Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
Once regarded as a souless back-office function, supply chain management has emerged as one of the hottest fields in American busi- ness. Thought leaders and industry gurus point to the supply chain as a pow- erful competitive differentiator, while corporate titans like Wal-Mart, Dell, and Toyota brandish their supply chain capabilities like swords. Given the climate of the times, it's no wonder the executive suite has finally woken up to the value of the supply chain.
For evidence of the profession's growing stature, you need look no farther than DC VELOCITY's 2007 Salary Survey. The median salary for the 876 survey respon- dents was $90,000, with the mode (or most frequent response) being $100,000.
The mean or average salary came in even higher at $140,533. This number, however, may be skewed by the 11 people who reported earning over $1 million. All of these millionaires were senior vice presidents, corporate officers, or presidents at companies with more than 5,000 employees.
Given DC VELOCITY's diverse readership, it's no surprise the responses ran the gamut, ranging from over $4 million to $23,000. But there were plenty of responses that fell between these two extremes—a little more than half of all respondents earn between $75,000 and $149,000.
Logistics and supply chain professionals' salaries appear to be on a par with those of their peers in other parts of the organization. Purchasing professionals, for example, earn $78,470 a year, according to a recent survey by the Institute for Supply Management (a similar survey conducted by Purchasing magazine put the number at $83,205). IT professionals and accountants earn salaries in that range as well. Janco Associates Inc.'s 2007 IT Salary Survey reports a median salary of $78,652 for IT professionals. The Institute of Management Accountants' 2005 salary survey put its members' median salary at $91,823.
DC VELOCITY readers also indicated that their salaries have, for the most part, increased from last year, although not significantly. According to the results, 78 percent of survey respondents saw their salary increase. (Another 17 percent say their salary remained the same, and 5 percent say it decreased.) Of that 78 percent, however, 66 percent say that their salary increased by 5 percent or less.
Other signs of respect
Salary size is not the only indicator of logistics and supply chain management's growing stature. Some 69 percent of respondents say that over the past three years, the number of functions that they manage has increased, while only 5 percent say it has decreased. The remaining 26 percent say there has been no change.
Furthermore, 54 percent report that they have direct or indirect management control or influence over the typically broad and strategic area of supply chain management. With this broad reach comes more money. The survey results show that those who have control or influence over supply chain management earned more than those who did not. Those in supply chain management had a median salary of $100,000 and an average salary of $183,026. Those not involved in supply chain management had a median salary of $80,000 and an average salary of $90,197.
That's not to say that DC VELOCITY readers have abandoned their traditional distribution focus; 61 percent of readers have influence or control over logistics management, and 69 percent have influence or control over warehouse/distribution center management.
Of course, what they're called has a lot to do with what respondents earn as well. Exhibit 1 shows median and average salaries salary by number of years at companyby title. As the table illustrates, when it comes to median salaries, the average senior vice president earns more than 2.5 times the salary of the average supervisor.
Does experience count?
The fast-changing nature of supply chain management—and the information technology that supports it—would seem to favor younger managers. The survey results, however, indicate that the picture is slightly more complex.
If you look at median salary by age (see Exhibit 2), the results indicate that after 45, the median salary increases only gradually with age. (There does seem to be a leap in salary after the age of 60, but the sample size for this group is small, with only 38 respondents.) Even this slight age advantage disappears if you adjust for title. Exhibit 2 also shows the median salary for managers (who represent the largest group of respondents). As the table shows, there's little correlation between the age of a manager and median pay. Likewise companies seem to value an employee's experience in a logistics-related job only up to a point. After 15 years of experience in logistics-related jobs, median salaries rise only slightly for all respondents and actually drop for those whose title is manager (see Exhibit 3).
However, if you look at average salary, it's a different story. Across all titles, average salary grows significantly as the age of the respondents goes up. The significant difference between median and average salaries after the age of 56 indicates that there may be a few people in these age groups in high-level positions who are earning very large salaries. In fact, nine of the top 10 earners are over the age of 56 and all are over the age of 45. This discrepancy is not seen with managers. Just as with the median salaries, average salary drops after age 45, until respondents reach the age of 60, when the average rises to $93,182. (The sample size for this age category, however, is only 11 respondents.)
Average salaries for all respondents also continue to grow substantially as the employee's number of years in logistics increases. Again of the top 10 earners, all had more than 15 years of experience. Salaries for managers also rose steadily until they reached around 20 years of experience. Then the rate of increase levels out, rising only 1.2 percent from the average for those with 16-20 years of experience to the average for those with more than 25 years of experience.
In short, title is much more important than experience when it comes to salary. However, a high percentage of those perched on the top rungs of the corporate ladder are in their 50s and early 60s and have over 15 years of experience in logistics. This result implies that experience is a factor in who gets promoted or hired to those highly compensated upper management positions.
What about number of years at the current company? The survey results showed no clear connection between loyalty to the company and salary. Across all titles, average salary rises steadily as the years of service at the company increase—or at least up to 25 years (see Exhibit 4). Median salary, however, shows no predictable pattern, with salaries rising for the first 15 years of service, holding steady from years 16-20, then jumping up at year 21, only to fall back down again after 25 years of service. Similarly, there seems to be no clear correlation between number of years of service at the current company and the average or median salaries for managers.
What accounts for higher pay?
We also took a look at some other key factors with the potential to affect pay—education level, location, size of the company, and gender—to see how they correlated with salary. The clearest results are for education level. As the level of education increases, so do the average and median levels of pay (see Exhibit 5). Interestingly, even those readers whose education ended with a high school diploma (26 percent of all survey respondents) are still earning high salaries, with a median salary of $72,000 and an average salary of $86,597.
Working in New England can also bump up the pay you receive. Based on both median and average salary, DC VELOCITY readers in New England earn more, on average, than their peers in other regions of the continental United States (see Exhibit 6). This proves true even if you hold the position constant, as is seen by looking at the median or average salaries for managers. In most other regions of the continental United States—the West, Middle Atlantic, South, and Midwest— salaries remained pretty much consistent, although average salaries in the Southeast lagged slightly behind the rest.
Size of company can also have an impact on pay. Average and median salaries generally tended to rise by number of total employees both for all respondents and for managers (Exhibit 7). The one exception is companies with 501-1,000 employees, where median salaries for managers dipped.
A look at the results broken down by gender yielded some interesting findings (see Exhibit 8). Women make up roughly 10 percent of all survey respondents; yet they earned five of the top 10 salaries reported in the survey. As a result, when you look at average salary, women seem to be earning significantly more than men— $303,695 vs. $112,691. Median salary, however, tends to be less susceptible to outliers. These figures show women earning significantly less than men—$70,000 vs. $91,500. In fact, if you look only at the manager level, it's clear that the average female manager doesn't earn as much as her male counterpart. Female managers earn a median salary of $60,000 and an average salary of $65,774, while male managers earn a median salary of $75,104 and an average salary of $80,225.
No matter what your gender, education level, location, or level of experience, one thing remains consistent: Logistics is a lucrative field. And as recognition of the strategic role of logistics and the supply chain grows, compensation is likely to follow suit.
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."