8 min read

Perceptions of geopolitical risks in supply chains shifted dramatically in 2026. Now, 74 percent of logistics leaders cite geopolitics as the biggest supply chain risk—up from just 33 percent in 2024. Yet only 5 percent feel fully prepared for the next disruption. For CIOs shaping digitalization budgets, vendor portfolios, and data platforms this year, these two figures demand a different approach than they did just 12 months ago. The gap between recognized risk and perceived readiness isn’t new—but it’s rarely been this wide.

RelatedCIO 2026 A.R.T. Framework: Three Core Competencies  /  Gartner IT Spending 2026: How CIOs Are Allocating Budgets

What the 74 percent really say — and what they don’t

What is supply chain resilience? Supply chain resilience describes a supply network’s ability to absorb disruptions and restore operational continuity quickly. In the 2026 reading, the term goes beyond simple redundancy: anti-fragility means the network emerges from a disruption in better shape than before, because it has learned from the experience. The prerequisite is not more inventory, but greater data visibility, faster decision-making, and robust supplier relationships that extend beyond direct contract partners.

The 74-percent figure from the current industry monitor is, first and foremost, a perception figure. It measures how logistics and supply chain executives assess the threat landscape — not how many actual disruptions have geopolitics as their root cause. The distinction matters, because perception numbers drive planning behavior even when incident data doesn’t fully support them. For the CIO, this means: senior leadership will align budgets and architecture decisions to that perception, regardless of whether it looked exactly the same last quarter.

The jump from 33 to 74 percent in two years is significant above all because it runs consistently across industries and regions. This is not a single sector reacting to a specific disruption — it is a broad management rethink. That raises the likelihood of geopolitical resilience becoming a standing agenda item in boardrooms and CFO conversations rather than an occasional side note. For IT projects, it means supply chain visibility and scenario planning are moving into core architecture, not into a separate risk module.

Not everything that appears under the geopolitics label in risk registers is inherently geopolitical in origin. Much of the perceived shift traces back to cascading second- and third-order effects: a sanctions regime hits a semiconductor manufacturer, which hits an automotive supplier, which hits your own production line. The primary cause is rarely a direct geopolitical conflict within your own network — it is a chain of events whose starting point sits three or four tiers upstream. Taking the 74 percent seriously requires visibility across those tiers, not just tier one.

Anti-fragility as an operational goal—not just another buzzword

By 2026, the term “anti-fragility” will be splashed across countless management decks—yet few will explain what it actually means in practice. For CIOs, the concept boils down to three concrete, technically measurable capabilities. First, multi-tier visibility: the ability to track orders, production capacity, and risks not just with direct suppliers, but also with their suppliers—and the tiers beyond. Second, scenario speed: the time it takes from detecting a signal to implementing a fallback decision. Third, learning density: how systematically insights from disruptions feed back into the network, rather than gathering dust in the incident-response project folder.

The technology underpinning this isn’t as groundbreaking as it sounds. Most of the building blocks have been around for five to ten years—SCM suites with supplier integration, data platforms with event streaming, machine-learning models for forecasting. What’s different in 2026 is the commitment to using them. Companies running SAP IBP or Oracle Fusion SCM that fail to actively leverage their supplier collaboration modules will lose access to Tier 2 visibility—and, with it, the very foundation of anti-fragility. The debate in 2026, then, isn’t about tools; it’s about disciplined execution.

Regionalization is the second tangible response. Businesses are building parallel intra-regional networks to reduce exposure to single transit routes. From an IT perspective, this means significant restructuring: warehouse management systems must be replicated, transport management needs to orchestrate multi-regional fleets, and master data requires consistent definitions across regions. But there’s a trade-off: regionalization cuts transit risks while driving up costs, CO₂ emissions, and inventory levels. Half-hearted regionalization leaves companies footing the bill without reaping the full resilience benefits.

Regulatory considerations can’t be ignored either. DORA and NIS2 directly impact the IT security of supply chain systems. The EU Digital Product Passport, EU Deforestation Regulation, and Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act demand compliance documentation across supplier tiers. Even if procurement, compliance, or sustainability teams formally own these requirements, the task inevitably lands on the CIO’s desk. Someone has to build and maintain the data infrastructure that ensures legally sound records—and by 2026, that responsibility clearly falls to the CIO and their team.

Three Key Decisions for the CIO Portfolio in 2026

The first decision concerns budget allocation. In many CIO portfolios, supply chain IT is just one line item among many, historically ranking behind CRM, ERP, and collaboration platforms. But with that 74% perception shift, this is changing. A larger share of total IT investment should explicitly flow into supply chain resilience—not just into traditional SCM modules, but into data platforms, supplier integration, and scenario tools. CIOs who fail to adjust their internal weighting by 2026 will face a tough question from the CFO next year: why the biggest risk category isn’t visible in the budget.

The second decision involves vendor consolidation. Over the past five years, many companies have operated with a mix of large SCM suites, specialized visibility platforms, and in-house data lake builds. While this approach may make sense in individual cases, cumulatively it leads to data silos, duplicate master data maintenance, and inconsistent risk metrics. 2026 is an ideal time for a structured vendor review—not primarily cost-driven, but focused on identifying which platform should serve as the data backbone for supply chain visibility. The answer rarely lies in a single-vendor stack, but it should be clear for each data domain.

“In supply chains, the difference between resilience and fragility rarely comes down to technology. It’s about whether the organization makes decisions based on Tier-2 data—even when those decisions are uncomfortable. The 5% who feel prepared don’t have better tools; they have a more mature decision-making process.” Tobias Massow, Editor-in-Chief, Digital Chiefs

The third decision centers on your team’s skill profile. Supply chain visibility projects rarely fail due to a lack of tools—they fail because of gaps in master and reference data expertise, integration architecture, and regulatory translation. If your team today consists of business analysts and traditional SCM implementers, you won’t deliver 2026’s projects effectively. Demand for supply chain data engineers and integration architects with supply chain experience is high, and the talent pool is limited. CIOs should clarify in the next two quarters which skills to build internally and which to outsource. This decision belongs *before* the next major disruption—not after.

These three decisions may sound like standard CIO topics, but the sequence matters. Without clear budget prioritization, the vendor review remains a paper tiger. Without a vendor review, skill development lacks a platform to anchor in. And without skill development, increased budgets won’t translate into operational resilience. The CIOs who earn serious credibility in the C-suite by 2026 will be those who don’t skip these steps—and can articulate the connections to the board.

Notably absent from this list? A new transformation program with its own structure. Most organizations already have two or three active supply-chain-relevant initiatives. Adding a fourth typically creates friction, not momentum. A smarter approach is to weave resilience requirements into existing programs and improve coordination between them. Less flashy than a standalone resilience program with its own steering committee—but far more effective.

One final point concerns communication with the supervisory board. In many German and European companies, supply chain resilience will be discussed at the board level for the first time in 2026—not just in operational management. CIOs preparing for these conversations should always have two numbers ready: the share of IT systems directly linked to supply chain visibility, and the time it takes for a scenario response to move from data to operational decision. Both are metrics that can be tracked year-over-year and are easily understood by boards. If you can’t measure these, the 74% discussion hasn’t landed yet. Preparing these two KPIs for the next board meeting is the smallest possible step into the 2026 resilience agenda—and it immediately strengthens the CIO’s position in top management, regardless of how large the rest of the program becomes. This is where perception shifts into measurable leadership.

Frequently Asked Questions

More from the MBF Media Network

Source header image: Pexels / Kelly (px:17311127)