China Secure Logistics 2007 Survey Results
).42/$5#4)/. Security in logistics has become an important element in the strategy and operations of international companies and their logistics and transport service providers. Many of these companies have reorganised their international supply chains to comply with new unilateral and supranational regulation, such as SPSS, CSI, C-TPAT, AEO and so on. In addition to these regulatory measures, many technology initiatives have been launched aimed at improving the security of the supply chain. Examples are RFID, E-seals, satelite supported tracking and tracing of containers, electronic locks, scanning devices, image recognition, biometric driver identification and so on. The consequences of these efforts, as well as the costs, are only now becoming clear.
对于国际公司及他们的物流及运输服务提供商来说，物流 的安全性已经成为其策略及操作的一个重要因素。很多这 样的公司已经重新组织他们的国际供应链， 使其适应新 的单方面无国家界限的规章管理，比如：SPSS, CSI, C-TPAT, AEO等等。除了这些规章管理方式，很多技术创 新也已经实施来提高供应链的安全性，比如：RFID，电 子图章，卫星辅助的集装箱定位跟踪，电子锁，扫描仪 器，图像识别，生物测量司机识别等等。这些努力的结果 及费用知道现在才变得明显。
China has long been a white spot in the area of secure supply chains. The country was late in joining some of the American security initiatives, such as CSI, and many international companies are unable to enforce their global security policies in China in the same way as elsewhere in the world.
这次问卷是对中国物流及运输安全性的国家技术情况调查 的一次尝试。调查对象针对中国及外国生产商，运输物流 公司，在中国做生意的公司。
This survey is an attempt to take stock of the state of the art in logistics and transport security in China. It was conducted under Chinese and foreign manufacturers and transport and logistics companies in China, and companies that do business in China.
中国长时间以来在安全供应链这一块是空白。对于中国来 说，加入像CSI这样的美国安全创新技术已经晚了。而很 多国际公司也做不到像强迫世界其他地方那样在中国强迫 实施他们的全球安全政策。
!7!2%.%33 The response to the survey was generally low. About 30 respondents completed the entire questionnaire, although more respondents answered the first few questions. We take this as an indication that security awareness in China in still not very high. Especially questions about terrorism received very low response rates. Asked about the main risk factors that companies doing business in China perceive, most companies answered: port operations and custom delays (13%) and service failures due to long supply chains (12%). Other factors are 2007 tariff code changes, lack of skilled personnel, and currency fluctuations.
问卷调查的回复率一般都很低。大约30人完成全部 问题，而更多的人只回答前几个问题。我们可以看 出中国的安全意识还不是很高。特别是关于恐怖主 义的问题得到的回复率更低。 涉及到公司在中国做生意的最主要风险因素，大多 数公司的回复是：港口操作及海关延迟（13%）， 由供应链过长引起的服务失误（12%）。其他的因 素是2007年关税代码的变更，缺乏有经验的人员， 和汇率浮动。
Some 62% of the respondents agreed that security was a critical factor for their company in China.
62%的答卷人指出安全性对他们中国公司是一个至 关重要的因素。
Reasons why security is critical:
安全性至关重要的原因：
pressure suppliers 11%
17% high risk industry
pressure customers 21% 32% high impact on reliability
high financial impact 19%
Most of the respondents think a terrorist attach on China carries a low probability. If, in the unlikely event, such as attack would take place, the respondents consider an attack on utility networks (gas, water, electricity) the most relevant one. Crime, on the other hand, is considered a much greater reality, and many companies (45%) take measures on their own account. All in all, 85% of the respondents consider crime relevant in their business in China. The most relevant issues in this respect are damage due to carelessness or ignorance of own personnel and theft from warehouses. Surprisingly perhaps, the respondents consider smuggling of cargo or people the least relevant. Most of the respondents (on average 66%) are aware the main American and international security arrangements, such as CSI, ISPS, C-TPAT, TAPA and ISO28000. Of these ISO28000 is the least well known. About half of these respondents think these arrangements are relevant for their business in China (some 33%). European arrangements such as AEO and the cooperation between European and Chinese customs are also less well known (50% of respondents, which are those for which it is relevant in their day to day business).
大多数的答卷人认为恐怖分子袭击中国的可能性非 常低。虽然不大可能发生，但是一旦袭击发生，答 卷人考虑到了最相关的公共网络设施（燃气，水， 电）。犯罪，从另外一方面来讲，被考虑成更大的 现实因素，很多公司（45%）对此有自己的预备方 案。总的来说，85%的答卷人认为犯罪跟他们在中 国的公司有关。而这方面最相关的问题是由于员工 的疏忽和无知造成的损失及仓库的盗窃。可能最让 人惊讶的是，答卷人认为货物及人员的走私是最不 相关的问题。 大多数的答卷人（平均66%）已经意识到美国及国 际安全性措施，比如CSI, ISPS, C-TPAT, TAPA and ISO28000。在这些措施中，ISO28000是最不为人 知的。大约一半的答卷人认为这些措施是跟他们的 中国生意相关的（大约33%）。欧洲的措施，像 AEO及欧洲中国海关的合作也鲜为人知（50%知道 的答卷人是由于从事相关的日常工作）。
-EASURES 4AKEN IN #HINA 81%
identify visitors 75%
use personnel identification perform verification checks on own personnel invested in some training of personnel
68%
record visitor movements
68%
72%
perform some screening when hiring personnel record personnel movements
65%
do so on visitor
65%
66%
57%
have hired additional guards have security related certificates from independent organisations
56%
Most of the respondents have taken the most obvious measures: 56% have security related certificates from independent organisations, 75% use personnel identification, 81% identify visitors, 65% record personnel movements, 68% record visitor movements, 66% perform some screening when hiring personnel, 72% perform verification checks on own personnel, and 65% do so on visitors, 57% have hired additional guards and 68% invested in some training of personnel. The remainder of the respondents indicated that they contemplate these measures in 1 to 3 years. In terms of logistics measures, on average two-thirds of the respondents have engaged in working with and certifying known suppliers and service providers, introducing security and audit procedures, using IT for more visibility, dual sourcing, additional stock keeping. The more costly or advanced measures (additional stock locations, hiring more personnel, varying vehicle routing) were taken by about half of the respondents. It is striking that the number of companies that have audited their own procedures is twice as high as the number of companies that audit their partners in the chain.
大多数的答卷人已经采取了最有效的措施： 56%从独立机构获取了相关的证书，75%在用 人员识别，81%作访客识别，65%记录员工出 入，68%记录访客出入，66%对雇用员工拍 摄，72%对员工区分检查，65%对访客区分检 查，57% 已经雇用了额外保卫，而68%对员 工进行培训方面的投资。其余的答卷人指出他 们会在1到3年内采取这些措施。 大多数的答卷人已经采取了最有效的措施： 56%从独立机构获取了相关的证书，75%在用 人员识别，81%作访客识别，65%记录员工出 入，68%记录访客出入，66%对雇用员工拍 摄，72%对员工区分检查，65%对访客区分检 查，57% 已经雇用了额外保卫，而68%对员 工进行培训方面的投资。 其余的答卷人指出 他们会在1到3年内采取这些措施。
)-0!#4 The respondents are virtually unanimous in seeing the benefits of security related measures. Almost all see benefits for the company (reputation 100%, customer loyalty 95%, relationships with government agencies 100%), and for logistics (efficiency 91%, stock levels 73%, coordination 86%, lead times 87%, relationships with chain partners 94%) and on costs (insurance costs 83%, personnel costs 83%, personnel costs 81%). Although the results may be overstating these benefits due to sampling problems, there seems to be a clear tendency to recognise benefits from security measures. Almost always the security measures cost money. Companies who implement them can sometimes transfer these costs to chain partners or customers. This does not seem to be the case in China. 56% of our respondents think they will earn back costs from higher efficiency, and another 20% will write off the costs. Only 8% thinks costs can be transferred to customers.
大多数的答卷人已经采取了最有效的措施：56% 从独立机构获取了相关的证书，75%在用人员识 别，81%作访客识别，65%记录员工出入，68% 记录访客出入，66%对雇用员工拍摄，72%对员 工区分检查，65%对访客区分检查，57%已经雇 用了额外保卫，而68%对员工进行培训方面的投 资。其余的答卷人指出他们会在1到3年内采取这 些措施。 对于物流措施来说，平均三分之二的答卷者已经 开始同他们的供应商及服务提供商一起工作并对 他们进行认证，跟他们介绍安全及审核程序，应 用IT技术增加可见性，双重采购，增加额外库 存。更多的费用高且先进的措施 （额外库存地 点，雇用更多的员工，变更车辆的线路）已经被 大约一半的答卷人采用。让人吃惊的是审核自身 程序的公司数量是审核供应链合作伙伴公司数量 的2倍。
#/.#,53)/. From the survey, we conclude that security of the supply chain and the logistics is an issue in China, but much less so than in Europe or the USA. This is not completely justified, because 61% of respondents agree with the statement that transport and logistics in China is generally less secure than in Europe or USA. So the lack of interest and the lack of security go hand in hand. On the other hand, most companies have some kind of security approach in place in their offices, warehouses and other logistics facilities. China’s ports are also fully compliant with ISPS. Most of these measures are aimed at securing own office and logistic locations. Very little is aimed at securing the partners in the chain. There are various reasons for this situation. First of all, the market for logistics service in China is less well developed, and characterised by extreme price competition. Not many service providers are willing to invest in measures that they will not earn back through higher rates. Second, logistics in China is still hampered by an aging transportation sector with inadequate equipment, inexperienced and uneducated drivers, and lacking professionalism. This impacts reliability and performance much more than security related problems such as crime and, much less likely, terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, serious interest in security in China is manifest from various international research projects, international customs cooperation, and pressure on the Chinese government to deal with piracy of goods and smuggling of people and goods. In future years, China will connect itself to the rest of the world through more state of the art logistics, and this will probably go faster than expected.
从问卷调查我们可以总结出供应链及物流的安全 性虽然在中国是一个问题，但是远不及欧洲及美 国。这个情况没有被完全证明是正确的，因为 61%的答卷人一致同意在中国的运输及物流比欧 洲及美国的安全性低。所以兴趣的缺乏及安全性 的缺乏形成恶性循环。另外一方面，大多数的公 司已经在他们的办公室，库房及其它物流设施拥 有一些安全措施。中国的港口同时也采取了ISPS 的措施。大多数措施是针对于保护他们自己的办 公室及物流设施。而很少数的会针对保护供应链 中的合作伙伴。 出现这种情况有很多原因。首先，中国的物流服 务市场不是很发达，并且价格竞争成为显著特 点。没有很多服务提供商愿意在他们需要提高价 格来获得回报的措施上投资。第二，中国的物流 发展仍然被老化的运输设备场地，缺乏经验及教 育的司机，及缺乏专业性所限制。这些因素对于 可靠性及表现的影响远远大于安全型所涉及的问 题，比如犯罪及更加不大可能发生的恐怖袭击。 另外，从不同的国际研究项目中，国际海关合作 中，及对于中国政府关于盗版及走私问题的施压 可以看到对中国的安全性的兴趣是很明显的。在 不久的将来，中国会通过更多的物流技术与世界 联系起来， 甚至会做到比人们期待的更好。
supplychains.cn supplychains.in Global Supply Chain Council Room A1, 3F, Block 1, 543 Xin Hua Road, Shanghai, China 200052 Tel: +86 21 5102 1617 or 6280 1731 Fax: +86 21 5258 3864 Room 813, Hollywood Plaza 610 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: +852 8199 9882 Fax: +852 3014 3799 Sector 45, Gurgaon, Haryana, New Delhi, India Tel: +91 124 4048 482 Fax: +91 22 6645 9704