Dr. Zac Rogers is an associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University's College of Business. He is a co-author of the monthly Logistics Managers’ Index.
While it's good to know where you've been, it's just as important to know where you are now and where you're going. It was this belief that led us to develop the Logistics Managers Index (LMI) four years ago. We believed that the logistics industry can provide an indicator of where the economy as a whole is heading.
When we read about the economy in business newspapers or magazines or hear about it on the radio or TV, we usually see it discussed in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is certainly the most popular method of measuring an economy's output and is usually considered an indicator of the size of an economy.
But while GDP does a good job of calculating the total value of final goods and services produced within a specific country, it has its limitations. With GDP, the emphasis is on the word "final." It measures the economic activity in the last mile or the final stage in the supply chain as it makes its way to the consumer. As a result, GDP misses the upstream activities by only measuring once right at the end of the supply chain. This underestimates the size of the activities in a supply chain or an economy.
GDP only tells what already happened in an economy, it does not give much information about what is currently happening or is likely to happen in the future. It is a lagging indicator and not a leading indicator.
To fully understand what is happening and what is likely to happen within an economy, upstream activity needs to be measured. These measures do not necessarily have to replace metrics such as GDP, but they are needed to get a full picture of current and future trends.
The Logistics Managers Index is an attempt to measure important elements of the economy throughout the supply chain in the United States. Researchers have found that inventories, transportation capacity and prices, and warehousing are elements of the economy that are found at every step in the supply chain. By looking at changes in these economic components, we can better see what is currently happening and what is likely to happen in the near future.
The LMI is a monthly cooperative research venture between several supply chain management universities and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). We collect data directly from logistics and supply chain executives having to do with trends in warehousing, transportation, and inventory across a wide spectrum of industries. The Logistics Managers' Index consists of eight metrics as well as an overall index score. When interpreting our results, any value above 50.0 indicates growth, and any value below 50.0 indicates contraction. Put simply, higher numbers=more growth, and lower numbers=more contraction.
The table in Figure 1 shows the December 2019 scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers' Index (as well as the overall index score) and compares them to the numbers for November 2019.1 As you can see, six of the eight metrics show signs of growth, but many of them are moving at lower or considerably decreased rates.
In fact, the December 2019 LMI reading of 54.0 (rounded up from 53.96) was the lowest score in the 40-month history of the index (see Figure 2). It is down considerably (-9.5) points from December a year ago when the LMI's overall score was 63.5.
While we are still registering growth in the logistics industry, the rate of that growth has been slowing continuously over the past 12 months. Throughout much of 2018, the index registered high levels of growth in the low-to-mid 70s, but then growth began to taper off in late Q3/early Q4. The LMI has trended slowly downward since then, with the nine lowest scores in the history of the index being recorded since March 2019.
Overall the LMI seems to indicate that the United States is currently in an uncertain economic time. While it is possible that we are through the "soft patch" we hit last year, many chief financial officers are still concerned about a recession due to the ongoing trade wars and weakness in other parts of the world.2
Transportation's dynamism
Transportation metrics—which include transportation price, transportation capacity, and transportation utilization—have proven to be the most dynamic measures in the LMI. For most of 2018, Transportation Prices reached into the 80s and 90s, which—considering the scale only goes up to 100.0—is very high. (See Figure 3.) This lined up with the period of growth we saw in the economy. Similar to the overall index, Transportation Price began a dramatic slide starting last fall. However, in December the Transportation Price Index was up 12.0 points to 52.0, from the previous month's reading of 41.0 (which was the lowest point of any metric in the history of the index). Despite the increase, the number for December 2019 was still down sharply (-21.6) from the same time a year ago, when it sat at 74.3. While the metric shows that transportation prices in December were rising, we would actually expect prices to be doing so at a much faster pace, as it is generally a busy month for retail and delivery. It remains to be seen whether the Transportation Price metric will continue to trend upward, or if it's foray into growth in December was a one-time blip tied to the holiday season.
Meanwhile Transportation Capacity was consistent at 57.9, increasing very little (+0.5) from November's reading. However, it should be noted that it is down significantly (-23.9) from December 2018, as there was an excess of capacity built up in 2018, with record fleet orders being placed to match that year's exceptional demand for transportation. Interestingly, Transportation Utilization, the rate at which existing capacity is being used by firms, reached its lowest ever reading, and first-ever negative score, at 47.9. This is down 17.1 points from the December 2018 reading, likely because the transportation market has cooled significantly since then.
Inventory contraction
Historically, inventories have grown in Q3/Q4. However, in 2019 we saw lower than expected rates of growth from August to November and active contraction in December. This is the first negative score for our Inventory Levels metric, which is down sharply (-12.0) to 42.3. It is possible that this contraction is tied to the mass movement of goods due to the holiday season or firms burning off inventories that had been built up previously in an effort to avoid tariffs3 or some combination of the two. Figure 4 compares Inventory Levels from August through December in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Because the LMI captures both manufacturing and retail inventories, we are also likely seeing the dragging effects of the slowing manufacturing sector weighing on this metric.
Inventory Costs are also down slightly (-1.95) to 63.4. While this reading still shows signs of consistent growth, it is worth pointing out that in the previous two years, there were only two readings below 70, and September through December 2019 were all below that value. Inventory Costs are still increasing, but at a slower rate than we had previously recorded. We believe that inventory costs are increasing at a slower rate because inventory levels are growing at a slower rate and because warehouse utilization is also not increasing as quickly.
Based on these inventory metrics, there is reason to believe that companies are backing off on their inventory growth. In particular, as Figure 4 shows, companies did not build up their inventories in advance of the holiday season nearly as much as in previous years. This may be a signal that companies expect sales to be decreasing, or at least not growing.
Warehousing prices continue to rise
Contracting Inventory Levels paired with increasing Inventory Costs could be related to the increase in Warehousing Prices, which is up (+4.9) to 73.2—its highest level since March. The increasing prices are likely due to two distinct factors:
There was no growth in Warehouse Capacity in December, as it was down (-2.13) to 50.0.
Due to the increasing popularity of same- and next-day delivery, more facilities are being located close to large population centers in what tends to be more expensive real estate.
In other words, warehouses are not being built quickly enough to keep up with growing demand, and the facilities that are the most attractive at the moment tend to be the most expensive. Finally, Warehouse Utilization, or the rate at which existing warehouse space is being used by firms, is somewhat consistent (-0.5), reading in at 60.0.
Slowing growth
The December LMI reading marks two years and 16 consecutive readings indicating growth in the logistics industry. However, it also marks 12 consecutive months of declining rates of growth. As the overall LMI metric currently sits at the lowest point in its 40-month history, it clearly indicates a continued trend of slowing yet steady growth in the logistics industry.
It is important to note that growth rates will likely vary by industry. The LMI is unique in that it captures both consumer and manufacturing activity. This seems to align with recent reports of growth in consumer sentiment and spending and a slowdown in manufacturing.4 Logistics often functions as a leading indicator, helping us to know where the economy is heading. The slow, steady growth of metrics tracked in the LMI likely portends slow, if unspectacular, growth in 2020.
1. For a more comprehensive discussion of the December 2019 report, access the PDF version of the report here: https://www.the-lmi.com/december-2019-logistics-managers-index.html. The January 2020 report is available at https://www.the-lmi.com/january-2020-logistics-index-report.html.
“The past year has been unprecedented, with extreme weather events, heightened geopolitical tension and cybercrime destabilizing supply chains throughout the world. Navigating this year’s looming risks to build a secure supply network has never been more critical,” Corey Rhodes, CEO of Everstream Analytics, said in the firm’s “2025 Annual Risk Report.”
“While some risks are unavoidable, early notice and swift action through a combination of planning, deep monitoring, and mitigation can save inventory and lives in 2025,” Rhodes said.
In its report, Everstream ranked the five categories by a “risk score metric” to help global supply chain leaders prioritize planning and mitigation efforts for coping with them. They include:
Drowning in Climate Change – 90% Risk Score. Driven by shifting climate patterns and record-high temperatures, extreme weather events are a dominant risk to the supply chain due to concerns such as flooding and elevated ocean temperatures.
Geopolitical Instability with Increased Tariff Risk – 80% Risk Score. These threats could disrupt trade networks and impact economies worldwide, including logistics, transportation, and manufacturing industries. The following major geopolitical events are likely to impact global trade: Red Sea disruptions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, Taiwan trade risks, Middle East tensions, South China Sea disputes, and proposed tariff increases.
More Backdoors for Cybercrime – 75% Risk Score. Supply chain leaders face escalating cybersecurity risks in 2025, driven by the growing reliance on AI and cloud computing within supply chains, the proliferation of IoT-connected devices, vulnerabilities in sub-tier supply chains, and a disproportionate impact on third-party logistics providers (3PLs) and the electronics industry.
Rare Metals and Minerals on Lockdown – 65% Risk Score. Between rising regulations, new tariffs, and long-term or exclusive contracts, rare minerals and metals will be harder than ever, and more expensive, to obtain.
Crackdown on Forced Labor – 60% Risk Score. A growing crackdown on forced labor across industries will increase pressure on companies who are facing scrutiny to manage and eliminate suppliers violating human rights. Anticipated risks in 2025 include a push for alternative suppliers, a cascade of legislation to address lax forced labor issues, challenges for agri-food products such as palm oil and vanilla.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.
Maersk’s overall view of the coming year is that the global economy is expected to grow modestly, with the possibility of higher inflation caused by lingering supply chain issues, continued geopolitical tensions, and fiscal policies such as new tariffs. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions could threaten global stability, climate change action will continue to shape international cooperation, and the ongoing security issue in the Red Sea is expected to continue into 2025.
Those are difficult challenges, but according to Maersk, a vital part of logistics planning is understanding where risk and weak spots might be and finding ways to dampen the impact of inevitable hurdles.
They include:
1. Build a resilient supply chain As opposed to simply maintaining traditional network designs, Maersk says it is teaming with Hapag-Lloyd to implement a new East-West network called Gemini, beginning in February, 2025. The network will use leaner mainliners and shuttles together, allowing for isolation of port disruptions, minimizing the impact of disruptions to supply chains and routes. More broadly, companies should work with an integrated logistics partner that has multiple solutions—be they by air, truck, barge or rail—allowing supply chains to adapt around issues, while still meeting consumer demands.
2. Implementing technological advances
A key component in ensuring more resilience against disruptions is working with a supply chain supplier that offers advanced real-time tracking systems and AI-powered analytics to provide comprehensive visibility across supply chains. An AI-powered dashboard of analytics can provide end-to-end visibility of shipments, tasks, and updates, enabling efficient logistics management without the need to chase down data. Also, forecasting tools can give predictive analytics to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency. And incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) into digital solutions can enable live tracking of containers to monitor shipments.
3. Preparing for anything, instead of everything Contingency planning was a big theme for 2024, and remains so for 2025. That need is highlighted by geopolitical instability, climate change and volatility, and changes to tariffs and legislation. So in 2025, businesses should seek to partner with a logistics partner that offers risk and disruption navigation through pre-planned procedures, risk assessments, and alternative solutions.
4. Diversifying all aspects of the supply chain Supply chains have felt the impact of disruption throughout 2024, with the situation in the Red Sea resulting in all shipping having to avoid the Suez Canal, and instead going around the Cape of Good Hope. This has increased demand throughout the year, resulting in businesses trying to move cargo earlier to ensure they can meet customer needs, and even considering nearshoring. As regionalization has become more prevalent, businesses can use nearshoring to diversify suppliers and reduce their dependency on single sources. By ensuring that these suppliers and manufacturers are closer to the consumer market, businesses can keep production costs lower as well as have more ease of reaching markets and avoid delay-related risks from global disruptions. Utilizing options closer to market can also allow companies to better adapt to changes in consumer needs and behavior. Finally, some companies may also find it useful to stock critical materials for future, to act as a buffer against unexpected delays and/or issues relating to trade embargoes.
5. Understanding tariffs, legislation and regulations 2024 was year of customs regulations in EU. And tariffs are expected in the U.S. as well, once the new Trump Administration takes office. However, consistent with President-elect Trump’s first term, threats of increases are often used as a negotiating tool. So companies should take a wait and see approach to U.S. customs, even as they cope with the certainty that further EU customs are set to come into play.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
As we look toward 2025, the logistics and transportation industry stands on the cusp of transformation. At the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), we’re committed to helping industry leaders navigate these changes with insight and strategy. Here are six trends that we believe will form the competitive landscape of tomorrow.
1. Digital transformation and data integration: Technology continues to reshape every facet of logistics. Advanced analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are becoming increasingly integrated into supply chain operations, driving efficiency, reducing costs, and enabling proactive decision-making.
For companies to succeed, they must invest in technologies that enhance data accuracy and facilitate seamless information sharing. Those that do so will be able to better anticipate disruptions, optimize routes, and improve customer satisfaction.
2. Sustainability: As the global community continues to prioritize environmental responsibility, the logistics sector faces growing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. The adoption of electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and optimized routes can reduce emissions significantly, and many organizations are setting ambitious targets to lower their environmental impact.
3. Supply chain resilience and flexibility: The capacity to pivot quickly in response to disruptions, whether due to natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, or global pandemics, is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Companies are increasingly adopting flexible supply chain models and focusing on diversification to mitigate risk.
4. Nearshoring and reshoring: Bringing manufacturing closer to home—either by relocating it back to the country of origin (reshoring) or moving it to neighboring regions (nearshoring)—not only enhances supply chain agility but also reduces transportation costs, lowers emissions, and lessens exposure to global disruptions. Companies that embrace these approaches can strengthen their competitive positioning, helping them respond more effectively to fluctuations in demand while maintaining cost efficiency and meeting sustainability goals.
5. Workforce development: The logistics industry is facing a talent shortage, particularly in skilled labor and technology-focused roles. As we advance into a more digitalized landscape, we need a workforce proficient in tech and adaptable to change. Organizations must focus on upskilling and reskilling programs to equip their teams with the necessary knowledge.
6. E-commerce and last-mile solutions: E-commerce growth shows no signs of slowing, and with it comes the challenge of meeting rising consumer expectations for fast, reliable, and sustainable delivery. Last-mile logistics remains one of the most complex and costly segments of the supply chain. Innovative solutions, such as urban microfulfillment centers, autonomous delivery vehicles, and drone deliveries, are paving the way for more efficient last-mile solutions.
Looking Ahead
The future of global logistics and transportation holds both challenges and opportunities. At CSCMP, we are committed to supporting our members through these changes, fostering collaboration and sharing insights to navigate the path forward.
The landscape of 2025 may be unpredictable, but with strategic foresight and a commitment to adaptability, we can shape a prosperous future for logistics and transportation. Together, let’s continue to lead the way forward.