In the midst of the 2025 SCMAP Supply Chain Conference, you can’t escape the jokes.
I mostly heard it from my colleagues as we sat down for dinner at the end of the first day of the conference. We were staying at the EDSA Shangri-la — for logistical reasons, of course — and we joked about the dishes being served before us. “It feels like we’re working as government contractors,” the quips went.
I also heard it from our delegates, or at least the few that I overheard whenever I had the chance to walk around the exhibit grounds. There’s always a joke, a painful one, about how government contractors seem to have it all.
Obviously the Filipino people aren’t taking revelations of corrupt practices in government-led infrastructure projects lightly. They may have been an open secret for long, but I don’t think anyone is taking it lightly. But we always coped with humor, whether in preparation for the outrage, or right after, when it has all died down and we submit to the reality that these things happened again, that those [insert your choice of word here] got away with it again.
It also underscores a reality that we all innately know when it comes to so many things, not just when it comes to how government delivers its services, for example. For so many things to work – for so many things to become a reality — it is essential that trust is formed between the entities that are tasked to make it happen.
With the revelations of scrupulous practices when it comes to the “construction” of local flood control projects, one can imagine it is impacting not just the perception of how the government can address issues of persistent, disruptive flooding, bit also its ability to deliver on other forms of infrastructure. Construction is ongoing on several critical transport projects across greater Manila – and even outside of it, in the case of the planned Bataan-Cavite Interlink Bridge. But if a newly-retrofitted bridge in Isabela can collapse, what more these marquee infrastructure projects? One can say they’re insulated from allegations of corruption because they’re nationally-funded structures built by reputable companies with a wide footprint, but still, the doubt will linger, right?
It’s these barriers to trust that also prevents our supply chains from pursuing sensible solutions that allow us to really, well, break barriers. In some cases these fears are valid: the threat of data theft, particularly when it comes to operationally-sensitive information, the sort that has to be shared if companies are to, say, share logistics facilities such as trucks. In cases of such collaborations that we have seen — and do continue to work — it took a long period of lawyers going through the fine print, making sure agreements are airtight and that all involved benefit rather than face a potentially embarrassing problem.
I imagine these discussions and deliberations also take place before, say, a manufacturer and retailer can engage in a much closer relationship, enabling sharing of supply and demand information and allowing both to better respond to both planned and unplanned fluctuations. I also imagine these discussions will have to take place when, say, government strengthens its sustainability reporting requirements (as the Securities and Exchange Commission is mooting) and requiring companies to monitor their carbon footprint using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – meaning, Scope 1, Scope 2, and even Scope 3, which extends to beyond the company.
It is clear to all of us in supply chain that the ideas being mooted to allow us to break barriers – to overcome difficulties and challenges, to continue to provide value to shareholders and delight customers – requires a high level of trust between all points in the supply chain. It’s trust that goes beyond the legalese of service level agreements and non-disclosure agreements; it’s trust that allows us to fully submit to working together with entities that we wouldn’t otherwise, knowing fully well that it would unlock new possibilities and deliver further value than ever before.
Acknowledging this also means putting in place the frameworks and standards that would allow better facilitation of these collaborations. Some of it will come from the private sector, but some of it should also come from government, particularly when it comes to cybersecurity, data privacy and corporate governance.
But then, my mind inevitably goes back to those flood non-control projects that’s in the zeitgeist today… and I understand how difficult an ask breaking down these barriers to trust is.
Henrik Batallones is the marketing and communications director of SCMAP, and editor-in-chief of its official publication, Supply Chain Philippines. More information about SCMAP is available at scmap.org.
PREVIOUS COLUMN: Breaking Barriers