Unpacking AS6174 in relation to Supply Chain Integrity

Posted on by

Author: Paul Curwell

Introduction

Product counterfeiting is a global fraud problem that has been steadily evolving for decades, with no product or industry being immune. In 2015, Frontier Economics estimated “the value of international and domestic trade in counterfeit and pirated goods in 2013 was $710 -$ 917 Billion” (2015). The magnitude of this problem is also reflected in US and EU Customs seizures, which continue to grow (Smith, 2016). Unfortunately, Customs agencies can only seize what they know about, placing the onus on the purchaser to exercise adequate due diligence and supply chain risk management practices.

In 2007, the US Department of the Navy tasked the US Department of Commerce’ Bureau of Industry & Security to conduct an assessment of counterfeit electronics across the US defence industrial base, concluding “all elements of the supply chain have been directly impacted by counterfeit electronics” (2010). Similar findings across other branches of the US Government have triggered a range of Supply Chain Integrity and Security initiatives, one of which is Supply Chain Integrity.

The concept of Supply Chain Traceability

Supply Chain Traceability is critically important as a control to achieve Supply Chain Integrity in safety or high-reliability industries such as Aviation or Healthcare, where the introduction of sub-standard products / components / raw materials (referred to in the standard as ‘materiel’) can ultimately lead to death. Supply Chain Traceability is defined in AS6174 as “having documented history of material’s supply chain history. This refers to documentation of all supply chain intermediaries and significant handling transactions, such as from original manufacturer to distributor” (SAE International, p9), with ‘materiel’ being defined as “material, parts, assemblies and other procured items” (SAE International, p6).

Photo by Alexander Isreb on Pexels.com

This concept of Supply Chain Traceability presented in AS6174 appears akin to the concept of Supply Chain Integrity introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2012, which identified “four key questions that must be answered at the product level as part of Supply Chain Integrity (Pickard & Alvarenga, 2012):

  • Integrity of Source – did this product come from where I think it did?
  • Integrity of Content – is the product made the way I think it is?
  • Integrity of Purpose – is the product going to do what I think it will do?
  • Integrity of Channel – did this product travel the way I think it did?”

The difference between the approach adopted by AS6174 and that of the WEF report is that the standard is, unexpectedly, much more forensic in the way it approaches the concept. Where the WEF principles differ are in their application, which is broader than anti-counterfeiting, and could easily incorporate Environmental / Social / Governance (ESG) and other Sustainability Risk considerations such as Modern Slavery and Illegal Logging as part of a broader focus on Supply Chain Integrity (World Economic Forum, 2015).

Within AS6174, Supply Chain Traceability aims to address the introduction of Suspect, Fraudulent or Counterfeit materiel into the Supply Chain (SAE International, p6). Before proceeding further, it is worth exploring exactly how the introduction of Suspect, Fraudulent or Counterfeit material into the Supply Chain is possible. From my perspective, there are two starting points to this discussion:

Genuine Materials

Genuine materials are used or supplied by the manufacturer, which are subsequently adulterated or compromised, meaning that a legitimate product (referred to in AS6174 as a ‘conforming product’) is transformed into a ‘non-conforming’ (illegitimate) product at some point in the supply chain before it reaches the end user. The transformation from genuine to non-conforming materiel can occur in the supply chain via at least two methods:

  • Product Diversion – where legitimate product is diverted from the authorised supply chain (Bandler & Burke 2009, Datz 2005), impacting the ability of a consumer to rely on a vendors’ warranties around Authenticity and Conformance (SAE International, pp7-10). This can be through theft, but it can also be as a result of sales to seemingly legitimate customers (e.g. OEMs) where that product is then re-sold or passed to a third party, such as a gray marketer (Shulman, 2012)
  • Product Substitution – where a product, or part of a legitimate product, is substituted with non-conforming material (Guide to…2019). The concept of product substitution can be illustrated with a can of house paint. Imagine a paint can with the uppermost quarter consisting of real paint (i.e. conforming materiel). The remaining three-quarters of the paint can is filled with a substitute, or non-conforming materiel, which does not mix with the real paint and is heavier so it stays at the bottom of the can. When a customer receives the paint and looks inside, or perhaps performs testing on the product, they will likely only see the uppermost layer. Provided a sample is taken from this layer, the sample will test positive (i.e. conform with manufacturer’s specifications) and not be detected. Meanwhile, the fraudster who substituted the original for fraudulent product has the opportunity to sell three other cans of paint to unsuspecting consumers for the price of one, less the cost of labeling three unmarked paint cans, pocketing the difference.

Both of the above examples fit the definition of “fraudulent material” under AS6174, which is defined as “suspect material represented to the customer as meeting the customers’ requirements” (SAE International, p6).

Non-Genuine Materials

In the second method, non-genuine materials are used throughout the manufacturing process, resulting in a product that in no way conforms to the specifications or authenticity of the original product itself, other than the application of the victim manufacturers’ Trademarks or branding on the packaging. This is commonly referred to as a counterfeit, or ‘fake’. AS6174 defines counterfeit material as “fraudulent material that has been confirmed to be a copy, imitation or substitute that has been represented, identified, or noted as genuine, and / or altered by a source without legal rights with the intent to mislead, deceive or defraud” (SAE International, p6).

Managing the risks – what does AS6174 suggest?

AS6174 provides guidance across 7 main areas to manage the risks of Suspected, Fraudulent or Counterfeit materiel entering the supply chain. These areas include Product Assurance, Risk Assessments, Contractual Obligations, Purchasing Practices, Traceability Guidance and Reporting / Information Sharing arrangements. The following sections focus in more detail on Product Assurance and the Counterfeiting Risk Assessment. Other elements, such as purchasing and supplier due diligence, will be covered in future posts.

Product Assurance

The purpose of Product Assurance, which effectively involves “confirming the authenticity of materiel or its compliance with manufacturer’s specifications” (SAE International, p27), is minimising the likelihood of non-conforming materiel entering the supply chain. Where it does enter the supply chain, Product Assurance and other elements of AS6174 are designed to facilitate early detection. The standard proposes four elements of any Product Assurance process (SAE International, p27):

  1. Documentation & Packaging Inspection – effectively a review of supplier documentation to trace the history of the product and to review the packaging to confirm it meets expectations around conformance with manufacturer’s specifications. As with all fraud prevention processes, the suggestion of verifying the received documents against the source through means such as confirming the accuracy of serial and batch numbers, is raised.
  2. Visual Inspection – this involves examining the product using various scientific techniques and conditions for the presence of identification markings or traceability indicators.
  3. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) – involves a variety of tests including radiological, acoustic, thermographic and optical techniques to check the product confirms to specifications without actually destroying or using the materiel itself.
  4. Destructive Testing (DT) – involves analytical chemistry techniques, deformation and metallurgical tests, exposure tests, and functional tests.

Obviously, the performance of some of the above requires access to specialist equipment and / or knowledge (such as details of manufacturer’s markings applied to help prove the authenticity of a product), which may be beyond the reach of some consumers. In this case, businesses in Australia may consider it worthwhile engaging a NATA Accredited laboratory to perform such testing on their behalf. One key principle of AS6174 is that the design of any framework to minimise and / or detect non-conforming parts be risk-based, informed by the likelihood and consequence of a non-conforming part being introduced into the organisation’s supply chain.

Determining Counterfeit Risk

AS6174 suggests that the steps taken to minimise counterfeits in the supply chain, including the extent to which Product Assurance is undertaken, should be driven by both the likelihood and consequence of any “non-mitigated counterfeit item” (SAE International, p13). This means, for example, that greater steps should be taken to prevent counterfeiting in relation to a helicopter engine part than say a ream of paper in the office. The risk rating from this exercise dictates the “degree of traceability required” for that part in the supply chain.

The first element of any counterfeit risk assessment should involve considering the Likelihood, or probability of counterfeiting in that product, industry or market. The guidance provided in AS6174 on how to do this is scant, and does not consider the nature of the counterfeiting threat and the attractiveness of counterfeiting a specific part or materiel to fraudsters or organised crime. In a typical security or fraud management context, the risk assessment is preceded by a Threat Assessment, which identifies potential threat actors (e.g. insiders, organised crime), and determines both their Capability to counterfeit the product or materiel and their Intent. This step, which is missing from AS6174, is in my opinion critical to the risk assessment process for any case where the risk is caused by criminality of a human.

In the absence of performing a threat assessment, it may be possible to rely on informal feedback from others, such as industry groups, competitors or customers, but the quality of their advice is reliant on the processes and tools available to those parties to identify and understand the threat. Given that fraudsters and criminals are financially incentivised to engage in counterfeiting due to the low likelihood of being caught, yet alone detected, it is important to remember that history is not a reliable predictor of the future, and that just because something hasn’t happened before does not mean it will in the future. In my experience, all to often these less mature, ad-hoc approaches to understanding threat provide a false sense of security and may mean risks such as counterfeit parts in a supply chain are not detected because people aren’t looking for them, as opposed to them not being there at all.

One other interesting part of the risk assessment relates to “long term materiel availability” (SAE International, p15) or steps to be taken when a manufacturer stops making something. As part of any Anti-Counterfeiting & Product Protection strategy, manufacturers or Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Holders will typically perform some degree of market surveillance, to understand where their products are being sold, who the vendor is, and for how much. Market surveillance enables early identification of counterfeit and unlicensed product (e.g. parallel imports) and a facilitates a timely legal response. As products become ‘obsolete’, manufacturers often re-allocate market surveillance and IPR enforcement capabilities towards new products. However, this creates opportunities for sub-standard materiel to enter circulation. Products deemed obsolete by the IPR Holder but which retain their after-market value or are subject to consumer demand in a particular region (e.g. developed versus developing markets) can still be subject to counterfeiting, meaning in these cases market surveillance programs may need to become more targeted rather than ceased completely.

Sources

DISCLAIMER: All information presented on ForewarnedBlog is intended for general information purposes only. The content of ForewarnedBlog should not be considered legal or any other form of advice or opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Readers should consult their own advisers experts or lawyers on any specific questions they may have. Any reliance placed upon ForewarnedBlog is strictly at the reader’s own risk. The views expressed by the authors are entirely their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by, their respective employers. Refer here for full disclaimer.