Vanguard

For decades, Just-in-Time (JIT) was one of the defining principles of supply chain management.

The idea was simple: keep inventory lean, reduce storage costs, minimize excess stock and receive materials as close as possible to when they are needed.

When suppliers are reliable, transportation networks are predictable, and demand can be forecasted with reasonable accuracy. This approach can make a supply chain highly efficient.

But the operating environment for global businesses has changed.

Geopolitical tensions, trade-policy changes, conflicts, disruptions to major shipping routes, production shifts and shortages of critical materials have made supply chain risk harder to predict. At the same time, businesses are reassessing where they manufacture, where they source and how much dependency they are willing to place on a single supplier, country or transportation route.

The World Economic Forum's Global Value Chains Outlook 2026, developed with Kearney, describes this as an era of structural volatility. The report found that 74% of business leaders surveyed view resilience as a driver of growth.

So, is the global supply chain moving from Just-in-Time to Just-in-Case?

Not exactly.

Instead, businesses appear to be moving towards a more balanced model—one that combines efficiency with the ability to absorb disruption and adapt when conditions change.

What Is Just-in-Time?

Just-in-Time is a supply chain strategy focused on receiving or producing goods close to the time they are required.

Rather than maintaining large inventories, businesses aim to synchronise purchasing, manufacturing, and transportation with actual demand.

The potential advantages are clear:

Lower inventory holding costs
Reduced warehouse requirements
Less capital tied up in stock
Lower risk of obsolete inventory
More efficient production and procurement

But JIT also has an important dependency: the wider supply chain needs to work as expected.

If a critical supplier stops production, a vessel is delayed, a port becomes congested or a transportation route is disrupted, a company with very little inventory buffer may have limited room to respond.

The model therefore does not eliminate supply chain risk. It can sometimes make the timing of that risk more consequential.

What Is Just-in-Case?

Just-in-Case (JIC) takes a more risk-oriented approach.

Instead of optimising primarily for minimum inventory, businesses maintain additional buffers or alternatives to prepare for unexpected disruption.

This could include:

Holding additional safety stock
Maintaining relationships with multiple suppliers
Sourcing critical materials from different regions
Developing alternative transportation routes
Keeping backup production capacity
Building relationships with alternative manufacturing partners
Identifying substitute materials or components

The objective is not simply to hold more inventory.

It is to create more options.

And that distinction is becoming increasingly important.

Why Is Supply Chain Strategy Changing?

The biggest shift is that supply chain resilience is increasingly being considered alongside cost and efficiency.

The World Economic Forum's 2026 Global Value Chains Outlook identifies geopolitics, industrial policy, technological change and resource constraints as forces reshaping global value chains. It argues that businesses need greater optionality and agility as disruption becomes more structural rather than simply an occasional shock.

This can change the way companies evaluate supply chain decisions.

Previously, the question might have been:

“Where can we source or manufacture this product at the lowest cost?”

The question increasingly becomes:

“Where can we source or manufacture this product competitively while maintaining enough flexibility if conditions change?”

That is a different way of thinking about efficiency.

From Cost Efficiency to Risk-Adjusted Efficiency

This does not mean businesses should abandon lean supply chains.

Excess inventory also has a cost.

It requires warehouse space, ties up working capital and can create the risk of products becoming outdated or obsolete.

Instead, companies are increasingly considering where resilience is worth paying for.

A critical component with a long replacement lead time may justify additional inventory.

A commodity available from multiple reliable suppliers may not.

A single-source supplier located in a geopolitically exposed region may require a contingency plan.

A product with multiple sourcing options may require much less protection.

The result is a more targeted approach to resilience.

Rather than treating every part of the supply chain in the same way, businesses can identify their most critical vulnerabilities and build protection around them.

Supplier Diversification Is Becoming More Important

One of the most visible changes is the growing focus on supplier diversification.

Depending heavily on a single supplier, country or region can create concentration risk. If that source becomes unavailable, finding an alternative may take weeks or months—particularly when the product requires specialised manufacturing capabilities.

Companies are therefore exploring ways to create greater sourcing flexibility, including:

Adding secondary suppliers
Qualifying suppliers across different regions
Developing regional sourcing options
Reducing dependence on a single country
Identifying alternative materials

For businesses sourcing from multiple suppliers, LCL can also support greater flexibility by allowing smaller quantities to be consolidated from different sources without waiting to fill an entire container. This can help businesses manage procurement across multiple suppliers while avoiding the cost and waiting time associated with moving separate full containers for smaller volumes.

However, diversification comes with trade-offs. Managing multiple supplier relationships can increase procurement complexity and may reduce some economies of scale. The objective is therefore not to eliminate concentration entirely, but to create practical sourcing options that provide greater flexibility when supply conditions change.

Manufacturing Footprints Are Being Reconsidered

The same thinking is influencing manufacturing.

For decades, businesses often concentrated on production where they could achieve the most competitive combination of labour, materials, infrastructure, and operating costs.

Today, calculations are becoming more complicated.

Companies are also considering:

Geopolitical risk
Tariffs and trade policy
Export controls
Access to critical materials
Energy availability
Infrastructure
Skilled labour
Proximity to customers
Transportation reliability
Supply chain resilience

McKinsey's 2026 research on manufacturing footprints highlights this shift, noting that industrial policy, tariffs, export controls and geopolitical factors are becoming increasingly important alongside traditional considerations such as labour, energy and infrastructure.

This does not necessarily mean manufacturing is returning entirely to domestic markets.

Instead, companies are reassessing where different parts of their production networks should be located.

Is Globalization Replaced by Regionalization?

This is where the picture becomes more interesting.

It would be easy to assume that geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions are causing businesses to bring production closer to home and retreat from global trade.

The data does not fully support that conclusion.

The 2026 DHL Global Connectedness Report, produced with NYU Stern, found that globalisation remained at a historically high level in 2025. It also found that traded goods travelled an average of 5,010 kilometres—the longest average distance recorded.

So, while companies are reassessing individual supply chains, global trade itself has not simply disappeared.

In fact, DHL's analysis suggests that only a relatively small share of global flows has shifted away from geopolitical rivals, while many countries continue to trade with a wide range of partners.

This points towards reconfiguration rather than deglobalisation.

Companies may diversify suppliers without abandoning international sourcing.

They may add a second production location without closing the first.

They may develop alternative trade routes without completely changing their existing networks.

What Does This Mean for Logistics?

These changes make logistics planning more complex.

A company may no longer have just one preferred route from supplier to customer.

Instead, it may need several scenarios.

Normal conditions

Cargo moves through the most efficient available route.

Capacity constraints

The business may use another port, service, or carrier.

Temporary disruption

Cargo may be rerouted, or inventory buffers may be used.

Prolonged disruption

The business may activate an alternative supplier, production location, or transportation network.

This is where visibility becomes critical.

Businesses need to understand not only where a shipment is, but also where potential vulnerabilities exist across their wider supply chain.

McKinsey's research points to gaps in visibility beyond immediate suppliers and highlights the importance of understanding exposure across multiple tiers of the supply chain. Its analysis also notes that simply increasing inventory can be an expensive response to uncertainty.

In other words, resilience is not only about having more stock.

It is also about knowing where the risks are and having options when something changes.

The Role of Transportation Flexibility

Transportation strategy is becoming part of this broader resilience discussion.

A supply chain dependent on a single port, trade lane or transportation mode may be efficient under normal conditions but vulnerable during disruption.

Businesses may therefore need to evaluate:

Alternative ports
Alternative shipping routes
Multiple transportation modes
Different carrier options
Contingency lead times
Critical shipment priorities

Recent disruptions around global economic chokepoints have highlighted how a problem in one location can affect businesses far beyond that location. McKinsey's 2026 analysis of economic chokepoints describes three broad responses available to companies: reroute, replace, and substitute.

This reflects a broader shift in supply chain thinking.

The question is not only:

“What is the normal route?”

It is also:

“What happens if the normal route is no longer available?”

Technology Can Help Businesses Make the Shift

Building resilience does not necessarily mean adding layers of manual processes.

Technology and data can help businesses understand their supply chains in greater detail.

For example, better visibility can help teams identify:

Where shipments are currently located
Which shipments may be delayed
Which routes are experiencing disruption
Where supplier dependencies exist
Which products are most exposed
Where alternative options may be available

McKinsey also points to digital supply chain management, AI, and automation as technologies changing what companies can produce and where they can produce it.

The value of technology therefore goes beyond tracking shipments.

It can help businesses make faster and more informed decisions when conditions change.

JIT vs. JIC: Does One Replace the Other?

Probably not.

For many businesses, the future is unlikely to be a complete shift from Just-in-Time to Just-in-Case.

Instead, companies may use different strategies for different parts of their supply chains.

Just-in-Time	Just-in-Case
Focuses on inventory efficiency	Focuses on resilience
Minimizes excess stock	Maintains strategic buffers
Works well with predictable supply	Provides protection against disruption
Reduces inventory carrying costs	Can increase inventory costs
Relies heavily on supply chain reliability	Builds additional options
Optimises for normal conditions	Plans for unexpected conditions

A business could therefore operate a largely JIT model while maintaining safety stock for a small number of critical components.

It could have a primary supplier while qualifying a secondary source.

It could use its most efficient shipping route while maintaining an alternative route for emergencies.

This creates a hybrid supply chain strategy.

What Should Businesses Be Asking?

As supply chains evolve, businesses can consider a few practical questions:

1. Where are our biggest dependencies?

Identify suppliers, countries, ports, routes, and materials where disruption could significantly affect operations.

2. Which products require a buffer?

Not every product needs additional inventory. Focus on items where a shortage would have a disproportionate impact.

3. How quickly can we activate an alternative?

A backup supplier or route is useful only if it can realistically be activated when required.

4. How diversified is our supply base?

Understand where multiple sourcing options exist—and where the business remains dependent on a single source.

5. How visible is the supply chain beyond Tier 1?

A company may have a reliable supplier, but that supplier could still depend on another supplier that faces production or supply risks.

6. What is the cost of disruption?

The cost of resilience should be considered against the potential cost of production stoppages, missed deliveries, lost sales, and emergency transportation.

So, Is Global Supply Chain Strategy Moving from JIT to JIC?

The evidence suggests something more nuanced.

Businesses are not simply abandoning Just-in-Time.

Nor does global trade appear to be disappearing.

Instead, supply chains are being redesigned around greater flexibility, diversification, and optionality.

The World Economic Forum describes resilience as increasingly connected to growth, while McKinsey's research shows companies reassessing manufacturing footprints and supply chain vulnerabilities. At the same time, DHL and NYU Stern's 2026 data show that globalization remains remarkably resilient despite geopolitical tensions.

The emerging model may therefore be less about choosing between Just-in-Time and Just-in-Case and more about knowing when to use each approach.

For some products, lean inventory will remain the right strategy.

For others, a strategic buffer may make more sense.

Some suppliers will remain global.

Others may be diversified across regions.

Some transportation routes will continue to be optimised for cost and speed, while alternative routes will be maintained for resilience.

The goal is not to build a supply chain that is prepared for every possible disruption.

It is to build one that can recognize risk, respond quickly, and continue operating when conditions change.

In a global economy where uncertainty has become part of the operating environment, that balance between efficiency and resilience may become one of the defining characteristics of supply chain strategy.