As trade regulations and tariffs have increased, so has the importance of trade and customs functions at major businesses.
But, according to a survey from Altana and American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI), resources haven’t grown at the same pace as rising work volume and more complexity. In fact, more than half of trade operations at enterprise businesses are not ready for the demands of modern trade.
Here are 10 obstacles and opportunities facing modern trade compliance leaders, their departments, and the businesses they serve.
1. Only about one in 10 trade teams are considered equals to supply chain, operations, finance, legal, and other departments
Only 12% of trade functions at enterprises sit as a standalone trade or compliance organization. The rest are subordinate to supply chain logistics (37%), operations (31%), finance (14%), or legal (6%).
37% of trade teams report to supply chain/logistics, the most common reporting line. Stricter regulations, changes in sourcing, and the greater potential for mistakes to compound into significant penalties, delays, tariff overpayment, underpayment, or missed FTA qualification has them stretched by asks from and collaboration with manufacturing, procurement, finance, sales, legal, and other functions.
2. The job is getting harder, but for three-quarters (74%) of trade teams, resources aren’t growing fast enough
61% of respondents say their job has been “somewhat” or “much” harder since the start of 2025. And, 27% say it’s been “about the same” level of difficulty.
73% of trade teams at $50 billion-plus companies say their job has gotten somewhat or much harder. Trade teams at Fortune 100-level companies are the most likely to say their job has gotten somewhat or much harder since the start of 2025.
3. Maintaining centralized product records is the most important accountability in trade compliance, but 76% of trade teams couldn’t produce full information about a product within a day
More than three-quarters of those teams (76%) say they can’t produce full information about a product within 24 hours if they receive a CF-28 from CBP, get questions from a broker, or need to work with a different department at their own company.
89% of trade teams are responsible for maintaining a centralized record of products. Other common accountabilities include high-complexity or high-volume product classification (87%); managing Country of Origin (COO), FTA qualification, and duty calculations (79%); and determining material composition for Section 232 and other component-based tariffs (74%).
4. At enterprise businesses, there is no industry-standard tool for performing trade and customs work, with a web of systems adding stress and manual work
The most common primary tool for trade work is a dedicated global trade management (GTM) system, used by more than one-third (37%) of respondents.
Other trade teams mostly use customized ERP modules or other homegrown technology (19%). 14% have no primary tool, using a mix of available options.
About one-third (30%) of respondents don’t generally rely on any form of software for trade work. These teams mostly absorb work through sheer team hours, with little spend on tools or outsourcing (14%), use spreadsheets (10%), or outsource to brokers or consultants (6%).
Respondents say that tool fragmentation often has them get stuck in a challenging pattern of chasing data, cobbling together information, and then doing trade work manually.
5. Go-to-market systems are common at Fortune 100 enterprises, but only about half of trade leaders (49%) think they’ve “kept pace well” in recent
One-third (33%) of enterprises that do $1-9 billion or $10-49 billion in yearly revenue mostly get trade work done in a dedicated GTM. At $50 billion or more in yearly revenue, more than half (53%) of trade teams mostly use a dedicated GTM.
Despite being popular with major multinationals, only about half of trade leaders (49%) think that GTMs have kept pace with a more difficult global trade environment.
6. The challenges plaguing trade teams span the full gamut of software and processes
The challenges of a more complex, demanding global trade environment are not just hitting one portion of enterprise trade and customs teams’ workflows. The full gamut of trade data management, software capabilities, and operational processes are being stressed.
Survey respondents were given 100 points with which to weigh places where trade software and processes are falling short. Overall, the mean weighted scores ranged from a low of 17.2 to a high of 22.2, indicating a fairly evenly distributed set of trade pain, ranging from managing a product catalog to working with brokers, suppliers, and regulators to dealing with heavy, manual workarounds for software systems.
Reflecting government updates (tracking how regulatory and filing changes hit tariff rates, COO, PGA flags, and trade logic) accounted for 22.2.
Reflecting business updates (keeping product data current for trade reasoning (new products, new sourcing) without burning huge manual time accounted for 20.9.
Handling the "goods within goods" (material-composition estimates for tariffs/FTA, complex multi-part HS classification) accounted for 19.9.
Working with brokers, suppliers, and regulators (soliciting certs/info from suppliers, selectively sharing with CBP, keeping broker data current) accounted for 19.9.
And, usability (hard to use, heavy manual workarounds) accounted for 17.2.
7. Almost all trade teams are under pressure to do more with AI, but AI use is being held back by concerns about security and confidence
Roughly nine in 10 trade teams (91%) are either under pressure to do more with AI from leadership or are driving AI adoption themselves.
The plurality of teams (36%) are getting strong but not formal encouragement from their leadership to do more with AI. 31% have a formal mandate from leadership. Roughly one-quarter (24%) of trade teams are driving AI adoption themselves. Only 9% of trade teams are under little or no pressure to do more with AI.
8. Trade teams that have their own, empowered organization — or report directly to finance — are more trade-ready
When scored across eight vital trade capabilities, including classifying complex, multi-tier products, calculating material composition tariffs, and determining FTA qualification, trade teams that report to finance or sit in a standalone trade organization are far more likely to qualify as trade-ready than counterparts who are subordinate to operations or supply chain leaders.
About seven in 10 (69%) of trade teams reporting to finance reach the top scoring bands of trade readiness, the survey found. 67% trade teams in a standalone trade/compliance organization also reached the top readiness band
In contrast, about half of trade teams reporting to operations departments (49%) reached the top readiness band. And 34% of trade teams reporting to supply chain or logistics organizations qualify as trade-ready.
91% of trade teams reporting to finance can determine material composition for Section 232 tariffs without blowing a huge amount of time and money. Only 66% of teams reporting to operations — and 59% of teams reporting into supply chain — feel the same way.
9. If AI systems were made for trade, most trade teams would be willing to adopt the technology
Despite lingering concerns about data and accuracy, most trade leaders would be willing to use AI that is secure, verified, and built for their trade operations and product catalogs.
More than three-quarters (78%) of trade teams would trust this strong, secure AI. 46% would trust it for “most things;” 32% would “fully trust and adopt it.” 21% of respondents would remain cautious, and only 1% wouldn’t trust it at all.
10. Enterprise trade teams are largely confident their broker filings are accurate
93% of respondents are “very” or “somewhat” confident that their brokers’ filings would hold up to scrutiny. 6% are somewhat doubtful their filings would hold up. Only 1% are very doubtful.
While enterprise trade teams feel confident in their brokers’ filings, they recognize that fractured, incomplete product data that lives in multiple locations increases manual work for all parties.
