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.
Among off-road motorcycle racers, the name KTM is synonymous with high-end dirt bikes that consistently finish at the top of some of the world's toughest races. The company is also known for the tiny motorcycles that engage even young children in racing. Though the Austrian company has a small presence in the United States compared to the overall motorcycle market—less than 2 percent of the market for its 2002-2003 fiscal year—sales of its products, which range from minicycles to off-road bikes to its relatively new on-road motorcycles, have shot up during the last several years. Unit sales this year should exceed 20,000, compared to 13,744 for the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and around 1,600 at the time of a company restructuring in 1992.
Moving those 20,000 bikes out to 400-plus U.S. dealers is the responsibility of the company's U.S. division, KTM North America. And for KTM executives John Zolikoff, who is the division's director of new business development, and Lee Hammond, the division's logistics manager, the challenge is getting all of those highly specialized bikes to the right place. KTM's core products are the lightweight racing and off-road bikes, bracketed by the 50cc minibikes and the large 950cc Adventure. But its four classes of motorcycles include 30 different models designed for different terrains. "For the woods and rocky terrain of the East and for the sand in the South or the desert out West, we tend to be [highly] specialized in our product offering. That's been the secret to our success," Zolikoff says. "Distribution must be fine-tuned around getting the right bikes to the right markets when people are ready to buy." And because the company markets its bikes as "race ready," the bikes must be ready to go straight from the crate to the starting line.
For years, the division operated its own distribution centers, one in Amherst, Ohio—where its U.S. headquarters are located—and a second in El Cajon, Calif. "We owned the warehouse in Amherst and we leased warehouse and office space in California," Zolikoff says. Products were allocated to the two locations based on annual sales projections. The manufacturing plant back in Austria shipped the products through the Port of Long Beach for distribution in the West and through Montreal for the 65 percent of products bound for markets in the East. The company used (and continues to use) Kuehne + Nagel to manage import and customs activities, and it hired several truckers out of each DC location for final deliveries.
Growing pains
But growth creates its challenges, particularly for a supply chain that extends 6,000 miles from the KTM Sportmotorcycle AG factory in Mattighofen, Austria, to the desert, mountain, and forest racetracks (to say nothing of the highways) of North America. Two years ago, KTM North America decided to look into outsourcing its logistics operations. "A big part of the decision to outsource was that we got to the point where we had two warehouse facilities and with our growth, we were at the limit of what we could handle without additional offsite storage or capital investment," says Zolikoff.
That decision also made sense given the company's increasing emphasis on selling "street bikes," or motorcycles designed for the road. KTM plans to add to the number of street bikes it sells over the next two years, which means it will be using a separate dealer network and accommodating a different demand pattern, Zolikoff says. "Given that we'll be facing seasonal demand," he adds, "there was a competitive opportunity in being flexible and able to react.What it really boiled down to is that we needed space, and the solution focused on our corporate philosophy to stay as flexible as possible."
Zolikoff and KTM considered four different candidates during their search for a third-party logistics (3PL) provider. (Hammond had not yet joined the company.) "The key criteria had to do with breadth of service," Zolikoff notes, but that breadth of service couldn't come at the expense of central control. "We came across some candidates that had multiple locations," he recalls, "but [we had to reject them because they] didn't have a common system."
He also came across one candidate capable of managing a five or six-warehouse distribution network using a single computer system. And in the end, that candidate, Con-Way Logistics, got the nod. Zolikoff says he hasn't looked back. "Two or three times now, we've made major inventory shifts and there have been no systemic issues. That was a huge consideration. We were able to realize cost savings, and it allowed us to focus on our core competencies by finding experts whose whole business is moving products and information."
Hammond adds that he's particularly impressed with the detailed reporting that Con-Way provides, a task that would otherwise require him to hire a full time person. "I get a consolidated report every 30 days," he says. "I'm able to monitor costs as we go along."
Model solution
Con-Way has done more than help KTM monitor costs, however. It's also helped cut them. From the outset, Con-Way saw a way to save money, says Michael Bare, vice president and general manager of Con-Way Logistics."Based on the early results, we saw we had an opportunity, depending on volume, to take out 24 percent of the transportation cost without doing it on the backs of the carriers," he recalls. The key would be moving out of the two existing DCs and into a single facility run by Con-Way in the Dallas area.
It took a little convincing to get KTM to sign on. "Their gut feeling was [that it would be best] to have the units shipped from California and Ohio, and that's where we started," says Bare. But as KTM gained confidence in Con-Way's abilities, it agreed to consider other possibilities. Con-Way immediately put its network modeling expertise to work. "We looked at a variety of solutions," recalls Randy Mutschler, Con-Way's director of customer solutions, "everything from using five facilities to using one."
From there, events unfolded rapidly. "Because the shipping history was already contained in Con-Way's database, we were able to do the analysis in a matter of weeks rather than the months it would take to commission an independent study,"Zolikoff reports. Once the analysis was complete, KTM and Con-Way decided that it made sense to move to a single facility. Again, they didn't dawdle. Within a few months, KTM had made the switch, just in time for the start of the new model year.
The motorcycle maker immediately began to see results. Shipping all bikes to a single location in Dallas via the Port of Houston made container loading easier and quicker for the manufacturing plant back in Austria. The company was also able to cut inbound costs by negotiating sea freight rates based on 100 percent of the U.S. volume through a single port.
Revving up for racing season
Under the new arrangement, KTM sends Con-Way orders in batches and gives the third party five days to plan and optimize shipments. That allows Con-Way to seek ways to consolidate orders into multi-stop truckload shipments.
That's possible partly because under the KTM business model, 80 percent of its orders are advance orders. "Those orders flow through a standard batch process," Zolikoff says. "We're realizing significant savings in freight costs, which allows us to maintain competitive dealer pricing at a time of rising fuel costs and surcharges."
KTM shares that information with its third party. "They actually give us advance visibility of their orders,"Mutschler reports. "They also provide us with a delivery date for those orders. Based on that, we can optimize and build pool distribution loads and assure that they arrive on or prior to the delivery date."
Con-Way Logistics uses a variety of carriers, including its own sister trucking companies, the regional LTL carriers operated by Con-Way Transportation. Bare says some orders are shipped via multi-stop truckload; others move via pool distribution for the line haul with final delivery by an LTL carrier. Still others are shipped direct to the customer.
But whichever the case, little time is wasted. Zolikoff and Hammond report that the company was able to move thousands of 2005 models through the system in just a few weeks this summer (KTM's peak shipping period comes in late summer). "There were many cases where the inbound container hit the door in Dallas in the morning, and that afternoon the bikes were on the way to the dealers. The flow-through was really tremendous," Hammond says.
Later in the winter, he says, bikes will sit in the warehouse for longer periods. But he notes that because production is largely based on advance orders, the company holds only minimal levels of inventory—"just enough to meet unanticipated demand." Zolikoff says that historically, KTM's U.S. division has expected to do about four inventory turns each year. "With the new system in place, we will certainly do better than that," he says. "Though it's too early to say exactly how much, we hope to get six or so."
Shared rewards
For a company like KTM whose business is highly seasonal, using a third party's DC facility eliminates the need to maintain warehouse space that remains underutilized for much of the year. Con-Way's centers all house goods for multiple clients. "That represents a huge benefit to customers versus owning their own facility and bearing all the cost," Bare asserts.
A challenge for companies like Con-Way is to make the most of its own assets while meeting customer needs. "We do what we can to help drive inventory down and improve throughput," Bare says. "That may seem like we're cutting our own throat, but in this business, we cannot be selfish: We have to help the customers. Our clients are getting more sophisticated every year. They'll figure out quickly if you're not doing for them what you could."
In fact, the contract signed by KTM and Con-Way rewards Con-Way if it is able to improve efficiency. The pricing for the Con-Way services includes not only traditional storage charges, but incentives based on inventory turns and savings realized by optimizing outbound freight.
The reporting provided by Con-Way enables KTM managers to monitor its performance too. "The bottom line is motorcycles arriving on the dealers' floors," Hammond says. He notes that Con-Way rarely misses delivery times or orders. "We shipped 3,000 motorcycles in August, and we had fewer problems than you can count on one hand," he says.
The arrangement continues to evolve. "This is developing into a true partnership," Hammond says. "They are feeding us advice on a daily basis.We went from a case where a shipping manager might have had several balls in the air and was forced to decide which needed attention most urgently.Now Con-Way is doing that. That allows us to concentrate on other things, such as parts shipping."
That's a good thing, Zolikoff adds, because new challenges seem to materialize all the time. "The U.S. dollar's slide against the euro has been a challenge, but it's also been an opportunity. It's not easy becoming 25 percent more efficient while growing the business and holding dealer pricing in a competitive market." For KTM, he adds, business is a big race. "You have to be creative and agile, but it makes the race that much more exciting."
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."