After hitting a low point in 2009, U.S. logistics costs as a percentage of GDP rose by 10 percent last year. Unfortunately, that's no cause for optimism: prospects for further business growth are uncertain indeed.
Despite a sputtering economy, U.S. business logistics costs managed to rise in 2010. And it wasn't just a slight rise, either. Logistics costs last year amounted to US $1.2 trillion—an increase of $114 billion, or a 10.4-percent hike over 2009's total.
Those were among the findings detailed in the 22nd Annual "State of Logistics Report," titled Navigating Through the Recovery. Because it's the longest-running study in the field, the report provides an accepted measure for quantifying the size of the U.S. transportation market and the impact of logistics on the U.S. economy. Rosalyn Wilson, a senior business analyst at Delcan Corporation in Vienna, Virginia, USA, produces the report under the auspices of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) and with support from Penske Logistics. (For more about the report, see the sidebar.)
Article Figures
[Figure 1] U.S. logistics costs as a percentage of GDPEnlarge this image
Thanks to that $144 billion increase, the report's benchmark industry ratio—U.S. logistics costs as a percentage of nominal gross domestic product (GDP)—reached 8.3 percent in 2010. That represented a notable increase from the previous year's figure of 7.8 percent, which was the lowest point ever recorded in the 30 years that logistics cost data have been collected. (The report was first issued in 1989, but the first edition included data dating back to 1981.) Figure 1 shows logistics costs as a percentage of GDP for the most recent 10-year period.
Historically, a ratio of logistics costs to GDP below 10 percent signified that U.S. logistics managers were doing an effective job of controlling costs and efficiently moving and storing goods. The all-time low in 2009, however, largely stemmed from the decline in goods production rather than from any improvement in efficiency. In other words, logistics costs dropped to such a low level not because supply chain managers were doing a better job than before but because there simply was much less freight to handle.
The subsequent rise in 2010 logistics costs resulted primarily from increases in transportation and inventory carrying costs, two key elements of the total business logistics cost calculation (see Figure 2). Both of those categories rose by more than 10 percent above 2009's levels.
Although it might be tempting to believe that 2010's higher costs are cause for optimism, that's really not the case, according to Wilson. Instead, she says, current conditions make the economic outlook for 2011 questionable. "The underlying pieces are not falling into place to support anything more than weak growth," she wrote in the report.
Inventory costs on the rise
The report breaks down overall logistics expenditures into three major components: inventory carrying costs, transportation costs, and administrative costs. One of the biggest jumps was in inventory carrying costs, which reached $396 billion in 2010—a 10.3-percent increase from 2009. The main reason for that overall increase was the higher cost of taxes, obsolescence, depreciation, and insurance. These amounted to $280 billion, a hike of 15.4 percent from the previous year. Higher inventory levels also contributed to this increase, according to Wilson.
Business inventories (which includes agriculture, mining, construction, services, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade) swelled in all but the second quarter of 2010. Quarter 2 experienced a slight dip because mounting inventories caused some retailers to postpone replenishment orders. By the end of the year, however, inventories were at the highest point since the third quarter of 2008. The average investment in all business inventories increased to almost $2.1 trillion in 2010, a jump of $199 billion (see Figure 3).
Even though inventory holdings were up, the inventory-to-sales ratio of 1.25 for 2010 was down slightly from 2009, as companies tried to more closely match stock levels to sales (see Figure 4). They were not always successful, however. Despite optimistic sales outlooks for the holiday shopping season in 2010, stocks did not move, and in the last half of the year inventories accumulated.
It is interesting to note that in late 2007, at the start of the downturn, the inventory-to-sales ratio was 1.26. It skyrocketed to 1.48 in early 2009, but by the end of the year had fallen back to 1.27.
Meanwhile, the commercial paper rate, which reflects the interest businesses pay to borrow short-term capital, reached near-historic lows. The paper rate for 2010 fell to a mere .20 percent, down from .26 percent in 2009. When the value of inventory was multiplied by the paper rate, it resulted in just $4 billion of interest. That's $1 billion less than the previous year.
The final component of inventory carrying costs—warehousing expenses—totaled $112 billion in 2010, down 6 percent from the $119 billion reported for 2009. That decline occurred because excess capacity in the commercial warehousing market resulted in "aggressive pricing" for tenants even when inventory levels rose, Wilson noted. A doubling in the average size of distribution centers in the past 10 years and the trend toward optimizing transportation and distribution patterns have reduced demand for facilities, adding to the excess capacity, she said.
Transportation costs jump
Transportation, the second major component of U.S. logistics costs, witnessed a 10.5-percent spike in 2010. Transportation costs totaled $768 billion in 2010, up from $695 billion in 2009. Higher freight volumes, fuel surcharges, and in some cases, rate hikes pushed transportation costs up across all modes. As a result, transportation accounted for 5.2 percent of overall
GDP in 2010, but that's still below the historic norm
of 6 percent.
Yet the increase in transportation costs did not necessarily translate into a strong year for transportation companies. For example, trucking, which accounts for the majority of shipments in the United States, did not fare well even though revenues increased somewhat. Intercity motor carriage hit $403 billion in 2010, compared to $368 billion the previous year, and local motor freight reached $189 billion, up from $174 billion. Overall spending on trucking services in 2010 amounted to $592 billion, a $50 billion increase from the prior year.
In spite of these increases, the trucking industry struggled to cover its operating costs. For example, much of the increase in motor carriers' revenues was attributable to fuel surcharges, but those additional dollars did not cover the carriers' added fuel expenses, Wilson said. Additionally, shipment volumes remained volatile, and the market in 2010 still contained some excess capacity despite a spate of carrier bankruptcies. Indeed, truck capacity has dropped by 16 percent since 2006 as motor carriers have exited the marketplace. Yet despite the loss of capacity, rates stayed "stubbornly" flat for most motor carriers, according to the report.
As for the other modes, taken together airlines, railroads, freight forwarders, water, and pipeline movements accounted for some $168 billion in spending in 2010, a 10-percent hike over 2009's $146 billion.
Railroads did particularly well. In fact, rail freight revenue leaped 21.8 percent, rising from $50 billion in 2009 to $60 billion in 2010. The 7.3-percent increase in car loadings and the 14.2-percent uptick in intermodal shipments recorded last year represented the largest annual percentage increases since 1988, the earliest year for which comparable data exist. Along with the higher volumes, the railroads also succeeded in raising rates, bumping up revenue per tonmile from 2.84 cents to 3.33 cents.
Shippers spent $33 billion on domestic and international water transportation in 2010 compared to $29 billion in 2009. Despite overcapacity, ocean carriers were able to extract price increases from shippers. That changed a little more than halfway through the year when some carriers began offering low spot rates in the trans-Pacific trade. As the industry continues to introduce new and larger container ships, overcapacity will remain an issue. Rates and tonnage for inland waterways shipments were fairly flat while a rebound in steel production boosted Great Lakes shipping by 23.3 percent over 2009.
Oil pipelines generated $10 billion, the same amount as in 2009. The airfreight industry took in $33 billion in 2010 compared to $29 billion in 2009. The first half of 2010 was "great" for the air cargo industry, Wilson said, because companies were waiting to see how business fared before placing orders, and they were willing to pay for the upgraded service to move last-minute shipments to replenish shrunken inventories. That boom didn't last long, though, and by midyear even specialized technology items were being moved on ships again.
Non-asset-based providers tend to be better off during a slowdown, Wilson said. Freight forwarders fared well until about halfway through 2010, when they struggled along with the rest of the industry, she noted. For the year, however, that segment garnered $32 billion versus $28 billion in 2009, a 15.4-percent increase.
Aside from inventory carrying and transportation costs, two other factors figure in Wilson's computation of business logistics costs. Shipper-related costs, which include the loading and unloading of transportation equipment as well as traffic department operations, were up 2 percent from the previous year. Administrative expenses—which are computed by a generally accepted formula that takes the sum of inventory and transportation costs and multiplies it by 4 percent—increased by 10.4 percent.
Continued pessimism
Although the report's overall results seemed to indicate some signs of improvement in 2010, preliminary data from this year suggest that the direction of the economy remains unclear. Indeed, at the time the "State of Logistics Report" was released in June, preliminary economic figures for 2011 gave some reason for concern that the economy was not fully recovering. U.S. unemployment was rising again, and new factory orders had dropped. "The recovery is very atypical of previous recoveries in the United States," Wilson said. "The economy has not quickly returned to previous growth levels."
With the economy sputtering, freight shipments have flattened since March 2011 and actually declined in May 2011. Although some experts are still calling for the economy to strengthen during the remainder of the year, Wilson's view is that that the business conditions appear to be stalling. "Key indicators show that the economy is beginning to unravel in some sectors," she wrote in the report. "It has been close to two years since the recession was pronounced over, and for many Americans, things have not improved."
Given that troubling outlook, Wilson said, shippers and carriers are sure to face challenges for the remainder of 2011. She is convinced that shippers and carriers need to build stronger relationships so that they can ride out the current turbulence together. Still, despite the uncertainty over the future, she believes that innovative companies will be able to successfully navigate the difficult business conditions ahead.
About the "State of Logistics Report"
For more than two decades, the annual "State of Logistics Report" has quantified the size of the U.S. transportation market and the impact of logistics on the U.S. economy. The late logistics consultant Robert V. Delaney began the study in 1989 as a way to measure logistics efficiency following the deregulation of transportation in the United States. Currently the report is authored by Rosalyn Wilson, a senior business analyst at Delcan Corporation in Vienna, Virginia, USA, under the auspices of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. This year's report was sponsored by Penske Logistics.
CSCMP members can download the complete 22nd Annual "State of Logistics Report" at no charge from CSCMP's website at https://cscmp.org/memberonly/state.asp.
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.