C-TPAT Part II: strategies for obtaining and keeping C-TPAT certification
Obtaining—and keeping—C-TPAT certification got harder last March, when the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection introduced new and stiffer standards, which apply to new applicants and current C-TPAT members alike.
Barry Brandman is president of Danbee Investigations, a Midland Park, N.J., company that provides investigative, loss prevention and security consulting services to many of the top names in the logistics industry. He has been a guest speaker for the Department of Homeland Security, CSCMP, and WERC, and is the author of Security Best Practices: Protecting Your Distribution Center From Inventory Theft, Fraud, Substance Abuse, Cybercrime and Terrorism. You can reach him via e-mail at
or (201) 652-5500.
Editor's note: This is the second installment in a two-part series on C-TPAT, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Part One looked at the origins and evolution of the security initiative, under which U.S. importers agree to continuously police their own supply chains in return for a host of benefits, including reduced cargo inspections. This installment discusses strategies for obtaining—and keeping—C-TPAT certification.
C-TPAT may have its critics (see "it may not be perfect, but C-TPAT's here to stay," DC VELOCITY, November 2005), but that hasn't slowed its momentum. As of last April, more than 9,000 importers had applied for C-TPAT certification. And new applications pour in every month.
But obtaining (and keeping) that certification got harder last March, when the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) introduced new and stiffer standards. These new standards, which apply to new applicants and current C-TPAT members alike, mean they must now be able to confirm, among other things, that foreign suppliers, vendors and contractors are performing seven-point container inspections, documenting their procedures for issuing keys, changing passwords, and an array of other best security practices.
As part of the program, CBP requires C-TPAT members to prepare a Security Profile that outlines the steps they're taking and to conduct ongoing internal audits to ensure that their employees, vendors, suppliers and trading partners actually follow enhanced policies and procedures. Though it doesn't require existing members to provide proof of compliance, CBP isn't relying entirely on the honor system either. For that, it has established what it calls a "validation" process, whereby CBP supply chain security specialists meet with company representatives, and visit foreign and domestic sites to verify that everyone in a company's supply chain is following the practices outlined in the member's Security Profile. If the inspections reveal significant problems, CBP can suspend or even revoke the importer's benefits.
To avoid putting your C-TPAT certification at risk, you must establish an ongoing program to assess how well your security program is being carried out and identify new areas of risk that require remedial action.
But who should conduct this assessment? Many times, companies assign this task to logistics or customs compliance personnel, who tend to use boilerplate security checklists to identify vulnerabilities. That's a dangerous practice. This is no ordinary compliance task; an in-depth security assessment requires specialized expertise.
By definition, the global supply chain is a sprawling network of domestic and foreign partners that manufacture, pack, load, consolidate and transport merchandise to the United States. Each of those partners follows a unique set of processes, and those varied processes represent almost limitless potential for security breaches. Auditors who don't have an in-depth understanding of the various ways to circumvent security safeguards have no hope of identifying all these risks or knowing how to remedy them effectively. Whether you opt to use in-house resources or bring in an outside security specialist, make sure you're using a qualified and knowledgeable professional with extensive experience in logistics security.
Avoid the traps
Deciding who will conduct their security assessments isn't the only problem importers face, however. There are plenty of other ways to get tripped up in the process. What follows are some tips on avoiding several common missteps:
Make sure nothing gets lost in translation. When working with partners in foreign countries, there's always the danger that cultural differences and language barriers will lead to miscommunication. To prevent that, we use customized supply chain security questionnaires that ask key questions several different ways, each worded differently. If respondents answer "yes" and "no" to the same question, that's a signal that they either didn't understand the question or weren't providing accurate responses.
It's also a good idea to confirm the information these partners provide through follow-up e-mails and conference calls. More often than not, we find that the feedback foreign companies provide during these exchanges differs from their original answers. That's not to say they're deliberately trying to mislead us; it may be a simple case of misinterpretation arising from language differences. But whatever the cause, you can't afford to be misled. Foreign suppliers tend to be one of the most vulnerable links in the supply chain today; it's imperative that nothing gets lost in translation.
Emphasize the need for candor. It's not only foreign partners who may provide misleading information, of course. Domestic partners and even personnel at your own facilities may be reluctant to expose and document inadequacies in their security practices and programs. Your challenge will be to convince everyone to be open about security weaknesses. Let them know that while there's no shame in exposing vulnerabilities, the failure to disclose a known security breach could result in your supply chain's being compromised.
Provide in-depth, focused training. The new C-TPAT criteria require that importers establish a threat awareness and security training program. This isn't a quick overview of the basics; this should be exceedingly specialized instruction. Your security depends on workers' ability to recognize potential threats—whether terrorists' plots or internal conspiracies. In order to do this, they'll need detailed information so they'll know specifically what to look for.
It appears that some companies have a long way to go when it comes to threat awareness training. That became evident to us recently when we went out to conduct a C-TPAT training seminar that focused on security seals, one of the most important components of a supply chain security program. During that session, we asked the attendees whether they thought bolt seals could be circumvented. Ninety percent said no, bolt seals were tamperproof; the remaining 10 percent told us they suspected that bolt seals could be compromised, but they had no idea how. That was a troubling response. Bolt seals can, in fact, be circumvented. But if the people responsible for seal integrity don't know that (or don't know how), they're unlikely to detect a breach.
See for yourself
If you want to keep your certification, you will need to have an ongoing security auditing program in place for your facilities as well as those of your supply chain partners. Aside from its being a C-TPAT requirement, it's also a very sound practice.
A C-TPAT compliance audit we conducted at a Hong Kong consolidator confirmed the wisdom of performing adherence audits. Prior to our audit, company representatives had assured us that their personnel diligently followed all of the security procedures we asked them to establish. Among other claims, they told us that their facility had "complete video coverage throughout [its] warehouse" and that our client's goods were "always kept in a segregated, highly secured area."
But when we audited this facility, we found otherwise. Take the "complete" video coverage, for example. True, the facility had a CCTV system in place, but the camera views were of poor clarity and too broad to be of much use. And the video coverage was anything but complete; we found that our client's goods were not monitored from the time they arrived to the time they were reloaded for shipment to the Hong Kong seaport. We also discovered that the system's digital hard drive could archive only seven days'worth of footage, making it impossible to investigate any event that dated back more than a week.
We also uncovered problems with the consolidator's shipment verification practices. For example, although its security policy dictated that only senior personnel would remove an inbound truck's security seal, we found that in reality, seals were being removed by whoever happened to be working on the receiving dock. As a result, workers did not always take the time to verify that the seal number on an inbound shipment matched the manifest (another policy violation).
Things were no better with the seals used for outbound trucks. We found that these seals often sat unguarded on the shipping dock, fully accessible to employees, vendors and truckers. Because the shipping crew had stopped using seals in numerical sequence, it would have been easy for a driver to steal one of these seals and reattach it to a truck's doors after it left the facility, concealing the fact that the trucker later accessed the truck's cargo area without authorization.
As for the consolidator's claims that it was segregating our client's product in a "highly secured area," we found that the fencing was only eight feet high and had no ceiling to keep intruders from climbing over. We also found that the keypad code to this area hadn't been changed in nearly nine months and was known to most of the workforce (including those without clearance to this area). And the alarm system wouldn't have been much help. We determined that the alarm was only being armed at the end of the workday, even though the area was frequently left unoccupied for hours at a time.
Once we notified the consolidator of these and other security loopholes, it remedied them promptly. But this experience points up how easily your inventory can be exposed to unnecessary risks.
If your company is a C-TPAT-certified company, it's your responsibility to make sure your security safeguards are as good in reality as they appear to be on paper. It's no secret that shipments to certified companies stand a much lower chance of being opened and inspected by CBP inspectors. That makes shipments to C-TPATcertified companies precisely the ones terrorist cells are most likely to target—underscoring the importance of identifying loopholes in your supply chain safeguards before others have the opportunity to exploit them. Doing anything less could jeopardize your C-TPAT certification and expose your company to the catastrophic ramifications of having a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into your supply chain.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."
Businesses are cautiously optimistic as peak holiday shipping season draws near, with many anticipating year-over-year sales increases as they continue to battle challenging supply chain conditions.
That’s according to the DHL 2024 Peak Season Shipping Survey, released today by express shipping service provider DHL Express U.S. The company surveyed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to gauge their holiday business outlook compared to last year and found that a mix of optimism and “strategic caution” prevail ahead of this year’s peak.
Nearly half (48%) of the SMEs surveyed said they expect higher holiday sales compared to 2023, while 44% said they expect sales to remain on par with last year, and just 8% said they foresee a decline. Respondents said the main challenges to hitting those goals are supply chain problems (35%), inflation and fluctuating consumer demand (34%), staffing (16%), and inventory challenges (14%).
But respondents said they have strategies in place to tackle those issues. Many said they began preparing for holiday season earlier this year—with 45% saying they started planning in Q2 or earlier, up from 39% last year. Other strategies include expanding into international markets (35%) and leveraging holiday discounts (32%).
Sixty percent of respondents said they will prioritize personalized customer service as a way to enhance customer interactions and loyalty this year. Still others said they will invest in enhanced web and mobile experiences (23%) and eco-friendly practices (13%) to draw customers this holiday season.