Relocations from Asia have been one of the most dominant topics in strategic purchasing since 2021. The reasons: lead-time risks, tariff increases, CBAM, ESG reporting, geopolitical stability. But implementation is demanding — technically, commercially and culturally. This article describes the playbook that we have developed across more than 40 relocations.
The four triggers — assessed realistically
Trigger 1: Lead time / volatility
Typical lead time from China to Europe (series delivery, sea freight): 10–14 weeks. That is sufficient in stable times. The problem: disruptions (pandemic, container shortages, customs backlogs) double the duration. Those who supply just-in-sequence lose out.
Trigger 2: Landed cost instead of unit price
The Chinese unit price was historically 35–50 percent below the European level. Today: tariff costs, freight, CBAM levies, warehousing costs for safety stock. On balance, the landed cost for many MIM parts is now only 5–15 percent below the EU level. For components with a weight < 10 g, the advantage is often nil.
Trigger 3: CO₂ and CBAM
The CO₂ footprint of a MIM part from China is typically 2.5 to 4 times higher than for EU production — mainly due to the energy mix (coal) and the transport distance. From 2026, CBAM accounts for this fully in financial terms.
Trigger 4: Quality and IP risks
On-site audits have been possible again in China since 2023, but with restrictions. Design protection, reverse-engineering risks and sub-supplier transparency remain critical.
The relocation playbook
Phase 1: Specification clarity (week 1–3)
Before anything can be relocated, the actual component specification must be reconstructed. Surprisingly often, the Asian series parts deviate from the official drawing — in the vast majority of cases without anyone having noticed. Our routine:
- Measure 30 existing parts (CT, CMM, microsection).
- Material analysis by spark spectrometry.
- Document deviations and align them with the customer: revert to the drawing or adapt the drawing to the actual state?
Phase 2: Tool decision (week 2–4)
Two routes: physically transfer the tool from China or build it new in Europe. The rule of thumb:
- Build a new tool if the old tool is > 5 years old, has more than 500,000 shots on it or was manufactured with Chinese special-steel grades. Around 70 percent of our cases.
- Transfer the tool if it is as good as new and transport + adaptation is cheaper than new construction. Around 30 percent.
Phase 3: Dual-site qualification (week 4–12)
Our recommendation: design the relocation as dual sourcing from the outset. Two European plants are qualified in parallel — this increases the time required by 15–20 percent, but the strategic benefit is considerable.
Phase 4: Double-running (week 12–22)
Parallel supply from the old and new suppliers. Reduces the risk to zero, but temporarily doubles the warehousing costs. Typical sequence:
- Week 12–14: 90 % Asia / 10 % EU
- Week 15–18: 50 % / 50 %
- Week 19–22: 10 % / 90 %
- From week 23: 100 % EU
Phase 5: Phase-out of the Asian source (week 22–30)
Contract expiry, tool retrieval (if relevant), final PPAP for the new series state. Important: no premature cut — but a planned, controlled transition.
Critical risk points
Risk 1: Material availability. Asian suppliers frequently use feedstocks from local producers. In Europe these sometimes have to be re-sourced — delay risk 4–8 weeks.
Risk 2: Documentation gaps. Often no complete PPAP packages exist from the Asian production. As a result, reference values for the Cpk study in Europe are missing.
Risk 3: Unspoken specification drift. The Asian supplier has "optimised" the part over the years — usually to reduce its own costs. The differences often only become visible in the application.
Risk 4: Contractual legacy issues. Framework agreements with minimum quantities or tool-usage rights can delay the relocation or make it more expensive.
The role of the One-Supplier Model
In relocations, the classic bottleneck is the SRM onboarding of new suppliers. Each new addition means an audit, a framework agreement, an internal approval. In the One-Supplier Model this is completely eliminated: two new plants, but only one existing creditor number. Purchasing does not need to create new master data, and compliance does not need to carry out a new risk assessment.
Further reading
- Case study: Gear wheel — relocation of 3.2 million parts/year from China in 26 weeks.
- CBAM & CO₂ footprint in MIM — how the cost calculation tips from 2026.
- One-Supplier Model — why SRM onboarding is the biggest time sink.