Supply Chain Confidence Gap Widens in 2026, Sage Research Finds

As global supply chains continue to absorb cost volatility, sourcing complexity, and policy shifts, new research suggests that confidence among operators may be overstated — and unevenly distributed.

According to the 2026 State of Supply Chain Report from Sage, only half of supply chain teams report strong confidence in their ability to respond effectively to disruption in 2026. The findings point to a widening execution gap between organizations that have invested in structured visibility and supplier management systems and those still operating reactively.

The research, based on a January 2026 survey of more than 200 retail and wholesale operators, highlights a recurring theme: preparedness is less about awareness of risk and more about operational capability.

Confidence Follows Capability

The data reveals a clear pattern — organizations with strong first-mile visibility, connected systems, and formal supplier oversight practices are significantly more likely to feel prepared for disruption.

Conversely, teams with limited upstream visibility report greater difficulty anticipating cost exposure, transportation delays, and sourcing instability. In these environments, response tends to be reactive rather than predictive.

“Many supply chain operators are facing the same disruptions, but not with the same level of preparedness,” said Rodney Manzo, Senior Director of Supply Chain Intelligence at Sage. “When disruption hits, gaps in visibility and execution translate into delayed decisions and higher operational risk.”

The implication is structural: resilience is increasingly determined by system maturity rather than by experience alone.

Nearshoring: Quality Over Cost

While nearshoring continues to gain traction, the report suggests that the motivation is evolving. Nearly half of operators plan to shift sourcing closer to home, but quality control and compliance now rank above pure cost reduction as primary drivers.

This shift signals a broader move toward execution discipline — particularly among brands prioritizing long-term reliability over short-term margin optimization.

Formal supplier management systems, the research indicates, play a critical role in enabling scalable sourcing models, ensuring consistency, comparability, and compliance across expanding vendor networks.

AI Adoption Remains Early-Stage

Despite the industry’s broader enthusiasm around AI, operational adoption in supply chain workflows remains limited. Only 10% of surveyed brands report having AI live within their supply chain processes.

Importantly, adoption appears closely tied to data readiness and visibility maturity. Organizations with structured systems and integrated data flows are more capable of operationalizing AI, while others remain in exploratory phases.

The pattern reinforces a recurring theme in enterprise technology transformation: AI effectiveness is contingent on foundational infrastructure.

Cost Pressure Shapes 2026 Priorities

Even highly optimized teams continue to prioritize near-term efficiency gains over large-scale modernization efforts. Ongoing cost pressure, transportation instability, and tariff shifts are reinforcing a focus on incremental operational improvement rather than transformational change.

This execution-first mindset may define the current phase of supply chain evolution — disciplined, system-oriented investments that deliver measurable resilience without overextending capital commitments.

Why This Matters for Enterprise Technology Leaders

For CIOs, CFOs, and supply chain executives, the report underscores a broader lesson: confidence without capability can mask structural exposure.

As volatility persists into 2026, visibility maturity, supplier governance, and connected systems will likely differentiate organizations that can anticipate disruption from those forced into reactive recovery cycles.

The conversation is shifting from awareness of disruption to operational readiness — and from experimentation with AI to disciplined execution supported by reliable data foundations.

In an environment defined by cost pressure and geopolitical uncertainty, preparedness appears increasingly tied to structural investment rather than optimism.