Today’s environment features a host of factors that challenge raw-material assumptions. Whether it be price fluctuation, changing trade policy or supply constraints, chemical manufacturers are operating without consistency. Availability and cost of materials are showing up as question marks. This culmination of factors was recently summed up by Reuters reporting on how disrupted oil and petrochemical flows tightened global chemical supply and pushed up prices for plastics, polymers and resins.
Recognition is certainly a necessary step in the problem-solving process, but calling out volatility is simply the start. Manufacturing leaders must be prepared for when volatility reaches the plant, which can be easier said than done without the right tools. That is because time is of the essence.
When a preferred supplier becomes constrained, costs increase and finding a substitute material often quickly becomes necessary. Especially in chemical manufacturing, changing suppliers or raw materials cannot be siloed to purchasing, but rather must be integrated across technical and operational functions. Of course, raw material changes have a downstream impact on formulation, processing behavior, yield, quality checks, inventory, compliance, customer specifications and batch-level cost.
That said, if impacts are not thoroughly evaluated before the change moves into production, supplier flexibility can create exactly the kind of risk it was meant to reduce. Everyone must be keyed into the same truth as procurement explores alternate vendors: sales teams protect customer commitments, production personnel maintain the right capacity; and the finance department monitors margin exposure.
Turbulent times demand visibility — tools that can help validate supplier changes, help bring clarity around consequences and keep production, quality, compliance and cost data aligned. Manufacturers who will be best positioned for raw-material volatility are not automatically those with the longest supplier list, but instead the ones with clear processes for unifying important data.
Source: Shutterstock
It begins with material importance, not supplier availability
It can certainly be human nature to prefer the path of least resistance. To that end, when supply-chain pressure worsens, it may be the first reflex to ask which alternate suppliers are available. While important, it is actually the wrong first question. Instead, organizations should first be asking: how critical is the material to product performance and process control?
The reason is that not every material change carries the same level of risk. While some inputs may have broad tolerances and multiple qualified sources, others could drastically impact customer-specific performance requirements. Even if a material can meet general specifications, full behavior must be understood. It is important to evaluate the level of risk in disrupting viscosity, purity, pH, color, reactivity, stability, packaging compatibility or shelf life.
This is a collaborative effort, where engineers should work with quality, procurement and production teams to classify materials by operational sensitivity. A low-risk packaging component or common commodity may require a different level of review than a specialty additive used in a high-value customer formulation. Clear classification helps businesses avoid two common mistakes: treating every supplier change as equally burdensome; or assuming that commercial equivalence is the same as manufacturing equivalence.
A practical framework starts by identifying which materials are tied to critical quality attributes, regulated documentation, customer approvals, validated processes or narrow operating windows. Those materials require a more disciplined change-control path before an alternate supplier is approved for routine use.
Building a strong supplier-review process
In chemical processing, a supplier may be acceptable for one material, one site, one product family or one customer requirement, but not necessarily for all of them. A stronger approval process connects three levels of review: the supplier, the material and the intended use case. The supplier review may include commercial reliability, lead times, certifications, audit history and documentation practices. The material review should confirm specifications, certificates of analysis, handling requirements, storage conditions and safety documentation. The use-case review should determine whether the material is approved for the formula, process, customer and market where it will be used.
Nowhere is this truer than manufacturers serving customers with distinct specifications or documentation requirements. Here, it is quite likely a substitute material might be acceptable for just one finished product and not others; maybe usable for a domestic customer but not for one that requires additional documentation.
The ultimate goal with this step in the process is preventing an alternate supplier from becoming available in the system before it has been defined exactly where that supplier’s material can and cannot be used.
Treating formula impact as an engineering question
Raw-material substitutions must trigger a full technical review of relevant formulas. Even when a material meets the written specification, small differences can affect processing. While these differences may be minor in some cases, others will require adjustments to batch instructions, processing times, temperature profiles, sequencing, mixing parameters or quality checkpoints.
Engineering teams should consider whether the change requires a formula revision, a controlled substitution, a temporary deviation or a new product version. A temporary substitution may be appropriate during a short-term disruption, while a recurring material change may require a more formal formula update and customer communication.
Just because a material performs well in a laboratory or pilot environment does not guarantee success in full production; it may perform differently upon scaleup. Before a substitute is broadly released, teams should define what testing is required, what results must be reviewed, and who has authority to approve the change.
Version control quickly emerges as a necessity. Operators should be able to identify which formula version is active, which substitutions are allowed and whether any special instructions apply. Without that level of data clarity, supplier flexibility can turn into inconsistent execution from batch to batch and pose significant risk.
Source: Shutterstock
Why quality gates should be built into the flow of materials
Supplier changes cannot mean a drop in quality, which makes quality-control processes even more important. A new supplier lot may need additional testing, tighter inspection or a hold-and-release workflow before it can be consumed. That should not depend on manual follow-ups or after-the-fact review, as those processes invite risk of premature use.
Instead, quality gates should be built into the material flow. When a supplier or raw material is new, conditional, expired out of tolerance or awaiting documentation, that status should be visible before the material reaches production. Operators and planners should not have to rely on memory or separate spreadsheets to know whether a lot is cleared for use. Pen and paper or Excel approaches quickly become outdated and unworkable in these instances.
Incoming inspection should confirm not only that the material arrived, but that the correct documentation is present and aligned with the lot received. Certificates of analysis, safety datasheets, regulatory statements and customer-required documents should be associated with the material record. Best practice would see quality gates that are proportional to risk, with each decision being documented, made intentionally and not improvised under pressure.
Importance of preserving lot traceability
Traceability is often discussed in the context of recalls, but its value is broader than that. In a volatile sourcing environment, traceability provides the speed-to-answer manufacturers need when customers, auditors or internal teams ask what changed.
When a new supplier lot enters production, manufacturers should be able to trace it from receipt through consumption and into finished goods. That means knowing which raw-material lot went into which batch, which finished product lots were produced and where those lots were shipped. It also means being able to connect the traceability record to quality results, formula versions, supporting documentation and batch-level cost.
This level of visibility helps contain problems faster and, over time, can help the organization make better sourcing decisions based on operational performance, not only purchase price. A substitute material may carry a different unit price, freight profile, testing requirement, yield impact or rework risk. Without batch-level visibility, those costs may not become clear until after production is complete or an order has shipped.
Avoid creating a documentation gap
Raw-material changes can create documentation gaps if the organization does not keep technical, quality and compliance records synchronized. The risk is not always that documentation is missing entirely. Often, the risk is that documentation exists but does not match the material, lot, formula version or shipment in question. During normal operations, those inconsistencies may stay hidden. During an audit, customer inquiry or quality event, they can become a major problem.
A controlled supplier-change process should define which documents are required, when they must be reviewed, how they are linked to the material record and who is responsible for maintaining them. The process should also define how changes are communicated to customers when required. Documentation discipline is one of the key ways manufacturers preserve flexibility without losing control.
Preparing before a decision is forced
The worst time to design a supplier-change process is during a shortage. By then, the organization is already under pressure, and decisions may be shaped by urgency rather than discipline.
Chemical manufacturers should define their supplier optionality playbook before they need it. That includes identifying critical materials, qualifying alternate suppliers, documenting approval criteria, defining testing requirements, and clarifying who has authority to approve temporary or permanent substitutions. It also includes aligning procurement, engineering, production, quality, compliance, sales, and finance around the same process.
Raw-material volatility will continue to affect chemical manufacturers, but those that respond best will do so by adapting without compromising quality, compliance or customer commitments. Supplier optionality is part of that response, but optionality by itself is not enough. The priority is to make supplier flexibility practical and controlled, where resilience is having the confidence to use options safely. ♦
Edited by Mary Page Bailey
Author
Matt Riesenbach is Director of Product Management at ECI Software Solutions, a global provider of cloud-based business management software and services. He has been with ECI Software Solutions and its Deacom ERP Software for batch and process manufacturers for nearly 10 years.