depends on healthy cash flow. When suppliers prevent unnecessary deductions and recover invalid claims, they retain working capital needed to fund operations and future investments. Strong working capital allows suppliers to invest in forecasting improvements, inventory optimization, process automation, retailer expansion, and operational technology. 

Fragmented operations create the opposite effect. As deductions accumulate and cash flow tightens, suppliers struggle to fund the operational improvements needed to resolve compliance problems. They grow into a margin problem they didn't see coming. 

In an environment where retailers enforce compliance through automation and penalties are measured in millions of dollars, supply chain health is not optional. 

Suppliers that connect forecasting, fulfillment, retailer compliance, deduction recovery, and working capital management into one integrated system are the ones who can: 

Supply chain health is the precondition for growth, not its byproduct. It's the foundation that allows suppliers to scale efficiently while reducing the operational and financial risks that often accompanyexpansion. 

SupplierWiki offers additional resources that explain how suppliers can improve retailer compliance, recover deductions, protect margins, and strengthen supply chain operations. Explore our 

 to learn how connected operational systems support healthier, more profitable growth. 

The IT Accountability Gap: Who Actually Owns Supplier Integration Failures? 

When an Advance Ship Notice (ASN) fails at 11 p.m. on a Thursday, someone gets a call. Usually it's whoever has the misfortune of being listed as the EDI contact in a retailer's system: an IT analyst, a supply chain coordinator, or in smaller organizations, whoever set up the integration two years ago and never quite handed it off. They fix the immediate problem. They do not fix the reason it happened. 

That's the pattern. And it's not a fluke. It's a structural feature of how most mid-sized suppliers manage their retailer integrations. 

Most supplier organizations have a gap between IT and supply chain that nobody officially owns. IT manages the systems: the EDI platform, the API connections, the translation maps, and the VAN subscriptions. Supply chain owns the outcomes: the orders, the shipments, the chargebacks, and the retailer scorecards. When those two worlds collide (and they do every time a PO comes in, a shipment goes out, or a label gets printed) accountability for what happens in between is undefined. McKinsey has 

: the central unresolved question in supply chain digitization is whether IT or the business function actually owns the outcome. 

It doesn't start out intentionally ambiguous. EDI gets set up by IT because "it's a system." The supply chain team signs off because "it's order management." Over time, nobody updates the routing guide translation maps when a retailer changes requirements. Nobody notices that the GS1 label template is pulling the wrong qualifier until Target sends a chargeback. Nobody owns the integration roadmap because, technically, the integration works. Until it doesn't. 

The result is split incentives and no shared owner. IT measures uptime while supply chain measures fill rate, and the integration layer sits in between, generating chargebacks that show up in accounts receivable, trace back to the warehouse, and were caused by a mapping error nobody was watching. 

What Actually Breaks, and Why It Compounds

The failure modes that fall into this gap are specific and predictable. They're also the kind that compound quietly over months before someone with P&L visibility connects the dots. 

 puts chargeback exposure from integration failures at 1–5% of gross invoice value, a number that rarely shows up on anyone's radar until it's already significant. 

The Advance Ship Notice is one of the most chargeback-heavy documents in retail compliance. A missed ASN window, a timing error between the WMS and the EDI platform, or a shipment that doesn't match the 856 exactly can trigger a penalty regardless of whether the product actually arrived on time. 

When a new item launches or a UPC changes, the update has to cascade correctly through every system: ERP, EDI platform, and the retailer’s portal. When it doesn't, the retailer's system rejects the transaction or flags a compliance defect. IT may not know a new item launched. Supply chain may not know what fields the EDI platform is reading from. 

Routing guides change. Carriers get added, removed, and reassigned by lane. If nobody is actively monitoring and updating routing logic in the integration layer, violations accumulate. This is a particular problem when the team that negotiates carrier contracts isn't the team that updates the translation maps. 

API Drift and Certificate Expirations 

As more retailers move to API-based integrations, the maintenance surface grows. API specs get updated. Authentication tokens expire, and the rate limits change. These failures tend to be layered: an ERP-to-WMS sync issue compounds into an EDI transmission error, which compounds into a compliance defect the retailer flags two weeks later. None of them are dramatic in isolation. They're the kind of thing that breaks quietly and goes unnoticed until a batch of orders doesn't process. 

Label compliance requirements vary by retailer and change more often than most suppliers expect. A label template that was accurate 18 months ago may be noncompliant today, and the team that built it may not be monitoring for updates. 

What these failures share is that none of them have a clear preventive owner. Fixing them after a chargeback lands is reactive and expensive. Preventing them requires someone whose job it is to monitor compliance requirements, track retailer updates, and keep the integration layer current. That's a cross-functional role most org charts don't have a box for. 

There's no single right answer here, and any article claiming otherwise is oversimplifying. The best path depends on company size, IT capacity, and how deeply integrated the supplier is with major retailers. But the options are clear. 

Option 1: Name a single owner and give them real authority.

Pick a person in IT or in supply chain and make them accountable for the integration layer end to end. Not "go-to for EDI questions." Accountable. With authority to prioritize work in both IT and supply chain when integration issues come up, with visibility into both compliance requirements and system configuration. 

This works best for larger suppliers with the headcount to support a dedicated role and the org maturity to enforce cross-functional accountability. It also requires genuine executive support. An integration owner without authority to act across both functions is just a person who gets blamed faster. 

Option 2: Build a dedicated integration function.

Some suppliers, particularly those with heavy retailer footprints across Walmart, Target, and Amazon simultaneously, have formalized a small integration team that sits between IT and supply chain with shared reporting. This team owns compliance monitoring, retailer requirement updates, testing, and incident response. 

This is the right answer for complex, high-volume suppliers. It's probably not realistic at $25M–$100M in revenue, where the volume of integration work doesn't justify the headcount and the org isn't large enough to sustain a shared-services model without constant politics about priorities. 

Option 3: Outsource the integration layer entirely.

For many mid-sized and growing suppliers, the cleanest answer to the ownership question is to remove it. A full-service EDI and integration partner doesn't just handle transaction processing. They own the monitoring, the retailer requirement updates, the compliance testing, and the incident response. The supplier doesn't need to resolve whether IT or supply chain owns the integration layer because a vendor does. 

This isn't the right answer for every organization, and it doesn't solve every problem. But it's worth naming honestly: the reason many suppliers land here isn't because they couldn't figure out the org design. It's because they decided the org design problem wasn't worth solving internally when a reliable external option existed. 

Why This Question Is Getting Harder to Avoid

Suppliers who have managed the integration accountability gap through heroic individual effort are running into a problem: the gap is getting wider. 

Retailer compliance requirements are tightening. 

, with penalties reaching 3% of COGS on noncompliant shipments. SQEP has added new defect categories around PO accuracy and labeling. Target, Amazon, and Kroger have followed with similar tightening. The cost of getting integration details wrong is higher than it was three years ago, and it's not trending back down. 

At the same time, IT teams at many mid-sized suppliers are leaner than they were in 2021. Headcount cuts in 2023 and 2024 reduced the capacity to proactively manage integrations even as the complexity increased. 

 reflects this directly: IT leaders are increasingly being pushed to share ownership of digital outcomes with business functions rather than manage infrastructure independently, a shift that makes the integration ownership question harder to defer. 

And there's a third pressure starting to surface in conversations that wouldn't have happened two years ago: AI. Suppliers evaluating AI-driven demand sensing, automated exception handling, and integrated planning are bumping into an uncomfortable prerequisite. You can't build automation on a data foundation nobody owns. The integration layer isn't just where chargebacks happen. It's where the data that AI needs to function lives. If that layer is fragmented, unmaintained, and unowned, the AI conversation stalls fast. 

Before any structural decision gets made, it's worth getting honest about where the accountability gap actually lives. Four questions tend to surface it quickly: 

1. Who gets notified first when an ASN fails?

 And is that person empowered to fix the underlying cause, or just the immediate symptom? 

2. Who is responsible for monitoring retailer requirement updates?

 Not "who would do it if someone asked them to." Who owns it as a standing responsibility today? 

3. When was your EDI configuration last audited against current retailer specs?

 If the answer is "when we set it up," that's a gap. 

4. If your primary EDI contact left tomorrow, what would break and how fast?

 If the honest answer is "a lot, quickly," the integration layer is currently owned by an individual, not a function. 

The reason these questions are worth asking isn't to assign blame. The integration accountability gap is most expensive when it's invisible. Chargebacks are often attributed to operational failures (wrong carrier, late shipment, warehouse error) when the root cause is a mapping error or a configuration that was never updated. Until the org acknowledges the gap, it can't close it. 

 operates your full EDI stack as a managed service: transaction processing, map maintenance, retailer spec updates, compliance testing, and 24/7 exception handling. No internal routing debates about who owns what. One SLA, one team, continuous monitoring across every trading partner connection. 

Grocery Supply Chain Issues: 3 Pressures Reshaping 2026 

Three pressures are reshaping grocery supply chains in 2026: distributor consolidation (led by Sysco's $29.1 billion acquisition of Restaurant Depot), omnichannel fulfillment expansion, and intensifying regulatory scrutiny. Each creates cost and visibility gaps that quickly erode thin grocery margins. Grocers who close those gaps through connected supplier networks, standardized data, and automated workflows will protect margin. Those who don't will pay a hidden tax that compounds across every trading partner relationship. 

Grocery retail runs on the slimmest margins in food. The Food Industry Association (FMI) reports that the average net profit for food retailers sat at 1.7% in 2024, the lowest level since 2019. For every $100 in sales, the typical grocer keeps $1.70. There is no cushion for supply chain friction. 

In 2026, pressure is coming at grocers from three directions at once. Each pressure is distinct, but each one traces back to the same root cause: a connectivity gap between grocers and their trading partners. Grocers who close that gap will protect margin. Those who don't will keep paying a hidden tax that compounds with every missed ship notice, every pricing dispute, every out-of-stock. 

What's Driving Grocery Supply Chain Issues in 2026?

 found that 80% of retailers reported negative supply chain impacts in 2024, and more than half of suppliers expect higher compliance costs in 2025. 

 reports that 66% of retail executives plan to restructure their supply chains through onshoring, nearshoring, or supplier diversification if input costs rise this year. 

 found that only 40% of companies report optimal inventory levels, while 45% say inventory is too high. Forty-one percent of SPS customers face integration challenges with enterprise resource planning (ERP) and warehouse management (WMS) systems. 

These are the visibility symptoms of a larger problem. Grocers and their trading partners still lack the synchronized data infrastructure that 2026 is demanding. Three specific pressures are accelerating that demand. 

How Is Distributor Consolidation Reshaping Grocery Supply Chains?

, folding the country's largest cash-and-carry foodservice wholesaler into the largest U.S. broadline distributor. Sysco plans to open more than 125 additional Restaurant Depot locations across the country over the next two decades. The Independent Restaurant Coalition has already urged the 

 to block the deal, and both Fitch and Moody's flagged Sysco's increased debt load. 

For enterprise grocers, the Sysco and Restaurant Depot transaction is a signal rather than a one-off event. Food distribution is consolidating. Smaller regional distributors are being absorbed, fewer independents remain, and the trading partners grocers depend on are changing hands. 

That has three immediate consequences for supply chain leaders: 

Industry research confirms the pace of change. Recent surveys indicate that roughly three-quarters of supply chain leaders have shifted sourcing away from single-country dependencies, and a large majority expect to restructure their third-party logistics (3PL) partnerships in the next two years. A connected supplier network lets grocers absorb these changes without rebuilding plumbing every quarter. 

 consolidates onboarding, compliance, and supplier visibility in one place, so the work of integrating a new distributor happens inside a unified framework rather than across scattered point integrations. 

How Is Omnichannel Expansion Creating New Grocery Supply Chain Issues?

Online grocery keeps climbing. FMI reports that 7.1% of all grocery item sales were online in 2024, and industry outlooks project online grocery reaching approximately 20% of total U.S. e-commerce in the coming years. The delivery and payment infrastructure supporting those channels is getting more complex by the quarter. Northeast Grocery now accepts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payments through DoorDash grocery delivery. Ahold Delhaize USA launched Pay by Bank as a direct-debit checkout option. DoorDash has added partnerships with national, regional, and local grocers nationwide. 

Each new channel introduces new data requirements. In-store pickup needs item-level inventory accuracy. Delivery marketplaces need real-time availability. Digital payment partners need reconciled transaction data. When item information is not synchronized across stores, distribution centers, and third-party delivery partners, the same failure mode repeats. A shopper places an order the inventory is not where the system says it is, the order gets canceled or substituted, and the grocer absorbs the margin hit. 

Data fragmentation is the root cause. It shows up in three ways: 

Adding another silo to manage these channels compounds the problem. Seamless data integration at the supplier layer is what actually fixes it, so item, order, and inventory data flow consistently from vendor to shelf to shopper regardless of channel. 

 gives grocers a single validated source that every downstream channel can pull from. 

How Is Regulatory Pressure Raising the Bar on Grocery Supply Chain Data?

Regulatory expectations for grocers are tightening from multiple directions at once. 

 rule expands traceability requirements for high-risk foods, demanding lot-level data at each point in the supply chain. Product Carbon Footprint reporting is gaining traction, with commitments from major grocers including Ahold Delhaize USA, which joined the Responsible Labor Initiative. And the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched an investigation into electronic shelf labels and dynamic pricing practices. FMI reports that electronic shelf label adoption has grown from 11% of grocers in 2021 to 36% in 2024, putting more grocers in the regulatory spotlight. 

Each regulatory thread asks grocers for the same underlying capability: verifiable, auditable data at the item and shipment level. Manual processes cannot produce that on demand. Paper-based ASNs and inconsistent supplier compliance leave gaps in the traceability chain that cost hours to reconstruct during a recall or regulatory audit. 

Grocers that respond well will share three traits: 

The alternative is reactive: scrambling for traceability data during a recall, building audit responses by hand, and explaining gaps to regulators or congressional investigators. 

 that automate supplier data exchange and compliance reporting reduce that exposure. 

How Can Grocers Turn 2026's Grocery Supply Chain Issues Into Advantage?

The three pressures covered above are distinct, but they share one underlying cause. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) reshapes the supplier base. Omnichannel fragments the data. Regulation demands more of both. All three get harder when grocers and their trading partners are not connected through a shared, automated network. All three get easier when they are. 

Enterprise grocers that invest in connected supplier networks, standardized data, and automated workflows build margin protection into the supply chain itself. They onboard new trading partners faster after M&A. They push consistent item and inventory data into every digital channel. They produce the traceability and compliance data regulators expect without scrambling to assemble it after the fact. 

In a year when input costs, channel complexity, and regulatory expectations are all moving in the same direction, connectivity is the lever that turns pressure into advantage. 

For a closer look at the trends reshaping supply chains this year, read the 

S&OP pour les fabricants : comment les fournisseurs d'envergure alignent la demande, les matériaux et la production

À son niveau le plus fondamental, la Planification des Ventes et des Opérations (S&OP, pour Sales and Operations Planning) est le processus transversal utilisé pour aligner les prévisions de ventes d'une entreprise avec sa capacité opérationnelle, la disponibilité des matériaux et ses objectifs financiers autour d'un plan opérationnel partagé. Bien qu'il soit souvent confondu avec un simple exercice de prévision ou une réunion mensuelle, un véritable S&OP agit comme le tissu conjonctif de l'entreprise.

Pour les fabricants et fournisseurs à grande échelle, le S&OP est le mécanisme qui traduit la stratégie commerciale de haut niveau en réalité quotidienne de l'atelier de production et du service achats. Il permet à l'organisation de s'éloigner des tableurs déconnectés pour tendre vers une version unique de la vérité, où les revenus, les politiques de stocks et les stratégies d'approvisionnement sont synchronisés.

Dans un environnement économique stable, les hypothèses de planification traditionnelles pourraient suffire. Cependant, nous ne vivons plus dans ce type de monde. Les approches S&OP conventionnelles reposent souvent sur une demande et une offre prévisibles, ce qui les rend inadaptées aux perturbations fréquentes et aux changements rapides de comportement des consommateurs que nous observons aujourd'hui.

Historiquement, la planification a été un exercice fragmenté. L'équipe demande crée une prévision, l'équipe approvisionnement étudie la capacité, et l'équipe achats gère les matières premières. Les équipes gèrent souvent leurs fonctions en totale isolation les unes des autres. Cette fragmentation coûte cher. Lorsque ces silos existent, les changements de demande n'atteignent pas les achats assez rapidement, et les contraintes de matières premières impactent les lignes de production bien trop tard pour ajuster les engagements pris envers les détaillants.

Les fournisseurs d'envergure utilisent désormais le S&OP pour apporter de la cohésion à des conversations isolées, évoluant vers ce que beaucoup appellent la Planification Intégrée des Activités (IBP, pour Integrated Business Planning). L'IBP représente la nouvelle génération du S&OP, intégrant explicitement les achats, les plans d'investissement et les arbitrages financiers dans le rythme opérationnel de base. Au lieu d'être en aval de la conversation de planification, la finance est désormais un acteur central, aidant l'organisation à comprendre quand la résilience vaut son coût et comment l'exposition aux stocks impacte le fonds de roulement.

Les fournisseurs d'envergure les plus performants traitent le S&OP comme un système d'exploitation utilisé pour prendre des décisions plus précoces et mieux informées concernant :

Aligner la demande, les matériaux et la production

Pour un fournisseur d'envergure vendant des produits finis à de grands détaillants tout en s'approvisionnant en matières premières en amont, le S&OP est le point de rencontre entre la demande des détaillants et la réalité amont. Cet alignement est la partie la plus difficile, et la plus critique, du processus.

1. Traduire la demande des détaillants en signaux exploitables

Un fournisseur peut disposer d'excellents signaux de demande provenant de ses partenaires détaillants, mais ces signaux sont inutiles s'ils ne sont pas immédiatement traduits en besoins matériels et en plannings de production. Dans l'environnement du commerce moderne, les modifications de bons de commande sont fréquentes. Un processus S&OP mature garantit qu'un pic de demande pour un SKU spécifique chez un détaillant comme Walmart ou Carrefour déclenche instantanément une vérification des niveaux actuels de matières premières et de la disponibilité des lignes de production.

L'alignement échoue souvent à cause d'angles morts dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement. Vous pouvez avoir la capacité de production pour répondre à la commande d'un détaillant, mais si un intrant d'emballage spécifique ou une matière première est en retard, le plan échoue.

Le S&OP permet aux responsables achats de donner une visibilité précoce sur ces contraintes afin que l'entreprise puisse ajuster ses engagements envers les détaillants 

 que la défaillance de service ne se produise.

3. Leçons concrètes en matière de synchronisation

Les enjeux de cet alignement sont mieux illustrés en comparant différents modèles opérationnels :

Visibilité des données et coordination avec les partenaires

On ne peut pas planifier ce qu'on ne peut pas voir. Le processus S&OP le plus sophistiqué au monde échouera s'il repose sur des données obsolètes ou inexactes. Une meilleure planification dépend d'un meilleur flux de données, pas simplement de meilleurs tableurs ou de réunions plus fréquentes.

Pour les fournisseurs d'envergure, cela signifie connecter les points entre les systèmes internes et les partenaires externes. Lorsque vous pouvez voir les commandes, les niveaux de stocks et les expéditions sur l'ensemble de votre réseau en temps réel, le décalage dans la prise de décision disparaît. Ce niveau de visibilité permet aux équipes de :

Dans le marché volatil d'aujourd'hui, le S&OP est une nécessité stratégique. Lorsque le S&OP fonctionne bien, il protège l'entreprise des surprises coûteuses, comme avoir trop de stocks au mauvais endroit ou être contraint de payer des frais d'expédition urgente considérables pour respecter les délais des détaillants.

En traitant le S&OP comme un système d'exploitation transversal reliant la demande, les matériaux et la production, les fournisseurs d'envergure peuvent faire bien plus que simplement survivre aux perturbations. Ils peuvent construire une chaîne d'approvisionnement résiliente et réactive qui transforme l'excellence opérationnelle en un avantage concurrentiel durable. L'objectif est simple : s'assurer que lorsqu'un détaillant passe une commande, vous disposez des matériaux, de la capacité et de la visibilité financière nécessaires pour la livrer de manière rentable.

Chez SPS Commerce, nous fournissons la visibilité fondamentale dont les fournisseurs d'envergure ont besoin pour synchroniser la demande fluctuante des détaillants avec la disponibilité des matériaux en amont, en temps réel. En connectant l'ensemble de votre réseau de partenaires commerciaux et en automatisant le flux des commandes, des stocks et des données d'expédition, nos 

 éliminent le décalage d'information qui cause des retards de production coûteux et des déséquilibres de stocks.

How Manufacturers Build Early Warning Systems for Raw Material Risk Before Shortages Hit Production

__________________________________________________________________________________________

In the world of enterprise manufacturing, there is a distinct difference between firefighting and navigating. We’ve all seen the chaos of reactive supply chain management: the sudden realization that a critical raw material isn't coming, followed by a mad dash to find alternates, the mounting cost of expedited shipping, and the eventual, painful silence of a halted production line. 

Articles

SupplierWiki curates detailed articles to help suppliers win at retail.

Prepping for Walmart Audits

Overview

Articles