Due to the significant reliance between companies that produce, manufacture or distribute products, there is interconnectedness between suppliers, consumers and business partners. These partnerships constitute the supply chain. Modern supply chains have become increasingly complex because of automation and technological advancements.
Each time an entity does business with a supplier, new supply chain risks arise, many of them not visible and beyond the purview of an individual organization. Although these relationships may be beneficial in terms of increasing revenue and market opportunities and reducing costs, the resulting vulnerabilities may threaten the entity’s ability to meet critical deliverables. For example, they may be unable to provide products that adhere to performance specifications. Or, they may fail to satisfy quality and delivery commitments or production, manufacturing or distribution agreements.
For these reasons, companies must have visibility across their supply chain to completely understand and manage the risks that arise from doing business with suppliers, including the controls suppliers have in place to alleviate those risks. If not managed properly, these risks can lead to loss of intellectual property, reputational damage, obstruction of key business operations, fines, litigation, etc.
Due to these high stakes, managing supply chain risk has become an increasingly critical issue for companies and their stakeholders. To provide confidence to the organizations they do business with, suppliers also want to communicate how they are addressing the production and distribution risks in their own systems.
Producers, manufacturers and distributers face various vulnerabilities due to the complex network and relationships that exist between them. Some common causes of supply chain disruption are:
Businesses worldwide have had to manage disturbances caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. This widespread disruption has brought the criticality of supply chain administration and supply chain vulnerabilities into the limelight. More than ever, it is crucial for companies to get a better understanding of their supply chain — how their suppliers source products, how to alter their material acquisition, etc.
These are some ways organizations can mitigate supply chain risk amid COVID-19 or other disruption:
To help organizations, their customers and their business partners identify, assess and address supply chain risks, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has developed a voluntary reporting framework to foster greater transparency in the supply chain. A System and Organization Controls (SOC) for Supply Chain Report uses this market-driven, flexible framework to provide information about controls within a service organization’s system relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and/or privacy.
A SOC for Supply Chain examination addresses any system used to produce, manufacture, or distribute goods, for example:
The Value of a SOC for Supply Chain Report
A SOC for Supply Chain Report is intended to enable users to manage risks arising from business relationships with their supplier and distribution network. Companies can use the SOC for Supply Chain framework to relay information about their supply chain risk management efforts and the controls and processes they have in place to prevent, detect and respond to supply chain vulnerabilities.
CPAs can use the framework to examine and report on management-prepared system information and on the effectiveness of system controls, strengthening stakeholders’ trust in the information.
Contents of a SOC for Supply Chain Report
| Description Criteria | Implementation Guidelines |
|---|---|
| The description contains the following information applicable to the system and the trust services category or categories addressed by the description: | When making judgments about the nature and extent of disclosures to include, consider the following: |
| DC 1: The types of goods produced, manufactured, or distributed by an entity and, if relevant, the characteristics of the production, manufacturing or distribution processes1 | The types of goods produced, manufactured, or distributed by an entity and, if relevant, the characteristics of the production, manufacturing, or distribution processes2 |
| DC 2: The principal product performance specifications, commitments, and requirements and production, manufacturing, or distribution commitments and requirements (principal system objectives)3 | The principal product specifications, commitments, and requirements, and production, manufacturing, or distribution commitments and requirements (system objectives)4 |
DC 3: For identified system incidents that were the result of controls that were not effective or otherwise resulted in a significant failure in the achievement of one or more of the entity’s principal system objectives during the period addressed by the description, the following information:
|
For identified system incidents that (a) were the result of controls that were not effective or (b) otherwise resulted in a significant failure in the achievement of one or more of the entity’s system objectives during the period of time addressed by the description, the following information:
|
| DC 4: Risks that may have a significant effect on the entity’s ability to achieve its principal system objectives7 | Significant risks that affect the entity’s production, manufacturing, or distribution8 |
DC 5: Relevant information about the system that produces, manufactures, or distributes the products, including the following:
|
Inputs to the system (raw materials and other inputs) and the components of the system used to produce, manufacture, or distribute the product. Components include the following:
|
| DC 6: The applicable trust services criteria and the related controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s principal system objectives were achieved | The applicable trust services criteria and the related controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s system objectives were achieved |
| DC 7: If a customer’s controls are necessary, in combination with controls at the entity, to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s principal system objectives would be achieved, those complementary customer controls | If a customer’s controls are necessary, in combination with controls at the entity, to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s system objectives would be achieved, those complementary customer controls |
| DC 8: If a supplier’s controls are necessary, in combination with controls at the entity, to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s principal system objectives are achieved and a. the entity is using the carve-out method (most common), the following:
|
If a supplier’s controls are necessary, in combination with controls at the entity, to provide reasonable assurance that the entity’s system objectives are achieved and a. the entity is using the carve-out method (most common), the following:
|
| DC 9: Any specific applicable trust services criterion that is not relevant to the system and the reasons why it is not relevant | Any specific applicable trust services criterion that is not relevant to the system and the reasons it is not relevant |
| DC 10: Significant changes during the period addressed by the description to the entity’s system and controls that are relevant to the achievement of the entity’s principal system objectives13 | Significant changes during the period addressed by the description to the entity’s system and controls that are relevant to the achievement of the entity’s system objectives14 |
Two sets of different but complementary criteria are used in an engagement:
When the controls performed by the supplier are necessary, in combination with the entity’s controls, to achieve the system objectives, such controls are referred to as complementary supplier controls (CSCs). Since CSCs are important to report users, they are disclosed in the description. The most typical method for presenting CSCs is to include only those processes and controls that the entity is responsible for performing and identify the CSCs that the entity expects suppliers to implement. This is known as the carve-out method.16
When using the carve-out method, the description identifies the types of CSCs that the supplier is expected to implement and the trust service criteria they affect. Consideration also may be given to disclosing the identity of the supplier when such information may be useful to customers or business partners. CSCs are usually presented in tabular format near the end of the description, along with the trust service criteria to which each CSC relates. Management may request the practitioner’s assistance when determining how to present the CSCs in the description. The practitioner can provide examples of CSC disclosures made by other entities and make recommendations to improve the presentation of the CSCs in the description.17
In some cases, entity management may want to present the relevant processes and controls of the supplier in its description either to meet the common information needs of users or because of the significance of the supplier’s role in the process. This is known as the inclusive method of presentation.18
Under the inclusive method, the relevant aspects of the supplier’s infrastructure, software, people, procedures and data are considered part of the entity’s system. Therefore, they are disclosed in the description and subject to the practitioner’s examination procedures. The description separately identifies controls at the entity and controls at the supplier. Note that when the inclusive method is used, supplier management is also a responsible party in the examination.19
| SOC for Supply Chain Examination | SOC 2 Standard Examination | SOC 1 Examination | SOC for Cybersecurity Examination | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of organization | An entity that produces, manufactures or distributes products | Organization or segment of an organization that provides services to user entities | Organization or segment of an organization that provides services to user entities | Any type of organization |
| System level or entity- wide? | Entity’s system or systems that produce, manufacture or distribute products | System or systems that provide services | System or systems that provide services | Entity-wide cybersecurity risk management program or can be narrowed to specific system |
| Purpose of the report | To provide users with information about controls within the entity’s system relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy to enable users to manage risks arising from business relationships with their supplier and distribution network | To provide users with information about controls at the service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy to support users’ evaluation of their own systems of internal control | To provide users with information about controls at the service organization relevant to financial reporting | To provide general users with useful information about an entity’s cybersecurity risk management program for making informed decisions |
| Intended users | Entity management and specified parties who have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the entity and its system | Service organization management and specified parties who have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the service organization and its system | Service organization management and specified parties who have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the service organization and its system | Entity management, directors, and a broad range of general users including analysts, investors, and others whose decisions might be affected by the effectiveness of the entity's cybersecurity risk management program |
| Applicable standard | AT-C section 105, Concepts Common to All Attestation Engagements, and AT-C section 205, Examination Engagements, in AICPA Professional Standards | AT-C section 105 and AT-C section 205 in AICPA Professional Standards | AT-C section 105 and AT-C section 205 in AICPA Professional Standards | AT-C section 105 and AT-C section 205 in AICPA Professional Standards |
| Scope | Controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy in a production, manufacturing, or distribution system | Controls at a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy | Controls at a service organization relevant to transaction processing and supporting IT general controls. | Entity's cybersecurity risk management program and controls |
| Responsible party | Entity management | Service organization entity management | Service organization entity management | Entity management |
| Report distribution | Restricted to use of the entity and specified parties | Restricted to use of the service organization and specified parties | Restricted to use of the service organization and specified parties | Appropriate for general use |
Many entities that produce, manufacture, or distribute products bundle services with the sales of those products. In such situations, it may not be practical to perform separate examinations of system controls relevant to the production, manufacturing, or distribution of products and system controls used to provide the bundled services. In that case, the responsible party and the practitioner may agree to include the systems and controls within those bundled services within the scope of the SOC for Supply Chain examination.
| More Likely to Include the Bundled Services in a SOC for Supply Chain Examination | More Likely to Include the Bundled Services in a SOC 2 Examination |
|---|---|
| The services relate to the physical good produced (for example, maintenance services provided in connection with sale of a car). | The services relate to data or intangible goods produced (for example, contract application development). |
| The physical good is incidental to the provision of the bundled service. (An independent report on the service might be more useful to the users.) |
August 06, 2020
