If reverse logistics were simply a matter of easing the pain in the retail and wholesale sectors, it would be challenge enough. But there's a lot more to reverse logistics today.
Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
The term "reverse logistics" may be relatively new, but the basic concept is not. Even decades ago, it wasn't uncommon for distribution centers to contain a returns processing function. You could spot them right away because all the people were moving with the speed and purpose of extras in a George Romero film. They clearly weren't happy about having to deal with returns. Neither was management.
Businesses still hate the hassle of dealing with returns, but returns remain a fact of retail life. And the numbers are staggering—anywhere from 10 to 30 percent or more of merchandise is returned annually, depending on the product category. In one business, the returns rate is 100 percent. Can you guess the business? (It's tuxedo rental.)
For most people, "returns" means taking a garish tie back to a department store after Christmas, or sending the size 8 sweater that doesn't fit a size 12 body back to the catalog retailer. But it's not just apparel that gets returned. Beyond clothing, there's electronics, books and magazines, greeting cards, processed foods, auto parts, anything sold at The Home Depot, and so on.
If reverse logistics (RL) were simply a matter of easing the pain in the retail and wholesale sectors, it would be challenge enough. But there's a lot more to reverse logistics today. Besides returns, reverse logistics managers have responsibility for a host of other R-factors: Repairs and Refurbishment, Recycling, Recovery and Recalls. Let's take a closer look at them:
Repairs and Refurbishment. Some items are returned at the customer's whim. Others—electrics, electronics, auto parts and technology components, among them—are returned because they don't work. If these items, which range in value from a few dollars to more than $100,000 per unit, are repairable, they're typically sent out to be fixed and readied for resale. (Sometimes it turns out that the item wasn't broken or defective at all—in which case, it's simply repackaged and readied for resale.)
As for the disposition of these repaired/refurbished items, their fate varies. Some are resold at retail stores, others are resold through alternate (usually discount) channels, and still others are reinstalled in different operating configurations (more on that later).
Recovery. In reverse logistics, "recovery" refers to the process of turning products into their component parts or materials for reuse in other products or reintroduction into production processes. It might mean disassembly for component reuse, wire stripping for raw plastics, transforming telephone cable into granulated copper, or even isolating components and melting them down into basic elements.
Recycling. Though many of the processes are similar, "recycling" is different from "recovery" in that it's largely driven by federal, state or local regulations and mandates.
Even foreign environmental policies may play a role. Take the European Union's environmental directives, for example. Though they don't have the force of law in the United States, the rules are still having an impact on this country. Most domestic electronics manufacturers have adopted the EU standards rather than try to manage their domestic and international supply chains separately. It's worth noting that the EU's Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directives make corporations responsible for end-of-lifecycle product disposition. Imagine the RL supply chain planning required to come up with effective solutions to that!
Recalls. The topic of recalls is much too complex to cover here. For now, we'll just note that more industries, companies and products than ever before have become vulnerable to recall actions. Any company that faces even the remotest chance of a recall should have a reverse logistics recall plan and should test that plan periodically—just the way you would conduct a fire drill.
Challenges in RL supply chains Unfortunately, the reverse logistics chain is not simply the outbound chain stood on its head. Along with the usual logistics challenges, reverse supply chain managers face some added complications. For example, they rarely receive much warning of RL arrivals; they're likely to end up shipping quantities of one, as opposed to more economical truckloads; and they often have to ship goods to destinations other than the manufacturing source.
On top of that, there's the challenge of designing the network: deciding where to collect the returns, where to process them, and where to redistribute from. Intake requires some planning as well. With the exception of retail giants like Sears, few companies have local outlets nationwide where they can accept returns. That's opened the door for a host of new services— like the new combinations of FedEx/Kinko's, UPS/MBE, and DHL/OfficeMax—that can reach most of the nation's population. This need may finally provide a genuine value-adding role for the U.S. Postal Service.
Once they've collected the returns, managers must decide what to do with them. It used to be a simple matter of sending them back to the factory. But times have changed. Today, deciding which disposal route to take has become a complex analytical question. And we do mean complex. First, you have to weigh the many disposition options. In addition to recovery and recycling, they include liquidation; resale in offshore or secondary markets; resale at auctions, in outlet stores, or in employee or company stores; and donation to charities. Then you have to factor in the product's age, quality, condition, style and seasonality, potential liability risks, repackaging requirements, and whether "de-kitting" will be required. Other factors may come into play as well. For example, saturation in one channel may force a product's diversion into an alternate channel.
Reverse logistics is not just a matter of getting stuff back, either. Managing the process involves a host of other tasks as well. They include returns authorization management; collection, sorting and testing; transportation and distribution; warehousing and storage; spare parts management; replacement management; warranty and service contract management; remanufacturing or refurbishment; redistribution and resale; end-of-life management; and IT management. Small wonder that a whole sub-industry of third parties specializing in reverse logistics has sprung up. They range from suppliers that offer software to companies that will take over the entire returns process, from providing customers with preprinted labels to handling final disposition of the merchandise.
Secrets of success Though it's not always easy to convince companies of this, reverse logistics can be made to work well. It is working well for those who've invested in learning how to make it work.
As for how to make it work, we've identified several keys to success. Here's what you need: dedicated (separate) management and organization; independent processing/storage facilities; strong IT support; accurate, up-to-date data; good process design and staff training; strategic context (often overlooked, but vital); and a solid dollars-andcents business case.
With these, you've got a better than fighting chance. Without them, you may never realize the potential of reverse logistics in your organization.
Editor's note: For more information, contact the Reverse Logistics Executive Council (www.rlec.com), which is a collaboration of manufacturers, retailers and academics, or the Reverse Logistics Association (www.reverselogisticstrends.com), which is a trade association of third-party service providers.
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."
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.