Supply Chain Planning: The Disciplines That Decide Cost and Service

Most Australian businesses are carrying too much of the wrong stock and not enough of the right stock, often at the same time. They are expediting freight to cover shortages in one category while writing down ageing inventory in another. They are running promotions that the supply chain never saw coming, and holding safety stock against a demand pattern that stopped being relevant two years ago. None of this is a warehousing problem or a procurement problem. It is a planning problem, and it is the single most under-managed part of the supply chain in this country.

Supply chain planning is the set of disciplines that decide what you make or buy, how much, when, and where you hold it. Get it right and you free up working capital, lift service levels, and take cost out without anyone having to work harder. Get it wrong and every other function in the business spends its time firefighting the consequences. The frustrating part is that planning rarely gets the attention it deserves, precisely because it sits upstream of the problems it causes. The stockout looks like a supplier issue. The excess looks like a demand issue. The expedite looks like a logistics issue. Underneath all three is a forecast that was never going to hold and an inventory policy that nobody had reviewed in eighteen months.

This guide walks through the core planning disciplines as they actually work: demand forecasting, inventory optimisation, lead time management, supply and replenishment planning, production planning, network design, and the sales and operations process that ties them together. It is written for the people who own the outcomes, the CFOs watching working capital, the COOs answering for service, and the supply chain and operations leaders who have to make the numbers reconcile. The tools have changed enormously over the past decade, and we will come to where advanced planning systems and platforms such as GAINS fit. But the disciplines underneath are timeless, and most of the value is still left on the table by businesses that have never properly mastered them.

What Supply Chain Planning Actually Is

Supply chain planning is the process of matching supply to demand across time, at the lowest total cost and the service level the business has committed to. That definition sounds simple, and the trap is in the words "across time" and "total cost." Planning is not a single decision. It is a connected sequence of decisions made over different horizons, from a five year network strategy down to tonight's replenishment order, and the quality of the whole chain depends on how well those horizons talk to each other.

It helps to think of planning as a set of distinct but interlocking disciplines. Demand planning estimates what customers will want. Inventory planning decides how much buffer to hold against the uncertainty in that estimate. Supply and replenishment planning turns the plan into purchase orders, production orders, and stock movements. Production planning sequences the factory. Network design decides where the inventory and capacity should physically sit. And sales and operations planning, often shortened to S&OP, is the management process that aligns all of it with the commercial and financial plan of the business.

Each of these can be done well in isolation and still produce a poor result overall, because the disciplines are dependent on one another. A brilliant forecast is wasted if the inventory policy ignores it. A sophisticated inventory model is undermined if lead times are unstable and nobody is managing them. A perfectly optimised network is irrelevant if the S&OP process never surfaces the demand signal that should have triggered a change. This is why the businesses that win at planning treat it as a system, not a collection of tasks owned by different people who meet once a month and disagree.

The other thing worth saying early is that planning is a probability game, not a precision game. You will never know exactly what demand will be. The goal is not a perfect forecast. The goal is to make good decisions in the face of uncertainty, which means understanding the uncertainty rather than pretending it away. Almost every planning failure we see traces back to a business that treated a single forecast number as a fact, built its entire supply chain on that number, and then blamed the number when reality arrived.

Demand Forecasting and Demand Sensing

Forecasting is the foundation, because every downstream decision inherits its assumptions. If the forecast is biased high, you will carry excess everywhere. If it is biased low, you will chase shortages everywhere. And if it is volatile and nobody trusts it, the business will quietly route around it, with sales building their own spreadsheet, operations building another, and finance using a third. One business, three versions of the future, none of them owned.

Traditional forecasting leans on statistical methods that extrapolate from history: moving averages, exponential smoothing, and seasonal decomposition. These are not obsolete, and for stable, high-volume items they are often perfectly adequate. The mistake is applying them to everything. A slow-moving spare part, a fashion item with a twelve week life, and a staple grocery line do not behave the same way, and they should not be forecast the same way. Good demand planning segments the portfolio and applies the right method to each segment, rather than running one model across the catalogue and accepting whatever falls out.

The bigger shift over the past decade has been the move from purely statistical forecasting to probabilistic and machine learning approaches, and then to demand sensing. Probabilistic forecasting produces a range of likely outcomes with their associated probabilities, rather than a single line, which is far more honest about the uncertainty and far more useful for setting inventory. Machine learning models can incorporate variables that classical methods struggle with: promotional calendars, pricing changes, weather, public holidays, even leading indicators from outside the business. Demand sensing takes this further by reading short-term signals such as recent orders and point-of-sale data to adjust the near-term forecast quickly, so the plan reflects what is happening this week rather than what a model assumed last quarter.

The practical lesson for Australian businesses is to be clear about what problem you are solving before reaching for the most advanced technique. Forecast accuracy is not free, and chasing the last few percentage points of accuracy on an item that is cheap and fast to replenish is wasted effort. The value of a better forecast is highest where inventory is expensive, lead times are long, or the cost of a stockout is severe. Concentrate the sophistication there. A few rules of thumb hold up well: forecast at the level you can actually plan at, measure forecast bias as seriously as forecast error because persistent bias is what quietly inflates or starves inventory, and never let the forecast become a negotiation. The forecast is a best estimate of demand. It is not the sales target, the budget, or the stretch goal, and the moment those things get blended into it, the supply chain starts making decisions on a number that was designed to motivate people rather than describe reality.

Inventory Optimisation and Why Multi-Echelon Changes the Game

Inventory is where planning decisions show up on the balance sheet, and it is where the cost of poor planning is most visible. The Institute for Supply Management puts the cost of holding inventory at roughly 20 to 30 per cent of its value every year once you account for the capital tied up, storage, insurance, handling, shrinkage, and obsolescence. The largest single component of that is usually the cost of capital, the return the business forgoes by having money locked in stock rather than working elsewhere. With the Reserve Bank cash rate sitting at 4.35 per cent through the middle of 2026 after three increases earlier in the year, and the Bank signalling it is in no hurry to cut, the money tied up in excess inventory has rarely been more expensive in recent memory. Every dollar of stock you do not need is a dollar you are paying to hold, at a higher rate than you were two years ago.

Inventory optimisation is the discipline of holding the least stock that still delivers the service you have promised. The classical tools are safety stock calculations and reorder points, which set a buffer based on demand variability, lead time, and a target service level. Done properly, this is already a step up from the rule-of-thumb approach most businesses default to, which is to hold a fixed number of weeks of cover across the board. A flat weeks-of-cover policy guarantees that you are over-invested in your stable, predictable lines and under-invested in your volatile, hard-to-forecast ones, which is exactly backwards. Variability, not volume, should drive the buffer.

The most significant advance in inventory planning is multi-echelon inventory optimisation, usually shortened to MEIO. Most businesses still set safety stock one location at a time, as if each warehouse or store existed on its own. In reality, inventory sits in a network: suppliers feed national distribution centres, which feed regional centres, which feed stores or branches. When you optimise each echelon independently, you systematically hold too much, because every node is buffering against the same demand uncertainty without any credit for the buffers held elsewhere. Multi-echelon optimisation looks at the whole network at once and decides where in the chain it is cheapest and most effective to hold the buffer, often pooling stock upstream where it can serve multiple downstream locations rather than pre-positioning it everywhere.

The result, for businesses that make the move properly, is the same or better service from materially less inventory, because the network is no longer paying for the same protection several times over. This is precisely the kind of problem that spreadsheets cannot solve, because the mathematics of optimising service and cost across a multi-tier network with thousands of items is beyond what a manual model can handle. It is also one of the clearest cases where an advanced planning platform earns its keep, and a capability that systems such as GAINS are specifically built around.

A final point on inventory that is easy to lose. The objective is not minimum inventory, it is optimum inventory. It is entirely possible to cut stock too far, and a business that congratulates itself on a lower inventory number while its service quietly erodes and its expedite costs climb has not optimised anything, it has just moved the cost somewhere less visible. The discipline is to set the buffer deliberately, against a defined service target, with full sight of the trade-off, rather than swinging between too much and too little depending on which complaint was loudest last quarter.

Lead Time, the Variable Everyone Ignores

Ask most planning teams what drives their inventory and they will point to demand. Demand matters, but the variable that quietly does as much damage, and gets a fraction of the attention, is lead time. Specifically, lead time variability. Safety stock exists to protect against two things: uncertainty in demand and uncertainty in supply. A supplier whose lead time swings between three and nine weeks forces you to hold buffer for the nine week case, even if the average is five, because you cannot afford to run out during the long ones. Stabilise that lead time and the required buffer falls, with no change to demand at all.

The problem is that most businesses treat lead time as a fixed parameter, a single number sitting in a field in the ERP, set once and rarely revisited. It is almost never a single number. It is a distribution, and often a wide and shifting one, affected by supplier reliability, port and freight conditions, customs and biosecurity processing, and the supplier's own production schedule. Planning against the average lead time when the real distribution is wide is a guaranteed way to be short during the long tail, which is exactly when shortages hurt most.

This is where one of the more useful recent advances comes in: predicting lead times rather than assuming them. The same machine learning techniques that improved demand forecasting can be turned on the inbound side, using historical performance, supplier behaviour, and external signals to forecast how long replenishment will actually take, and how much that time is likely to vary. It is a discipline very few Australian businesses have built, which makes it both an opportunity and a genuine source of competitive advantage, and it happens to be one of the areas where the more capable planning platforms have invested heavily. Treating lead time as something you forecast and manage, rather than a constant you inherit, is one of the highest-return changes a planning function can make.

The management lesson is straightforward. Measure your lead times the way you measure demand: track the actuals, understand the variability, and feed that variability into your inventory policy rather than a static assumption. And manage lead time as a lever, not a given. Supplier reliability is negotiable. Order frequency, mode of transport, and how far ahead you commit are all choices that change the lead time distribution, and therefore the inventory you are forced to carry. The buffer in your warehouse is often a direct, measurable price you are paying for instability further up the chain, and that price is usually larger than anyone has bothered to calculate.

Supply and Replenishment Planning

If demand and inventory planning decide what good looks like, supply and replenishment planning is where the plan becomes action. This is the discipline that converts the forecast and the inventory targets into actual purchase orders, production orders, and stock transfers, in the right quantities and at the right times, while respecting the real constraints of the business. It is the least glamorous part of planning and arguably the part where execution quality matters most, because a sound strategy ruined by sloppy replenishment delivers the same empty shelf as having no strategy at all.

The core of replenishment is deciding when to order and how much. Reorder point logic triggers an order when stock falls to a calculated level. Periodic review orders on a fixed cycle up to a target level. Each suits different situations, and mature planning blends them across the portfolio rather than forcing everything into one model. Layered on top are the real-world constraints that textbooks gloss over: minimum order quantities, supplier batch sizes, container and pallet rounding, shelf-life limits, and supplier capacity ceilings. A replenishment plan that ignores these produces orders that cannot actually be placed, which is how planners lose faith in the system and quietly go back to ordering by feel.

Two failure modes are worth naming because they are so common. The first is the bullwhip effect, where small swings in customer demand amplify into large swings in orders as they move up the chain, because each tier reacts to the orders below it rather than to true end demand, adding its own buffer and its own batching as it goes. The classic cause is each link planning off the orders it receives instead of the underlying demand signal, and the classic fix is visibility, getting true demand information further up the chain so that upstream tiers are not amplifying noise. The second failure mode is allocation under constraint. When supply is short, someone has to decide who gets what, and if that decision is made ad hoc by whoever shouts loudest, the business ends up serving its least valuable demand and starving its most valuable. Good supply planning has an allocation logic decided in advance, based on customer priority, margin, and strategic importance, so the scarce stock goes where it does the most good.

Replenishment is also the discipline that benefits most directly from automation, and the one where automation is most safely applied. The decisions are high volume, rules-based, and repetitive, which is exactly the profile a planning system handles better than a person. The aim is not to remove planners. It is to automate the thousands of routine reorder decisions so the planners can spend their time on the exceptions, the new products, and the constrained situations where judgement actually adds value, rather than rekeying orders that a system could have generated and that a person, working at speed across a large catalogue, will inevitably get wrong some of the time.

Production and Fabrication Planning

For manufacturers and fabricators, planning extends into the factory, and production planning is its own discipline with its own hard constraints. Where a distributor's main lever is when and how much to buy, a manufacturer also has to decide what to make, in what sequence, on which line or machine, with which materials, and in what quantity, all while juggling finite capacity, changeover times, and material availability. The complexity is higher, and the cost of getting it wrong is more immediate, because idle capacity and the wrong production sequence translate into cost and missed orders within days.

The foundation is material requirements planning, or MRP, which works backwards from the production schedule to determine what components and raw materials are needed and when, so that materials arrive in time to build but not so early that they clog the floor and tie up cash. MRP has been around for decades and is built into every ERP, but on its own it assumes infinite capacity, which is why so many MRP-driven schedules are quietly infeasible. Finite-capacity scheduling adds the missing constraint, sequencing work against the real capacity of machines and people, accounting for the changeover time lost when you switch from one product to another, and producing a schedule the factory can actually execute rather than one that looks tidy on paper and falls apart by Wednesday.

The deeper strategic question in production planning is make-to-stock versus make-to-order, and where to place the decoupling point, the line in the process before which you build to forecast and after which you build to actual orders. Push it too far downstream and you carry finished goods inventory you may never sell. Pull it too far upstream and your lead times to the customer blow out because you are starting from scratch on every order. The right answer depends on demand variability, customer lead time tolerance, and the cost of holding stock at each stage, and getting it right is one of the highest-leverage decisions a manufacturing business makes. For fabrication and engineered-to-order environments specifically, the planning problem becomes one of scheduling shared resources across jobs with very different routings, which is well beyond what spreadsheets or basic MRP can handle and is increasingly the domain of dedicated production planning and optimisation tools.

For Australian manufacturers and fabricators, the prize is significant, because production planning sits at the intersection of cost, capacity utilisation, and customer service. A factory running a better schedule makes more with the same assets, holds less work in progress, and quotes more reliable lead times to its customers, all of which fall through to margin. It is also an area where the planning discipline and the planning technology have to fit the realities of the specific operation, which is why a generic implementation rarely lands and why the value comes from configuring the approach to how the plant actually runs.

Supply Chain Network Design

Network design is the most strategic of the planning disciplines and the one most often treated as a one-off project rather than an ongoing capability. It asks the structural questions: how many distribution centres should we have and where, which customers and stores should each serve, where should we hold inventory across the network, and how should product flow from source to shelf. These decisions shape cost and service for years, because they determine the fixed footprint within which all the day-to-day planning has to operate. You can run a brilliant replenishment plan inside a poorly designed network and still lose, because the structure itself is working against you.

Historically, network design happened once a decade, usually triggered by a lease expiry, a merger, or a crisis, and was run as a discrete strategy engagement that produced a recommendation and then sat on a shelf. That cadence no longer fits the pace at which demand patterns, costs, and customer expectations now move. Fuel and freight costs shift, e-commerce changes where demand physically lands, property and labour markets tighten, and a network that was optimal three years ago can quietly become a liability. The better approach treats network design as a living capability, with the model maintained and rerun as conditions change, so the business can answer "should we change the footprint" with analysis rather than instinct whenever the question arises.

The technique at the heart of network design is optimisation, building a mathematical model of the network with its costs, capacities, and service requirements, and solving for the structure that minimises total cost at the required service level. Done well, this surfaces trade-offs that intuition misses, such as the fact that adding a distribution centre can sometimes reduce total cost by cutting transport and improving service even though it adds fixed overhead, or that consolidating to fewer, larger sites can lower cost while lengthening delivery times in a way some customer segments will tolerate and others will not. The value is in quantifying those trade-offs so the decision is made with eyes open. Scenario modelling matters as much as the base optimisation: a robust network is one that performs well across a range of plausible futures, not one that is perfectly tuned to a single forecast that will not eventuate.

The point that ties network design back to the rest of planning is that structure and flow are not separable. Where you decide to hold inventory in the network is both a design decision and an inventory decision, and the multi-echelon optimisation discussed earlier is really the operational expression of a network design choice. Businesses that keep these conversations in separate rooms, with strategy designing the network and planning running the inventory, leave value on the table at the seam between them. The two disciplines answer different time horizons of the same question, and they should share the same model and the same assumptions.

Sales and Operations Planning, the Integrating Layer

Everything above describes individual planning disciplines. Sales and operations planning is the management process that pulls them into a single, agreed plan and aligns that plan with the commercial and financial direction of the business. Without it, you have a set of technically competent functions optimising in different directions: sales chasing revenue, operations chasing efficiency, finance chasing the budget, and supply chain caught in the middle trying to serve all three with one set of stock. S&OP, done properly, forces those tensions into the open once a month and resolves them with one plan that everyone has signed up to.

A healthy S&OP cycle moves through a recognisable rhythm. It starts with an unconstrained view of demand, the honest forecast, separated from the sales target. It then tests that demand against supply: can we make it, buy it, store it, and move it, given our capacity and constraints. Where demand and supply do not reconcile, the gaps and the choices are escalated to a leadership review where decisions get made, including the commercial ones such as whether to invest in capacity, accept a service trade-off, or shape demand through pricing and promotion. The output is a single approved plan, in units and in dollars, that the whole business runs to until the next cycle. The discipline is in the sequence and in the seniority of the people in the room. An S&OP process that does not connect to the financials, or that the executive does not attend, is a production meeting wearing a strategic title.

This is the area where Australian businesses most consistently underperform, and the reasons are rarely technical. The common failure is an S&OP process that exists on paper but has degenerated into a backward-looking status update, where teams report what happened rather than deciding what to do next, and where the difficult cross-functional trade-offs are politely avoided rather than resolved. Another is an S&OP that never bridges to money, so the plan is expressed only in cases and pallets and the finance team runs a parallel forecast that never reconciles, which means the business is effectively planning twice and trusting neither. A third is the absence of a genuine decision-making forum, so issues are surfaced but never closed, and the same problems reappear cycle after cycle.

The fix is rarely more software and almost always better process and clearer ownership. S&OP is where the planning disciplines stop being a technical exercise and become a leadership one, because the trade-offs it surfaces, service against cost, revenue against capital, this customer against that one, are commercial decisions that only the leadership team can make. The most advanced demand and supply models in the world will not help a business that has no forum to act on what they reveal. When organisations ask us to fix their planning, the diagnosis very often lands here, on a process that surfaces the right questions to the wrong people, too late, in a currency the business does not actually run on.

From Spreadsheets to a Planning System: Where Advanced Planning Systems and GAINS Fit

Almost every business starts planning in spreadsheets, and many never leave. Spreadsheets are flexible, familiar, and free, and for a small, simple supply chain they are genuinely fine. The trouble starts as the business grows. Spreadsheet planning does not scale, it breaks when the person who built the model leaves, it cannot handle the mathematics of multi-echelon inventory or network optimisation, it offers no single source of truth when several people maintain their own versions, and it consumes enormous planner time on manual rekeying that adds no value and introduces error. The symptoms are easy to recognise: planners spending their days maintaining the spreadsheet rather than planning, decisions made on stale data, and nobody quite able to explain why the numbers in two reports disagree.

An advanced planning system, or APS, is purpose-built software that handles these disciplines at scale: demand forecasting, inventory optimisation, supply and replenishment planning, production planning, and network design, on a single platform with a single version of the data. It sits above the ERP, which is a system of record built to transact, not to optimise, and is one reason ERP planning modules so often disappoint: they were designed to execute the plan, not to work out what the plan should be. The modern generation of these platforms has moved well beyond rules-based calculation. They combine optimisation, heuristics, and machine learning to generate the plan, simulate the trade-offs, and increasingly automate the routine decisions so planners can focus on the exceptions.

This is the context in which a platform such as GAINS fits, and it is one Trace knows well from implementation experience. GAINS frames its offering around decision engineering and orchestration, combining AI and machine learning, heuristics, and optimisation across supply chain design, planning, forecasting, sales and operations planning, and replenishment on a single platform. It is strong in precisely the areas where most businesses struggle and spreadsheets cannot follow: multi-echelon inventory optimisation, predicting lead times rather than assuming them, demand sensing, and network design. The longevity matters too, as a planning suite with several decades behind it has been through enough real implementations to know that the technology is the easy part. Its own delivery approach reflects that, leaning on a structured, proven implementation methodology rather than treating the rollout as a software install, which is the right instinct, because the way these systems are implemented is what decides whether they deliver.

The honest caution is that an APS is not a silver bullet, and the businesses that get the least from these platforms are usually the ones that bought the technology hoping it would fix a problem that was really about process, data, or ownership. A planning system amplifies the quality of the planning operating model it sits on top of. Implement it on clean data, a sound segmentation, a working S&OP process, and clear accountability, and it is transformative. Implement it on the same broken process that produced the spreadsheet chaos, and you get faster, more expensive chaos. The decision to invest in an APS should follow a clear-eyed view of where the planning capability genuinely is, not a hope that the software will supply the maturity the organisation has not built. For most businesses the sensible sequence is to fix the process and the data discipline first, or in parallel, so the platform has something solid to optimise.

Why Planning Initiatives Fail

After enough of these engagements, the failure patterns become predictable, and they are worth naming because avoiding them is most of the battle. The first is tool-first thinking, buying a planning system before fixing the planning process, on the assumption that the software will impose the discipline the organisation lacks. It will not. It will automate whatever process you point it at, good or bad, and a poor process running faster is not progress.

The second is neglecting data. Planning systems run on master data, item attributes, lead times, costs, supplier information, and bills of material, and most businesses badly underestimate how poor their data is until a system tries to use it. Wrong lead times, missing costs, and stale attributes produce wrong plans no matter how good the optimisation engine is, and the credibility of an entire implementation can be lost in the first month if planners see the system generating obviously wrong answers from obviously wrong inputs. Data readiness is not a preliminary box to tick, it is a workstream in its own right.

The third is chasing forecast accuracy as an end in itself, pouring effort into a marginally better forecast while ignoring the inventory policy, the lead time variability, and the S&OP process that would deliver far more value for far less effort. Accuracy matters where it pays. Elsewhere it is a vanity metric. The fourth is treating planning as a back-office function, staffing it juniorly, giving it no executive voice, and then wondering why the cross-functional trade-offs never get resolved. Planning decisions are commercial decisions, and a planning function without seniority and without a seat at the leadership table cannot make them stick. The fifth, related, is the absence of clear ownership, where demand, supply, and inventory each have several part-owners and therefore no real owner, and accountability dissolves into a monthly meeting where everyone agrees there is a problem and nobody is responsible for fixing it.

The common thread is that planning fails for organisational reasons far more often than technical ones. The mathematics of forecasting and optimisation is well understood and increasingly handled by capable software. What is hard, and what separates the businesses that get real value from the ones that do not, is the operating model around it: the process, the data discipline, the seniority, and the willingness of leadership to make the trade-offs that planning surfaces rather than deferring them. A business that gets the operating model right will do well even with modest tools. A business that gets it wrong will struggle with the best tools money can buy.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace works with Australian businesses across retail, FMCG and manufacturing, health, government, and infrastructure to build planning capability that actually holds, combining the discipline of the methods with the practical reality of how each organisation runs.

Planning and operations capability that lasts. We design and improve the full planning stack, demand forecasting, inventory optimisation including multi-echelon approaches, supply and replenishment planning, and production planning, and we build it into your operating model so it survives after we leave. Our focus is the capability, not a slide deck, which means leaving your people able to run and improve the process themselves. You can read more about our approach on our Planning and Operations page.

Network and inventory strategy. Through our strategy and network design work we model your distribution footprint, flow paths, and where inventory should sit across the network, quantifying the cost and service trade-offs so the structural decisions are made on analysis rather than instinct. Explore our Strategy and Network Design capability for detail.

Advanced planning systems, selected and implemented properly. We help businesses decide whether they need an APS, choose the right platform for their situation, and implement it on a foundation of clean data and a sound process. We bring genuine implementation experience, including with platforms such as GAINS, and we are clear-eyed about what these systems can and cannot do. More on this sits on our Technology page.

Sector depth where it counts. Planning is not generic, and the realities of a retail business differ from those of an FMCG or manufacturing operation. We bring practitioners who have done the work in your sector, so the approach fits how your business actually operates rather than how a textbook assumes it does.

Explore our Planning and Operations services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to Begin

If your planning needs work, resist the urge to start by buying software. Start by understanding where the capability genuinely sits today. A short, honest diagnostic across the disciplines, how you forecast, how you set inventory, how you manage lead times, how you run S&OP, usually reveals quickly where the value is, and it is rarely evenly spread. For most businesses, two or three disciplines are quietly costing the majority of the lost value, and concentrating effort there beats a broad transformation that tries to fix everything at once and finishes nothing.

From there, the sequence that tends to work is to fix the process and the data before, or alongside, any technology, because a planning system implemented on a sound operating model is transformative and the same system implemented on a broken one is an expensive disappointment. Get the demand forecast trusted and separated from the sales target. Set inventory policy deliberately against a service target rather than by habit. Treat lead time as something you measure and manage. And stand up an S&OP process with the right people in the room making real decisions. Do those things and you will capture much of the available value before you have spent a dollar on a platform, and you will be in a far stronger position to choose and implement one if you decide you need it.

The Bottom Line

Supply chain planning is the highest-leverage and most under-managed part of the supply chain in most Australian businesses. The disciplines, demand forecasting, inventory optimisation, lead time management, supply and replenishment planning, production planning, network design, and the S&OP process that ties them together, are well understood, and the tools to support them have never been better. Yet the value keeps going uncaptured, because planning sits upstream of the problems it causes and because doing it well is as much an organisational challenge as a technical one. The businesses that treat planning as a connected system, invest in the operating model as seriously as the technology, and give the function the seniority its decisions warrant, take out cost, free up capital, and lift service in ways that compound year after year. The ones that keep firefighting the symptoms will keep carrying too much of the wrong stock, and paying more than ever to hold it.

If planning is costing your business more than it should, Trace can help you find where the value is and build the capability to capture it.

Explore our Planning and Operations services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

‍

Grocery Supply Chains and the Food and Grocery Code: What It Means

Australia's grocery sector has been under more scrutiny over the past two years than at almost any time in recent memory. An ACCC inquiry into the supermarkets, a high-profile independent review of the code that governs supplier dealings, and sustained cost-of-living attention have all converged on the same set of questions. Most of the public conversation has been about prices on the shelf. But behind those headlines sits a supply chain story that matters just as much and gets far less attention: the relationship between the major grocers and the thousands of suppliers who feed them, and the terms, costs, and supply chain procedures that govern it.

That relationship is now regulated in a way it was not before. The Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, long a voluntary arrangement, became mandatory and penalty-backed from April 2025, and as of April 2026 it applies to every grocery supply agreement with the large retailers and wholesalers regardless of when it was signed. For suppliers and for the major grocers alike, how they deal with each other commercially and operationally is now subject to enforceable rules. And because what the code governs, supply agreements, trading terms, payments, ranging, and supply chain procedures, are supply chain and commercial decisions, this is as much a supply chain issue as a legal one.

This article is for grocery suppliers, retail and wholesale operators, and the supply chain and commercial leaders on both sides who need to understand what has changed and what it means operationally. It stays evenhanded and focused on the supply chain implications rather than the politics of grocery pricing, and it stays in the supply chain lane: the commercial economics, supplier relationships, and operating model, with the legal interpretation of the code left to legal advisers.

What has actually changed

Two connected developments have reshaped the landscape.

The first is the ACCC's supermarkets inquiry, directed by the government and running through 2024 and into 2025. It examined a sector that is, on the ACCC's own characterisation, an oligopoly: Woolworths and Coles together account for around 67 per cent of national supermarket retail sales, with Aldi at around 9 per cent and Metcash supplying the independents at around 7 per cent. The inquiry gathered extensive evidence, including from suppliers at roundtables across rural and regional Australia, many of whom said they felt they were receiving unsustainably low prices and had little choice but to accept unfavourable terms given the concentration of buyers. It is worth noting, in fairness to the full picture, that the inquiry also found food and non-alcoholic beverage prices had grown by around 23 per cent over the five years to mid-2024, broadly in line with inflation across the rest of the economy, a reminder that the supply chain story is more nuanced than a simple narrative in either direction.

The second, and more operationally consequential, is the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Following a review led by Dr Craig Emerson, the code was remade and made mandatory from 1 April 2025. It now applies automatically, with no opt-out, to large grocery businesses with more than $5 billion in annual revenue from their supermarket or grocery wholesaling operations, which captures Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, and Metcash. Suppliers to those businesses are automatically protected. The code requires the large grocers to have written supply agreements, to act in good faith, to refrain from retribution against suppliers who exercise their rights, and to follow rules on ranging, pricing, supplier payments, and supply chain procedures. It is backed by significant civil penalties, the ACCC can issue infringement notices and pursue court action, and it provides for dispute resolution through a Code Mediator, who can bind a supermarket to pay compensation of up to $5 million, and through arbitration. Importantly, a transition period for pre-existing agreements ended on 1 April 2026, so all code requirements now apply to all grocery supply agreements, regardless of when they were entered into.

In short, the rules governing how Australia's largest grocers deal with their suppliers have moved from voluntary good intentions to mandatory, enforceable obligations.

Why this is a supply chain story

It is easy to file this under legal compliance and leave it there. That misses the point. What the code regulates is the operating interface between the grocers and their suppliers: the supply agreements, the trading terms, the payment arrangements, the ranging and listing decisions, and the supply chain procedures by which goods actually flow. Those are supply chain and commercial matters, not merely legal ones.

The buyer-power dynamic the inquiry surfaced is, at its heart, a question about who bears cost and risk in the grocery supply chain. When a dominant buyer can impose terms, change supply chain procedures, shift costs, or vary arrangements at will, the risk and cost migrate onto the supplier, often a smaller business or a primary producer with little leverage. The code is an attempt to rebalance that, by setting rules of fair dealing and giving suppliers protections and recourse. Understanding and responding to it, on either side, is therefore a supply chain and commercial capability as much as a legal one.

What it means for suppliers

For suppliers to the major grocers, the code provides a meaningfully stronger floor. There must be a written supply agreement. The grocer must act in good faith. Agreements cannot be varied unilaterally without consent. Suppliers are protected from retribution for exercising their rights. A large grocer cannot require a supplier to materially change their supply chain procedures mid-agreement without giving reasonable written notice or compensating the supplier for the net costs of a failure to do so. Supplier intellectual property in branding and packaging must be respected. And there are real avenues, mediation, the Code Mediator, and arbitration, for suppliers to pursue when things go wrong.

These are genuine protections, and suppliers should understand and use them. But here is the practical insight that matters most: protections do not change the underlying commercial reality of supplying a highly concentrated market. The code gives suppliers a stronger floor; it does not give them pricing power or guarantee profitability. Real resilience for a supplier still comes from the strength of its own supply chain and commercial position, knowing its true cost-to-serve by customer and channel, running an efficient and reliable operation, delivering high service performance, and offering value the retailer cannot easily replace. A supplier that understands its own economics precisely, and can demonstrate efficiency and reliability, negotiates from a far stronger position than one relying on the code alone. The suppliers who will thrive are those who use the new protections and get their own supply chain and cost economics genuinely right.

What it means for the major grocers and wholesalers

For the large retailers and wholesalers captured by the code, the change is operational, not just legal. How their buying and category teams deal with suppliers, how they communicate changes to requirements, pricing, and promotions, how they vary supply chain procedures, how they document agreements, and how they keep records all now have to be done within the code, with significant penalties for getting it wrong.

That has real implications for the operating model. Supplier management processes, the way supply chain procedure changes are planned and communicated, the discipline around written agreements and notice periods, and the governance over how buyers deal with suppliers all need to be fit for a mandatory, enforced code. Requiring a supplier to change supply chain procedures, for instance, now carries a notice or compensation obligation, which means such changes have to be planned and managed deliberately rather than imposed at will. This is a process, capability, and supplier relationship management challenge as much as a compliance one, and the grocers that build it into how they actually operate, rather than treating it as a legal overlay, will manage both the risk and the supplier relationships better.

The bigger picture: grocery supply chains under structural scrutiny

Step back, and the code is one part of a broader structural scrutiny of grocery supply chains. The concentration of the sector, the buyer-power concerns, the sustainability of the prices paid to farmers and fresh-produce suppliers, the complexity of perishable supply chains, and the cost-of-living pressure on consumers are all pushing in the same direction: toward grocery supply chains that are more transparent, fairer in how cost and risk are shared, and more genuinely efficient.

That last point is the one both sides have a shared interest in. When a supply chain is genuinely efficient, lower in waste, better in forecasting and replenishment, more reliable end to end, there is more value to share and less pressure to extract margin from whichever party is weaker. The healthiest response to the scrutiny, for grocers and suppliers alike, is not just to comply with the code but to make the underlying grocery supply chain work better, through better demand planning, inventory, and replenishment, better cost-to-serve understanding, and more efficient distribution. A more efficient supply chain is the most durable answer to a fairness problem.

The Australian context

This is a distinctly Australian situation. The concentration of grocery retailing is unusually high, which is what gives the buyer-power question its force. Many of the suppliers most affected are in regional and rural Australia, including primary producers for whom the terms of trade with a dominant buyer are existential. The cost-of-living politics keep the sector under sustained public and regulatory attention. And the regulatory machinery is now live: the code is mandatory, the penalties are real, the ACCC is enforcing, and as of April 2026 the transition is complete, so every relevant supply agreement is captured. For anyone operating in Australian grocery supply chains, on either side, this is the current operating environment, not a future prospect.

How Trace Consultants can help

At Trace Consultants, we work on the supply chain and commercial side of this for both suppliers and grocery businesses. The legal interpretation of the code sits with legal advisers; the cost economics, supplier relationships, and operating model sit with the supply chain, and that is where we work.

For suppliers, we strengthen the commercial and supply chain position. We model your true cost-to-serve by customer and channel, improve supply chain efficiency and service reliability, and help you understand and present your economics, so you negotiate from strength and build resilience that does not depend on the code alone. This draws on our retail and FMCG, strategy, and cost-to-serve work.

For grocers and wholesalers, we build the supplier operating model. We help design the supplier management processes, supply chain procedure change management with proper notice and cost discipline, and procurement and supplier relationship practices that work within the code as a matter of how the business actually operates.

For both sides, we make the underlying supply chain more efficient. Through better planning, inventory, and replenishment and more efficient distribution, we help create the genuine efficiency that gives both parties more value to share and reduces the pressure that fuels the conflict in the first place.

Explore our supply chain and procurement capability →

Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to begin

If you supply the major grocers, start by understanding your own economics precisely: your true cost-to-serve by customer and channel, your service performance, and where you are genuinely efficient or not. That clarity, alongside understanding your protections under the code, is what lets you engage from a position of strength rather than dependence.

If you are a large grocer or wholesaler, look at how your buying and supplier-management processes actually operate against the code, particularly how supply chain procedure changes, communication, and agreements are handled, and build the discipline into your operating model rather than bolting compliance on afterward.

And on both sides, treat the efficiency of the underlying grocery supply chain as the shared prize. The Food and Grocery Code has changed the rules of how Australia's largest grocers and their suppliers deal with each other, moving the relationship from voluntary to enforceable. But the most durable response, for everyone, is a grocery supply chain that genuinely works better: more efficient, more reliable, and more transparent about where cost and value actually sit. That is what turns a regulated, sometimes adversarial relationship into one that can actually hold.

This article is general information and does not constitute legal advice. Businesses should confirm their specific obligations under the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct with their legal advisers.

Related reading: Procurement · Strategy & Network Design · Demand Planning, Inventory & Replenishment

‍

Waste and the Circular Economy in Supply Chains

Waste is the part of the supply chain almost everyone treats as an afterthought. It is the cost at the end of the line, the skip out the back, the line item labelled disposal. The supply chain function obsesses over getting goods in efficiently and pays comparatively little attention to getting waste out, even though the two flows are inseparable and the second is becoming, in Australia, a regulated, commercial, and strategic issue that organisations can no longer afford to ignore.

The pressure is coming from several directions at once. Regulation is tightening around national waste targets. Landfill is getting more expensive. Customers and investors are asking harder questions about environmental performance. And the linear model that has underpinned supply chains for a century, take, make, dispose, is increasingly out of step with both policy and economics. For organisations that move and consume material at scale, retailers, manufacturers, hospitality and venue operators, healthcare, infrastructure, waste and circularity are shifting from a compliance obligation to a genuine source of cost reduction and competitive advantage.

This article is for supply chain, operations, and sustainability leaders who want to treat waste as the strategic issue it is becoming. It covers the Australian regulatory and commercial backdrop, what the circular economy actually means for a supply chain, where waste really sits, why most waste programmes underperform, and how to build a waste and circularity roadmap that delivers commercial as well as environmental results.

Why this matters now in Australia

The Australian policy environment has set a clear and demanding direction. The National Waste Policy Action Plan establishes seven national targets to 2030: a ban on the export of waste plastic, paper, glass, and tyres, already in force; a 10 percent reduction in total waste generated per person; an 80 percent average resource recovery rate across all waste streams; a significant increase in the use of recycled content by governments and industry; the phase-out of problematic and unnecessary plastics; halving the amount of organic waste sent to landfill; and making comprehensive waste data publicly available. State strategies push further still, with major cities including Sydney and Melbourne committing to zero waste to landfill by 2030 and large-scale food and garden organics collection.

The gap between those targets and current reality is the headline. Australia's resource recovery rate sat at around 60 percent in 2022 to 2023, which means roughly 11 million tonnes of additional material will need to be recovered before 2030 to hit the 80 percent target. More strikingly, CSIRO estimates Australia's circularity rate, the share of material that is cycled back into productive use, at close to 4 percent, against an economic opportunity it values at tens of billions of dollars. The country is, in other words, a long way from its own ambitions, and the distance has to be closed largely through the supply chains that generate and move the material in the first place.

For organisations, that gap cuts two ways. It is a risk, through rising landfill levies, the export bans that have stranded some recyclable streams without enough domestic processing capacity, product stewardship obligations, and the reputational exposure of poor environmental performance. And it is an opportunity, because the same pressures reward organisations that get ahead of them with lower disposal costs, recovered material value, and a credible sustainability story. This is the strategic context that our work on sustainable supply chain management sits within, and waste is one of its most tangible and actionable dimensions.

What the circular economy actually means for a supply chain

The phrase circular economy is used loosely, often as a synonym for recycling. It is much broader than that, and the distinction matters for where you focus effort.

A linear supply chain takes raw materials, makes products, and disposes of them at end of life. A circular supply chain is designed to keep materials in productive use for as long as possible and to regenerate rather than discard, through avoidance, reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. Recycling is the last and least valuable of those moves, not the first. The waste hierarchy captures the order of priority: avoid waste first, then reduce it, then reuse, then recycle, then recover energy, and only then dispose. The further up the hierarchy an intervention sits, the more value it preserves and the more cost it removes.

This reframing is the single most useful shift in thinking about waste. Most organisations, and most waste programmes, start at the bottom of the hierarchy, asking how to recycle more of what they already throw away. The bigger prize is almost always higher up: not generating the waste in the first place. A circular supply chain treats waste as a design failure to be engineered out, not a volume to be processed.

Where waste actually sits in the supply chain

To act on waste, you have to see where it comes from, and the answer is usually upstream of where it is paid for.

Packaging is the most visible stream, and a large share of an organisation's waste arrives with the goods it buys, as transit packaging, secondary packaging, and product packaging that becomes waste the moment goods are received. Product and material waste comes from manufacturing offcuts, damaged stock, and obsolescence. Food and organic waste is significant in hospitality, food service, retail, and healthcare, and it is squarely targeted by the halve-organics-to-landfill goal. Returns and reverse logistics generate their own waste stream, often poorly managed. And end-of-life products, increasingly the subject of product stewardship and extended producer responsibility schemes, push end-of-life responsibility back toward the producer.

The critical insight runs through all of these: most waste is designed in upstream, through product design, packaging choices, and procurement decisions, but paid for downstream, through disposal cost and lost material value. The point of leverage is therefore rarely the skip. It is the design specification, the packaging standard, and the procurement decision that determined what would eventually become waste. Extended producer responsibility and recycled-content requirements are policy's way of pushing that accountability back upstream, and supply chains that get there first turn a looming obligation into an advantage.

Why most waste programmes underperform

Plenty of organisations have waste initiatives. Far fewer have waste programmes that move the numbers, and the reasons are consistent.

They treat waste as a disposal problem rather than a strategy. The default frame is compliance and cost-of-disposal, which produces incremental recycling efforts rather than a rethink of how waste is generated.

They are siloed. Sustainability owns the targets, operations owns the bins, procurement owns the purchasing decisions that determine the packaging, and finance owns the disposal cost. Waste as an end-to-end system is nobody's responsibility, which is the same structural problem that undermines so many back-of-house and logistics operations.

They lack a baseline. Without measured data on waste streams, volumes, diversion rates, and true cost, it is impossible to identify the real opportunities, build a business case, or prove improvement. Much waste reporting is estimated rather than measured.

They chase the wrong end of the hierarchy. Effort goes into recycling more of the existing waste rather than avoiding and reducing it, which is where the larger and cheaper gains sit.

And they collide with real infrastructure and market gaps. The export bans, combined with insufficient domestic processing capacity and weak end-markets for some recovered materials, mean that good intentions can run into the hard limit of nowhere viable for the material to go. A credible programme has to design around that reality rather than assume it away.

How to build a waste and circularity roadmap

Turning waste from a cost into a managed, strategic part of the supply chain follows a clear method.

Start with a measured baseline. Quantify the waste streams, the volumes, the diversion and contamination rates, and the true cost, including disposal fees, landfill levies, lost material value, and the labour and space consumed handling it. You cannot manage, prioritise, or build a case for what you have not measured, and the baseline almost always reveals that waste costs more than the organisation thinks.

Map where waste is generated and where it is designed in. Trace each stream back to its source, distinguishing the waste created in your own operations from the waste that arrives through procurement and packaging decisions. This is what tells you whether the lever is operational, in segregation and handling, or upstream, in design and purchasing.

Apply the hierarchy, in order. Prioritise avoidance and reduction before recycling. Ask what waste can be eliminated through better design, packaging specifications, supplier engagement, and process change, before asking how to recycle more of what remains. This sequencing is what separates a programme that cuts cost from one that simply sorts it.

Segment by stream and treat each on its merits. Packaging, organics, general waste, and regulated or hazardous streams each need different interventions, infrastructure, and partners. A blanket approach under-serves all of them.

Build the business case. Quantify the cost of the current state and the value of the interventions, recovered material, avoided disposal, reduced levy exposure, freed space and labour, alongside the regulatory and reputational benefits. Waste improvement competes for capital like anything else, and a defensible case is what gets it funded.

Design the interventions and the infrastructure. This spans supplier and packaging engagement, segregation at source, the physical infrastructure to handle and consolidate waste, compactors, balers, organics handling, storage and vehicle access, reverse logistics, procurement specifications for recycled content, and the operating model to run it. For facilities being built or refurbished, the waste infrastructure has to be sized at concept design, because, as in any goods and waste logistics design, getting the waste rooms and access wrong at design means living with the constraint for the life of the building.

Govern it, with targets, data, and ownership. Assign accountability for waste as an end-to-end system, set targets aligned to the national and state direction, measure continuously, and keep the programme live rather than letting it lapse into an annual report line.

The commercial case, not just the compliance case

It is worth being explicit that this is a commercial argument as much as an environmental one. Landfill levies are significant and rising across most states, so every tonne diverted is a direct saving. Material that is currently discarded often has recoverable value. Handling, storage, and transport of waste consume labour, space, and money that better design reduces. And the regulatory direction, recycled-content requirements, product stewardship, mandatory sustainability reporting that increasingly pulls in waste and Scope 3 considerations, means the cost of inaction is rising while the cost of action falls. Organisations that treat circularity purely as a compliance burden miss that it is, done well, a cost and network optimisation opportunity wearing a sustainability label.

The Australian context

Several Australian specifics shape how this plays out. Landfill levies and waste regulations are state-based and vary considerably, so the economics of diversion differ by jurisdiction. The export bans, paired with a domestic processing and end-market capacity that is still developing, create genuine constraints on where recovered material can go, and any roadmap has to be built around the infrastructure that actually exists. Food and garden organics collection is expanding rapidly under the organics target, changing what is possible for organic streams. And the country's geography, with remote operations and uneven access to recycling infrastructure, means circular solutions that work in metropolitan Sydney may not work in regional or remote settings. The roadmap has to be grounded in the Australian, and often the local, reality rather than imported wholesale.

How Trace Consultants can help

At Trace Consultants, we treat waste and circularity as a supply chain problem, which is what it is, rather than a standalone sustainability exercise. That means we bring the same operational rigour, data, and business-case discipline to waste that we bring to the rest of the supply chain.

We baseline and diagnose. We measure the waste streams, volumes, diversion rates, and true cost, so the opportunities are grounded in evidence rather than estimate, and the business case is defensible.

We build hierarchy-led roadmaps. We design waste and circularity strategies that prioritise avoidance and reduction before recycling, segment by stream, and sequence interventions by value and feasibility, aligned to the national and state regulatory direction.

We design the operating model and the infrastructure. From supplier and packaging engagement through segregation, handling, reverse logistics, and the physical waste infrastructure, we design how waste is actually managed, including at concept design for new and refurbished facilities through our back-of-house and goods-and-waste practice.

We connect it to procurement and cost. Because most waste is designed in upstream, we link the roadmap to procurement and product decisions, recycled-content specifications, and the cost and network economics that make circularity commercially as well as environmentally sound.

Explore our sustainability and supply chain capability →

Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to begin

Start by measuring. A waste baseline, by stream, volume, diversion rate, and true cost, is the foundation for everything else, and it almost always reveals both a larger cost and a larger opportunity than expected. From there, trace the major streams back to their source to see how much is designed in upstream versus generated in your own operations, because that determines where the real levers are.

Then work the hierarchy in order. Before investing in more recycling, ask what waste can be avoided and reduced through design, packaging, and procurement, and build the business case that links those moves to cost as well as compliance. Sequence the infrastructure and operating-model changes behind that strategy, and design any facility waste infrastructure at concept stage while it is still a decision rather than a constraint.

Waste is the half of the supply chain that has been allowed to remain invisible, estimated, and owned by no one, even as regulation, cost, and customer expectation have moved it to the centre of the sustainability agenda. Treated as the strategic supply chain issue it now is, it reduces cost, recovers value, and builds a credible circular story. Left as a disposal afterthought, it becomes a rising cost and a growing risk. The organisations that move first will find that circularity, done properly, pays.

‍