It is a common perception that problems are more likely to occur in a situation where the supplier is distant and foreign. This is assumed on the basis of our own experience where, in less sophisticated scenarios, we often encounter errors as a result of missing or inaccurate information. As a matter of fact the existence of tedious rigid procedures in corporations is designed precisely for the purpose to create formal standards to prevent failures in the communication process, but rigid procedures often imply a loss of speed and flexibility which makes big companies vulnerable in a highly competitive market. Holding a transaction with a foreign entity hides a higher latent risk of failure because errors are not simply the result of missing or inaccurate information, instead as scientific literature on the subject show us, more often they emerge as the result of more complex phenomena such as failed comprehension, mutual expectations not met, difficulties in making explicit all the details involved in a specific request. Too often communication as process lies in a "void" where intentions and expectations are not tangible, because of a lack of "common ground". Moreover the resulting damages in this context are obviously more difficult to repair as the lack of a context of meaning ("common ground"), does not provide the necessary frame of reference to recover the crisis through a set of appropriate decisions.

To achieve a functioning supply chain across Europe there are many obstacles to overcome: problems of language, culture (a definition that includes all subjective aspects, values, traditions, meanings, ethics), time (from different working hours to different holydays if not Time Zones), and risks related to geographic distance (a longer time frame for physical dislocation and intervention).