Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a freelance writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, material handling, and international trade. She previously was Editor at CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. and Senior Editor of SCQ's sister publication, DC VELOCITY. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
This article originally appeared in the February 2018 issue of Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity.
The retail sector has been permanently disrupted by technology, and retailers of all sizes are battling to manage technology's impact on their business models. For many of them, gaining control of e-commerce, multichannel and omnichannel fulfillment, and customers' expectations of ever-faster and customized delivery is a matter of survival.
To find out how companies are responding to these and other pressures, Auburn University
annually polls supply chain executives about their overall strategies as well as their
experiences and plans regarding several "hot topic" areas. As in the past, this year's
study was conducted by the university's Center for Supply Chain Innovation under the leadership
of professor Brian Gibson, with colleagues Rafay Ishfaq, Cliff Defee, and Elizabeth Davis-Sramek.
The researchers surveyed members of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, readers of
Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity, and companies that
collaborate with the Center for Supply Chain Innovation. To round out the picture, the
research team conducted telephone interviews with supply chain executives.
Getting a grip on change
The researchers conducted 20 interviews with retail supply chain executives, most of whom were chief supply chain officers or senior vice presidents of supply chain. All work for medium-sized to very large retailers; all but a handful of those companies report annual revenues exceeding US$1 billion, and together, they account for nearly US$1 trillion in annual sales.
When asked about their overall strategy for 2018, many executives cited better management of omnichannel commerce as a top priority. Although a small "lagging" group of retailers are still rolling out basic omnichannel capabilities, companies that can be described as "leaders"—generally, the biggest brand names—are looking at refining the omnichannel strategies and practices they already have in place, such as cutting delivery times to consumers and ensuring service consistency across all channels. Those companies, the researchers say, have come a long way since their previous survey report was published. "Last year, we were still getting a lot of companies wondering how to respond to the 'Amazon effect.' Now, retail leaders have taken control of their omnichannel operations and have a game plan they're ready to execute," Defee says.
The interviews with retail supply chain executives also zeroed in on several specific areas, including urban fulfillment, relationships with third-party logistics service providers (3PLs), sustainability, and disruptive technologies. Here is the research team's take on the issues and trends the interviewees addressed.
Managing urban fulfillment. As the array of products consumers order online continues to expand, urban fulfillment has become a major concern for an increasingly wide range of retail segments. But retailers are being cautious about the delivery services they offer. Some interviewees said they would "move as fast on [urban delivery services] as [their] customers demand it," Gibson says. In other words, they are investing in various delivery options only when demand is sufficient and the cost of providing those services can be justified. One surprise: Although many people assume that urban delivery only matters in a few big markets like New York City and Los Angeles, respondents said they were working to meet rapidly growing demand for same-day and next-day delivery in dozens of other urban markets across the country.
Increasingly, retailers are using urban stores as fulfillment locations to accommodate their "BOPIS"—buy online, pick up in store—services. Some are also investing in small-footprint distribution centers in urban areas that offer same-day delivery for a limited assortment of stock-keeping units (SKUs). A third option mentioned by respondents is a "dark store"—a facility that's set up like a retail store but is used for assembling e-commerce orders, which are then delivered to consumers or to pickup locations. In Gibson's view, the benefit of the latter two options compared with in-store fulfillment is that it avoids disrupting store operations and offers quick access to backup inventory if a nearby store runs out.
The cost of meeting consumers' expectations is forcing retailers to rethink how they deliver orders in cities. Some are testing the use of employees to drop off packages on their way home from work. Others are setting up their own private fleets of local-delivery vehicles. But they're most likely to use for-hire services, such as Uber, Lyft, Shipt, and Instacart, because of their flexible capacity and variable cost structure, according to Gibson.
Working with logistics service providers. As retailers contend with changing business models, their relationships with 3PLs are also changing. Their strategies appear to follow two different paths. Several executives said they are seeking fewer, more strategic partnerships with 3PLs in order to reduce complexity. This trend is leading service providers to expand their portfolios in hopes of becoming a "one-stop shop" for big retail accounts, Ishfaq says. Of course, when 3PLs expand their reach and their service portfolios, their costs go up—and so do the prices they charge their customers. That, he says, could undermine one of their core value propositions: that they can handle logistics activities more cost-effectively than their clients could on their own.
That's one reason why other executives are considering a different approach: taking some warehousing and distribution activities back from 3PLs. "If a market was mature and the service demand was stable and predictable, then some would talk about doing it in-house," Ishfaq says, adding that these were all "really big players with thousands of stores who see the scale in a particular brand or product category." In addition, concerns about transportation capacity are prompting some to consider private delivery fleets or dedicated contract carriage. Still, interviewees said they would continue working with 3PLs when expansion to a new market/location or the rollout of new services was involved.
As customers put pressure on retailers to improve their service, the retailers, in turn, expect 3PLs to "up their game," Ishfaq says. But those expectations seem to be changing faster than the 3PLs can keep up with. "That has put pressure on them from both a cost and a performance-guarantee standpoint. It's a pressure cooker right now," he says. "We could see failures or tougher going."
Achieving supply chain sustainability. How much priority retailers give to sustainability, which includes environmental, health and safety compliance, and labor considerations, varies widely. Large companies that have published sustainability reports, made someone responsible for sustainability, or integrated it into their corporate culture considered it to be very important, but for others, sustainability is not a strategic priority, Davis-Sramek says. Those companies' efforts often focused on things like energy and fuel efficiency, where they can see a direct connection to cost savings. Several executives said it's critical that their sourcing organizations ensure that goods are in compliance with relevant regulations, make sure products are environmentally safe, and address problems like forced labor, but that focus didn't necessarily carry over into supply chain activities.
The interviewees have not widely considered an issue that could have a major impact on their supply chain costs in the future: the conflict between sustainability goals and consumers' escalating demands for fast, convenient service. "We asked them, 'If you ship one item to one customer in one box, what does that do to your ability to meet sustainability goals?'" Davis-Sramek recalls. "The pretty universal response was, 'We've placed so much emphasis on fulfillment and meeting customer requests that we haven't really made that connection yet.'"
Davis-Sramek expects that at some point, retailers will come under external pressure to resolve the tension between e-commerce and sustainability. That pressure may come from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), perhaps through a study on the impact of home delivery on the environment. Or it could come in the form of regulation, such as a carbon tax or European-style regulations on packaging waste. Nobody knows how far in the future that will happen, but Davis-Sramek expects retailers will step up when it does. "I think they'll apply the same kind of innovative thinking they used to develop omnichannel commerce," she says.
Leveraging disruptive technology. Disruptive technology is still more concept than reality for most retailers. "There's no single cutting-edge technology that everybody's focused on," says Defee. "They know it's coming, but nobody sees one they're really banking on right now." Technologies that were mentioned most frequently included artificial intelligence and machine learning, which were seen as potentially having a beneficial impact on such areas as demand forecasting, understanding customers' preferences, and identifying trends that will impact inventory plans.
Most, though, are just beginning to investigate those and other technologies, such as robotics, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. "There's a lot of interest and there's monitoring, but not a lot of money invested," Gibson says. "There's still a healthy amount of skepticism about how these technologies will play in the supply chain area." Return on investment (ROI) is another top concern; Defee says one interviewee called articulating an ROI to justify investment "the No. 1 challenge of disruptive technology."
Not surprisingly, then, when it comes to new technology, retailers are focusing on proven winners, such as analytics and warehouse automation. E-commerce fulfillment is driving investment in those and other technologies, but retailers are also using them to improve store operations, Gibson notes. For example, some are buying automated picking and sequencing technology for their stores because the automated systems do a much better job of picking aisle-specific pallets or cartons than a human can, thus allowing for faster on-shelf replenishment.
Common principles
During the course of the researchers' interviews, several common principles came to the fore. One was that retailers should ensure consistent service and product availability regardless of how they are interacting with customers. Another was that they must become true omnichannel organizations, leveraging inventory, technology, and distribution networks to get to a single pool of stock. Omnichannel success also requires the capacity to deliver orders wherever and whenever the customer wants them. "We're going to hit that tipping point where a retailer's capacity to make last-mile deliveries will either be game-changing or it will bog [the operation] down and get very expensive," Gibson says.
Finally, the researchers say, retailers are starting to understand that being involved in omnichannel does not mean they are obligated to be "all things to all people." Instead, many are taking advantage of advances in supply chain analytics to judge whether their scope of offerings and cost to serve specific channels and customers are justifiable. How they respond to the data will be driven by external competition and/or internal strategies, Gibson points out. Something may be costly from a supply chain standpoint, he says, but in an omnichannel world, retailers ultimately must make decisions based on overall strategic benefit.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article originally said that the Retail
Industry Leaders Association conducts the poll. While RILA members (among others) are
polled, the survey itself is conducted by Auburn University's Center for Supply Chain
Innovation.
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.