Among other recommendations, the article suggests conducting a "thorough examination of suppliers" on a multi-tier level. As an example of considering the extending supply chain, the article offers as an example "When lead paint was found in its toy products, Mattel, Inc. discovered that the paint supplier that was substituting the paint on the specification with lead-based paint was far down in its supply chain." As a result, "It's no longer sufficient to qualify just the first-tier supplier -- knowledge about second-tier and even in some cases third-tier suppliers' sourcing practices may be necessary."
I also strongly second the suggestion the article makes about the importance of continuous monitoring of suppliers. In this regard, "To maintain brand quality, supply management organizations should continually monitor suppliers for negative changes in quality or delivery performance. These changes could be an indication of operational or financial problems. Constant monitoring allows the supply organization to be proactive and avoid a major disruption or a deterioration of brand quality...supplier surveillance is a key to maintaining a company's brand." Yet the article comes up short on recommendations on how to make monitoring a reality through aligning the right set of technologies with expert teams and resources. Our Spend Matters Compass and Perspectives research on the subject is a good place to start in this regard: