Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
For the past decade, talk about sourcing in Asia largely meant sourcing in China. The giant nation opened its doors, invited investment and developed the wherewithal to become the world's workshop—the place to go for low-cost labor and high-quality workmanship. It has prospered as a result.
Withthe spotlight on China, it is easy to forget that until an economic collapse in 1997, the fastest-growing economies in the region were China's neighbors in Southeast Asia. And now those nations are gearing up to go after a bigger share of trade with the West (as well as the rapidly growing intra-Asia trade).
Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, along with nations with long-standing economic ties to the United States like India, Malaysia and the Philippines, are looking to get in on the offshoring action. And they're investing in both manufacturing capabilities and trade and logistics infrastructure to make it happen.
China, in the meantime, is scrambling to maintain its advantage over its regional competitors. It is pouring enormous sums into its road, rail and water networks to support its growth—and to spread some of the wealth beyond the coast and into the hinterland. While it is true that its fast-growing coastal cities have lost some cost advantages as wages have climbed, China is still a relatively low-cost place to do business. And it has vast numbers of workers yet available—assuming the country is able to extend its logistics infrastructure to reach them.
That adds up to both complexity and opportunity for U.S.-based procurement and logistics professionals. Economic development in the Pacific Rim is confusing, complex and subject to sudden shifts in political or economic winds, making it tough for even seasoned Asia hands to stay abreast of changes.
Multi-country sourcing adds layers of complexity in the already specialized world of international trade. In many countries, infrastructure development hasn't kept pace with demand. And too often, structural or regulatory barriers create as many headaches as inadequate rail or trucking service.
Spread the risks
Yet for all the difficulties, the potential is too attractive— and too much a competitive necessity—to ignore. Today's cut-throat market environment—particularly in the consumer goods and electronics sectors—essentially requires looking to low-cost Asian sources.
That's true of companies that trade in industrial products as well, says Paul Loftus, a managing partner at consulting firm Accenture. "For a typical industrial products company, the impact of global sourcing on profitability can be substantial: US$100 to US$200 million in annual savings (for a US$5 billion company spending 50 cents out of every sales dollar on direct materials)," Loftus wrote in a recent article, "Procurement for high performance: Global sourcing in the industrial products industry."
Logistics service providers in the region say they're seeing a surge in offshore production. "The trend toward offshore low-cost sourcing is increasing," says Mark Millar, Hong Kong-based director of strategic accounts for UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Asia Pacific, which provides logistics services. "A significant proportion is in China, but other countries in the Asia/Pacific are growing."
Paul Bingham, an economist for the research firm Global Insight, says the efforts by nations in the region to invest in manufacturing and infrastructure create opportunities for U.S. businesses to look beyond China for sources. The challenge will be to persuade potential clients to consider these alternate sources, says Humberto Florez, CEO of third-party service provider DHL Exel Supply Chain Asia Pacific. "The perception is that China is easier than other countries," he says. "But you could be missing an opportunity for doing business [with suppliers] in India, Cambodia or Malaysia that provide good-quality products."
John Langley, professor of supply chain management at the Georgia Institute of Technology, visits China frequently. He says that among companies he talks to, China remains the major attraction, but that many are looking at other nations as part of a "portfolio management" strategy, dividing their business among several nations. "Rather than have 100 percent of their activity in China, they are spreading out the risk," he says. (Langley added that potential outsourcers need not limit their search to the Pacific Rim. He said that when asked what country would be the next hot area for development, most of the respondents to his most recent third-party logistics survey named Russia.)
"I think the idea is to spread the manufacturing base so as not to have all the eggs in one basket," says Millar of UPS. He adds that different regions are developing strengths in particular industries: Thailand in automotive, for instance; Taiwan in high tech; Singapore in health care and pharmaceuticals. And in the case of the apparel and footwear industries, he notes, quotas on garments and shoes are pushing importers to diversify their buys.
Bingham points out that multi-sourcing is only an option for fairly sizable businesses—those with enough scale to spread their production across several countries. "It still depends on having the critical mass," he says. "If you have limited production, the loss of scale overwhelms the advantages. But more and more companies are getting to that critical mass."
Keeping it moving
As nationslike Thailand and Vietnam capture more business, logistics services are likely to follow. For instance, A.P. Moller Maersk Group, owner of one of the world's largest ocean shipping fleets, says it plans to build a major terminal on the Vietnam coast southeast of Ho Chi Minh City. Other shipping lines are following suit. "We are seeing ship lines revisit their rotations," reports Florez. He says once one carrier adds service to a port, others are likely to follow. That could mean more direct service to U.S. ports from more locations, which would accelerate cycle times. Now, many shipments from countries outside China are shipped to ports like Hong Kong for transloading to trans-Pacific vessels.
What helps make investments like A.P. Moller Maersk's possible is that governments are slowly becoming more open to foreign investment. That's crucial to these nations' ability to compete with China. "It's not just about manufacturing costs and utilities, but the ability to get finished goods in and out," Bingham says. Without good logistics infrastructure, total landed costs can still be excessive, no matter how low the manufacturing costs.
India is a case in point. While India has made great strides in capturing service-industry jobs, its attempts to capture manufacturing business often founder over infrastructure issues. Bingham points out that while India has begun some big investments, its spending on infrastructure still pales in comparison to China's.
And China is spending a lot. In his article, Loftus wrote, "China is an infrastructure giant in terms of both supply and demand. China's current five year plan calls for the construction of an additional 6,000 km of rail track, 200,000 km of road, 141 deepwater ports and 57 airports. Its projected energy requirements will necessitate an additional 500 gigawatts of capacity—80 percent of Great Britain's total capacity—every year for the next 10 to 15 years."
But rail lines and highways can be built only so fast, even with a powerful centralized government and few regulatory impediments. And in the meantime, logistics infrastructure development hasn't kept pace with China's ambition.
Langley says that's particularly true of the Yangtze River region, which he says has air, highway and rail issues.
China has other problems, too, Langley says. For instance, moving goods between provinces can result in inventory taxes, even if goods were taxed previously. Other issues are as simple as warehouse technology. Langley cites the case of warehouses in which workers unpack a pallet on a truck, place the goods on the dock and re-palletize the freight—all for the want of dock levelers at the warehouse.
Even something as simple as a truck movement can present challenges. Kris Knutsen, a manager for consultant Deloitte & Touche, reports that long-distance hauling is difficult in China, whose trucking industry is overpopulated by small regional firms. But he notes that the central government in Beijing is pressing provinces hard to reduce protectionist policies that impede logistics efficiency. In a recent company Webcast, Knutsen said that reducing logistics costs is a national goal and part of China's current five year plan. In 2004, logistics expenses represented about 21 percent of China's gross domestic product (GDP), according to numbers compiled for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals by Charles Wang, Ph.D., of the China Development Institute in Shenzhen, China. (The comparable number in the United States that year was 8.8 percent.) China's goal, Knutsen says, is to reduce logistics costs to 10 percent of GDP by the year 2020.
Bringing it all together
Supply chain woes are hardly unique to China. UPS's most recent Asia Business Monitor survey showed that although about 80 percent of the respondents said they considered supply chain efficiency to be an important factor in small and mid-sized enterprises' ability to compete, more than 50 percent believed it needed improvement in Asia. More than 60 percent of the respondents in China, India, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan said supply chain efficiency was lacking in their countries.
Logistics service providers intend to fill at least part of that gap. Like the carriers, they're currently investing heavily across Asia. That's good news for shippers, says Bingham. Not only can carriers and third-party logistics service providers (3PLs) ease some of the trade and transportation complexities in sourcing from multiple countries, but they're also bringing services like consolidation and assembly to the region. "As the 3PLs are opening up shop, they are bringing in best practices," adds Langley.
One of those 3PLs is DHL. "We are setting ourselves up and have [had] good success ... with customers," says Florez. "We have taken the next steps by facilitating infrastructure needed at origin for merge in transit, postponement and handling documentation, so even the smaller retailer can benefit from the existing supply chain."
As an example, Florez points to a kitchen appliance firm (which he is not allowed to name) that imports goods from China, Malaysia and Indonesia into the Americas, as far south as Chile. DHL consolidates all of its Asia purchases at a consolidation center near Hong Kong; configures equipment with appropriate motors and power cords, manuals and cartons for the final destination; and then manages the shipments' movement to destination country DCs.
Millar reports that UPS is seeing similar demand for end-to-end service."Low-cost production is only advantageous for the destination market if you have an efficient supply chain," he says. "What customers are looking for is consolidation from multiple sourcing countries, destined for the same channel, and for those to be consolidated and shipped into the destination market as part of a seamless, integrated supply chain."
At the same time, he says, UPS is also seeing increased demand for value-added services at origin and destination. "If you can move activities up the supply chain, which by nature means lower cost—things like bundling, packaging, labeling, garment on hanger—and have those done at the origin center, then in the destination market you can do deconsolidation and have efficient ground distribution to the destination point."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."