Supply Chain Choices Amid Tariff Policy Uncertainty: e2open Experts Analyze the Dilemma for Businesses and Consumers

Event Overview

Since 2025, U.S. trade policy has entered a period of high-frequency volatility. Taking Section 122 tariffs as an example, after the White House briefly imposed a temporary 10% tariff, it was stayed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals due to a Justice Department appeal, but the tariff continued to be collected during the litigation. John Lash, Vice President of Product Strategy at e2open, summarized this phenomenon in an interview with *Logistics Management* as an "off-again, on-again" cycle—while the rhythm of tariff litigation was the opposite: after a ruling that the tariff was illegal, the appeals court issued a stay within days, and the case was transferred to a higher court.

This tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive is not unprecedented. In the 2025 IEEPA tariff case, the process from appeal to final ruling took more than eight months, and after the Supreme Court's decision, the issuance of refunds became slow or even stalled. Lash emphasized that during this period of uncertainty, businesses and consumers continued to pay tariffs that might ultimately be illegal, creating "tariff fatigue" and a sense of injustice.

Supply Chain Background

The unpredictability of tariff policy directly impacts global supply chain stability. For manufacturing companies relying on cross-border procurement, cost structures are disrupted; for logistics service providers, trade compliance complexity increases; for retailers, pricing strategies face a dilemma. As the world's largest consumer market, U.S. tariff fluctuations are transmitted through the industrial chain to Asian manufacturing bases, European component suppliers, and Latin American raw material sources.

Currently, supply chain networks are undergoing a transformation from "efficiency-first" to "resilience-first." Tariff uncertainty has accelerated this process: companies are re-evaluating supplier concentration, inventory strategies, and the feasibility of nearshoring.

Corporate Decision-Making Logic

Lash noted that companies face three options for allocating tariff costs: temporary absorption, vague pass-through (price increases), or transparent itemization. Most companies adopt a combination strategy. For example, large retailers may absorb costs temporarily to maintain market share and later recover through price increases; small and medium-sized enterprises are more likely to pass them on directly.

The refund mechanism further complicates decision-making. The U.S. government only refunds the "importer of record," but the actual burden of tariff costs may fall on consumers, intermediaries, or manufacturers. Power asymmetry determines the destination of refunds: when transparency is high or consumers have strong bargaining power, refunds are more likely to flow downstream; otherwise, companies may keep them as retained profits.

The Amazon class-action lawsuit (filed in Seattle federal court in May 2026) serves as a key observation sample. The plaintiffs accuse Amazon of illegally collecting tariff costs, but as of the interview date, Amazon had not yet applied for refunds from the government. Lash believes this reflects companies' trade-off between "pleasing the government" and "rewarding customers"—for hundreds of small and medium-sized importers, the same dilemma exists, but they lack the scale for legal action.

Supply Chain Impact### Procurement Costs Tariffs directly increase the cost of imported goods, forcing procurement teams to renegotiate contracts or seek alternative suppliers. The China+1 strategy has become a common option: procurement inquiries from Vietnam, India, Mexico, and other regions (beyond China) have risen. However, the certification cycle and capacity constraints of new suppliers introduce additional time costs.

Lead Time and Inventory Levels To avoid sudden tariff changes, companies tend to import earlier and increase safety stock. This leads to higher inventory holding costs and may cause port congestion. The "on-again, off-again" policy mentioned by Lash has significantly increased the difficulty of demand forecasting and reduced inventory turnover.

Transportation Efficiency Tariff uncertainty compounds the volatility of cross-border e-commerce logistics. For example, during the suspension and reinstatement of Section 122 tariffs, some freight plans were temporarily canceled or adjusted, reducing network utilization. Logistics companies need more flexible scheduling capabilities and compliance review systems.

Supplier Management Suppliers' financial health has become a key risk point. Small and medium-sized enterprises may fall into losses or even go bankrupt if they cannot pass on tariff costs. Companies are beginning to require suppliers to disclose cost structures and include tariff-sharing clauses in contracts.

Supply Chain Resilience Lash noted that 72% of CEOs are willing to pay a premium for supply chain resilience (according to the concurrent Proxima report). The repeated tariff fluctuations have reinforced this understanding: investing in digital supply chain platforms, diversified supplier pools, and regionalized layouts have become top priorities.1. Normalization of tariff policies: Regardless of administrative or judicial outcomes, U.S. tariff tools will continue to be used frequently. Enterprises need to establish dynamic tariff monitoring and response systems. 2. Acceleration of supply chain regionalization: The share of intra-regional trade in North America, Europe, and Asia will increase. Nearshoring and friend-shoring become mainstream, but capacity formation will take 3-5 years. 3. Digitization of transparency and compliance: Enterprises invest in digital supply chain platforms (such as e2open) to automate tariff cost allocation and monitor supplier risks in real time. 4. Reconstruction of inventory strategy: Shift from Just-In-Time (JIT) to "just-in-case". Safety stock levels will be permanently higher than pre-pandemic levels. 5. Intersection of law and business: Tariff litigation may lead to more class-action lawsuits. Enterprises need to consider legal risks in their cost allocation strategies.

Conclusion

The uncertainty of tariff policies has evolved from a trade friction tool into a structural risk for supply chains. e2open's insights reveal that both enterprises and consumers jointly bear the costs of policy trial and error. The future competitive focus is not only cost optimization, but also how to maintain supply chain transparency and fairness amid volatility. The Amazon case is just the tip of the iceberg; more decisions by small and medium-sized enterprises will define the resilience baseline of global supply chains.

(This article is based on an interview with John Lash, Vice President of Product Strategy at e2open Group, published in *Logistics Management* in July 2026. It does not constitute investment advice.)