A decade ago, third-party service providers were happy to do business with anyone who walked through the door. But these days, they're downright choosy about who they'll work with.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
You won't read about it on the providers' web sites or in their marketing materials, but the third-party logistics service industry is undergoing a seismic shift. What's changed is not what they do or how they do it, but who they'll do it for. A decade ago, third-party service providers were eager to serve just about any client that came a-knocking. These days, if they decide that a potential client just doesn't measure up to their requirements, they won't hesitate to show it the door.
"Everybody [in the third-party logistics business] is going through the process of pruning the customer list," says Dr. Robert Lieb, professor of supply chain management at Boston's Northeastern University and author of an ongoing survey of third-party logistics service providers (3PLs). And it appears that no one's exempt from being cut from the client rolls. Third parties are becoming more discriminating not just about what new business they'll accept, but also about whose contracts they'll renew.
For evidence, you need look no further than the results of Lieb's latest study, The North American Third-Party Logistics Industry in 2006: The Provider CEO Perspective. All 22 of the CEOs of North American 3PLs, all 11 of the European 3PLs, and nine of the 11 Asian 3PLs who responded to the survey said they had become more selective about the customers they would work with. There's nothing haphazard about their selection approach, says Lieb; they're making these decisions based on the numbers. "All these companies have gone through a customer profile process to determine ... the dimensions of an attractive account."
If they've become choosier, it's because they can afford to. Two decades ago, players in the fledgling 3PL industry had little choice but to take on any client that presented itself. But as the third-party service business has burgeoned into a market worth an estimated $100 billion worldwide, service providers have become more sophisticated in their approach. "The industry has matured to the point where there's a lot more emphasis on taking on business that has proper profit margins," says Richard D. Armstrong, chairman of Armstrong Associates in Stoughton, Wis., which publishes an annual guide to the 3PL marketplace. "They are less inclined to do things with taking on market share. They want to make every account pay."
Choosing a specialty
For many 3PLs, that's meant abandoning the notion of trying to serve everyone and instead, choosing a market niche. That might mean targeting customers of a certain size or in a certain geographic region. But most often, it means specializing in a certain industry—automotive, say, or chemicals, consumer products, or electronics. "3PLs are trying to evaluate which verticals and which markets offer the most upside and provide more consistent revenue streams and profitability," says Scott McWilliams, CEO of Nashville, Tenn.-based 3PL Ozburn-Hessey Logistics.
"It's too difficult to serve a number of areas and have the systems and expertise to service all those areas and understand the customers," says Joel R. Hoiland, former head of the International Warehouse Logistics Association, a Des Plaines, Ill.-based trade group representing warehouses and 3PLs. "They [3PLs] have to figure out their niche where they can be successful. Typically, it's a type of customer or industry segment."
Along with targeting specific industries, 3PLs are also focusing on arrangements that are longer-term in nature. Greg Humes, president of National Logistics Management in Detroit, says that his ideal customer is one that's willing to enter into a partnership that lasts three or more years.
For 3PLs, these longer-term arrangements represent more than just job security. A long-term deal also gives the service provider a chance to recoup any investments it might make in order to fulfill a client's special requests. It's not unusual for customers today to ask their 3PLs to provide special services not normally associated with logistics, like custom packaging, contract manufacturing or final assembly, says Robert Koerner, president and CEO of Total Logistic Control (TLC), a third-party logistics company based in Zeeland, Mich. Third parties are willing to accommodate these demands, but they also want assurances that they won't do it at a loss.
Better yet, locking in long-term business can free up a 3PL from having to respond to a lot of requests for proposals (RFPs). Third parties have come to dread RFPs not just because bidding wars tend to promote low margins, but also because they're a drain on resources. "From the 3PL's point of view, preparing a good proposal can take a lot of time and resources," says C. John Langley Jr., a professor of supply chain management at the Georgia Institute of Technology who conducts an annual study of trends in 3PL use. "[B]ig proposals can be expensive for 3PLs."
Going for value
Along with targeting customers in specific industries, 3PLs say they're looking for clients willing to move beyond the conventional customer-supplier relationship and work with them as partners. "We trend toward customers who take a more collaborative approach," says Bob Bassett, vice president of sales and marketing for Menlo Logistics in San Mateo, Calif. "We try to sort that out in the process early on because relationships based on a non-collaborative approach don't work."
Herb Shear, chairman and CEO of GENCO, a third-party logistics service provider based in Pittsburgh, agrees. The relationships most likely to succeed, he says, are partnerships in which the two parties work together to build "value-added" supply chains. "If we don't have a value proposition for the customer, then all the work is at low margins and it's not profitable," says Shear. In most cases, that value proposition comes from the third party's ability to bundle services together to create what's known as an end-to-end supply chain solution. In essence, it takes over full responsibility for moving the client's freight from the plant to the end customer's doorstep. In fact, in Shear's view, there are really only two types of customers—transactional and partnering—and he prefers the ones willing to partner. If a 3PL is going to offer suggestions for improvements, it will need to be intimately acquainted with its client's supply chain operations, he points out. That means the client must be forthcoming about its warehousing, distribution and supply chain activities. "With partnership customers, you can work [toward] continually improving the supply chain and driving costs out," he says. "The transactional customer doesn't want to work with you and doesn't want to give you anything back in return."
Though it might come as a surprise to some, third parties say they're finding their best partnering prospects among medium-sized companies, not the giant corporations. The mid-sized enterprises are willing to collaborate, says Koerner of TLC, while the larger companies tend to focus on the bottom line. "For most of the big Fortune 100 companies, it becomes about cost. It's not necessarily about the value," he says. "From a selectivity perspective, we're spending more time with the Fortune 500 customer."
Internal affairs
It's one thing to talk about partnerships, of course, and another to make good on the talk. But it's pretty clear that the third parties are backing up their rhetoric with action. The respondents to Lieb's study, for example, reported that they had undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at fostering collaborative arrangements with customers. These included forming executive sales teams to focus on key accounts, setting up customer advisory councils to hash out industry-specific problems, and inviting key customers to join the company's board of directors.
Lieb's study also indicated that 3PLs were investing in technology to support these collaborative relationships— systems designed to provide visibility of items as they move through the supply chain, for example, or to measure transportation and warehousing performance and offer suggestions for improvement. "Systems with the right functionality can give you the information to take costs out," says Koerner. "It's becoming a business of data," adds Shear. "Customers are expecting us as 3PLs to become more strategic, so we've got to become very good at managing and analyzing data. Give me visibility of data and you make good management decisions."
In the end, however, 3PLs say their major selling point isn't technology but expertise. An experienced third party can help its clients re-engineer their supply chains, improve customer service and cut costs. Of course, that assumes the client is receptive to their suggestions and willing to make changes. "The 3PL can't be ... effective," says Bassett of Menlo, "unless the customer is willing to embrace process change in [its] organization."
State of transition
For all the 3PLs' efforts to promote strategic relationships, there will always be holdouts. Some companies simply aren't interested in anything beyond outsourcing a single function—warehousing, say, or freight management—at a fixed price. Others remain wary of letting an outsider manage something as critical as their supply chain.
"Selling the value proposition of the 3PL continues to be a challenge," admits Hoiland. "There's an apprehension to letting go. If they hire a 3PL to handle their supply chain, they can save on capital costs. But to give up and lose control, it's too great a risk."
For the time being, at least, those "transactional" customers should still be able to find a 3PL when they want one. After years of searing growth, the 3PL market has softened slightly (the CEOs who participated in Lieb's study projected growth of 10.5 percent in North America next year). That should help keep the 3PLs' ambitions in check. Although they'll continue to be choosy about their customers, they won't be foolhardy. "We have better discipline today to walk away from a customer who's all about price," says Koerner, "but the reality says you've got to eat, too."
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."