Results of a recent survey show that retailers believe omnichannel commerce can increase revenue and improve customer satisfaction. But they're still trying to figure out what that means for their supply chain operations.
Omnichannel commerce is one of the most powerful trends to sweep through the retail world in recent years. More retailers than ever are getting involved in this strategy, which not only allows customers to order anywhere, any time, and on any device, but also lets them take delivery when and where they want.
But building a profitable omnichannel commerce system can challenge nearly every function in a company, from supply chain management and information technology to marketing, store operations, and order fulfillment. In search of more efficient ways to control the flow of inventory, companies in nearly every corner of the retail industry are experimenting with various distribution strategies, whether that's filling both e-commerce and store replenishment orders from a single distribution center (DC), running separate fulfillment operations, or filling online orders directly from the shelves of brick-and-mortar stores.
To get a better understanding of how companies are meeting the challenges of omnichannel distribution, ARC Advisory Group, a research and consulting firm based in Dedham, Massachusetts, USA, has teamed up with Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity, to conduct an annual survey on retail fulfillment practices. Respondents to the 2015 survey answered some 30 questions about their approaches to meeting current challenges in omnichannel commerce and their plans for the future.
The results show that retailers are moving toward omnichannel operations with a goal of gaining customers and boosting revenue. Asked to list the top three reasons their company was participating in omnichannel commerce or building up those capabilities, survey respondents appeared to be squarely focused on revenue, saying they did it to increase sales (57 percent), increase market share (56 percent), and improve customer loyalty (55 percent).
Although the survey respondents clearly shared a common goal, that's where the commonality ended. The research results also showed that respondents are employing a wide variety of strategies and methods to omnichannel efforts.
The mechanics of omnichannel distribution
One of the biggest challenges of fulfilling orders in an omnichannel world is that picking and packing smaller, single-line-item orders that will ship directly to the consumer requires much different processes and automation than the traditional method of picking and packing pallets and cases for brick-and-mortar stores. For this reason, there has been some debate among industry experts about whether it is better to fulfill e-commerce orders from the same facility as traditional orders or through a completely separate operation. The majority of respondents to the ARC/DC Velocity study (69 percent) indicated that they were following the combined approach, with only 31 percent handling e-commerce orders separately.
Many companies are not locking themselves into one method of fulfilling omnichannel orders. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents said they fulfilled orders through a traditional DC that also handles e-commerce. Forty-seven percent used an Internet-only DC, 43 percent fulfilled orders from the store, and 36 percent said they filled e-commerce orders directly from the manufacturer or supplier. Respondents were allowed to select more than one response, and as the percentages indicate, a number of them are using multiple methods. (See Figure 1.)
Many respondents have opted to outsource the fulfillment end of their e-commerce operations to a third-party logistics service provider (3PL). More than half—55 percent—of respondents said they relied on their own corporate (internally managed) distribution centers to perform that function, while 22 percent used sites operated by their outsourcing partners. Another 23 percent said they are using both.
Within the warehouse, workers are using a wide variety of tools and methods to select items needed to fill e-commerce orders. Survey respondents said order pickers in distribution centers were using the following technologies: warehouse management systems (WMS) combined with radio frequency technology (53 percent), voice-recognition systems (33 percent), pick-to-light technology (22 percent), paper-based WMS (35 percent), and goods-to-person automation (20 percent).
Their managers also use a range of tools to support omnichannel commerce initiatives. When asked what technologies they currently use, respondents' top three answers were high-end warehouse management systems (91 percent), demand management software (72 percent), and basic bar-code scanning on the store floor or in the backroom (61 percent). (See Figure 2.)
Delivering the goods
A crucial link in any omnichannel fulfillment operation is the final step: getting e-commerce orders into customers' hands. Here, the options range from in-store pickup to home delivery. The survey delved into current practices in this area as well as respondents' plans for the future. The responses suggest that e-commerce delivery is an area that's very much in flux.
The most popular method for handling "last mile" deliveries was delivery services such as FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service (84 percent), followed by drop shipping directly from partners' DCs (61 percent), 3PL delivery partner (50 percent), and store fleet (40 percent).
It was a different story altogether when it came to respondents' plans for the future. When asked which shipping methods they "do not use, but plan to use," their responses pointed in some interesting directions. For instance, they showed particular interest in crowdsourced delivery services such as Deliv or Instacart: 0 percent use them today, but 28 percent plan to use them in the future. (See Figure 3.)
Meanwhile, back at the store ...
One of the more distinctive aspects of omnichannel commerce is that many purchases are never processed or shipped from warehouses or DCs at all, but are handled directly through retail stores. As previously noted, currently 43 percent of respondents use store-based fulfillment.
To better understand how retail outlets fit into the picture, we asked that group of respondents which fulfillment-related activities they carried out at their store locations. In keeping with omnichannel's focus on flexibility, respondents are taking multiple approaches. Sixty-eight percent said e-commerce orders were both picked and shipped from the store, while 64 percent said orders were picked at the store and then held for customer pickup. A smaller percentage—46 percent—said they shipped e-commerce orders from a distribution center to the store for customer pickup.
That raised another issue: whether the retailers' employees picked the items from the stockroom or the showroom. For many respondents, the answer is "both": 71 percent said they picked orders from the back of the store and 64 percent said they picked from the front.
Finally, respondents were asked what methods their stores used to communicate order information to the workers who picked those orders. The answers showed that stores lag well behind warehouses and DCs when it comes to the adoption of fulfillment technology, since the most popular reply was a paper-based method, with 56 percent. Trailing far behind were radio frequency (RF) gun with textual display (26 percent), RF gun with graphical display (also 26 percent), and some other mobile device (15 percent).
The economics of omnichannel
The survey results also revealed that despite the rapid growth of omnichannel commerce, e-commerce revenue has a long way to go before it eclipses brick-and-mortar sales income.
ARC asked survey respondents what percentage of their direct retail revenue—that is, revenue from items sold to consumers through their own sales platforms, as opposed to being moderated by a retail partner—currently came from each channel. The average for brick and mortar was 63 percent, far above online and mobile (24 percent), and call center and catalog (15 percent).
Despite the modest revenue generated through online, mobile, call center, and catalog sales, a solid majority of respondents had sales operations up and running in every channel. When asked to list all the channels in which they currently receive direct retail orders, respondents cited online (84 percent), brick and mortar (76 percent), call center and catalog (57 percent), and mobile (46 percent).
Taken together, the survey results indicate that omnichannel retailing is here to stay, but that fulfillment practices remain in flux. In particular, the study points to changes ahead in the area of parcel delivery.
These results seem to indicate that companies' fulfillment strategies are still trying to catch up with the new retailing reality. Figuring out the nuts and bolts of fulfilling the omnichannel promise remains a key issue for retailers. But these practical issues must be resolved quickly, or retailers risk losing the customers and revenues that are the very reason they are involved in omnichannel in the first place.
About the study
The 2015 omnichannel study was conducted by ARC Advisory Group in conjunction with DC Velocity. ARC analyst Chris Cunnane oversaw the research and compiled the results. This year's study builds on research conducted last year in this area, which found that significant opportunity gaps exist among companies when it comes to technology deployment.
This year, the study explored the details of distribution center operations that support omnichannel initiatives, as well as how companies are handling the last-mile dilemma. The findings reported here are based on 120 responses.
As for the demographic breakdown, the majority of respondents (57 percent) sold goods through a combination of direct and indirect sales channels. Another 31 percent sold through direct retail only, and the remaining 12 percent through indirect sales channels only.
A report containing a more detailed examination of the omnichannel survey results is available from ARC for a fee.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.