It's never easy going green, but it's especially challenging for apparel makers that outsource production to countries thousands of miles away. Here's what one apparel company, Adidas, is doing to make its supply chain more eco-friendly.
John Johnson joined the DC Velocity team in March 2004. A veteran business journalist, John has over a dozen years of experience covering the supply chain field, including time as chief editor of Warehousing Management. In addition, he has covered the venture capital community and previously was a sports reporter covering professional and collegiate sports in the Boston area. John served as senior editor and chief editor of DC Velocity until April 2008.
You may not have given much thought to the carbon footprint of that T-shirt or Armani suit you're wearing, but apparel makers are paying a great deal of attention to their garments' environmental impact these days.
That might strike some as odd—after all, jackets, running tights, and jeans are hardly in the same league as a Hummer when it comes to environmental impact.What many people don't realize, however, is that apparel items often have a surprisingly large carbon footprint—particularly if they were manufactured in a country thousands of miles away.
There are a couple of reasons for that. For one thing, apparel is typically supply chain more eco-friendly. manufactured in low-cost countries where the factories are likely to run on coal-generated power and use antiquated—and highly polluting—equipment. For another, these garments typically travel long distances from the point of manufacture to the store shelf. The farther they travel, of course, the more fuel is burned and carbon dioxide emitted.
As Americans become more and more concerned about global warming, some garment makers have been taking aggressive steps to clean up their act—particularly their supply chain act. Take athletic footwear and apparel maker Adidas, for example. "It's pretty clear that global warming, emissions, and energy efficiency are in everybody's mind," says Marcus Kuerner, senior environmental manager at Adidas. To help battle global warming, Adidas has established a far-reaching cradle-to-grave environmental program for its products. Its multifaceted initiative includes strategies to reduce the environmental impact of its merchandise from design and sourcing to production and packaging to end-of-life disposal and recycling.
Cleaning up the factories
One of the primary fronts in Adidas' war on pollution is the network of plants that produce its footwear and apparel. "Our programs are ... focused on the environmental impact we can most influence, which is during manufacture at the supplier sites of our mostly Asian-based factories," says Kuerner.
That's an ambitious undertaking for an operation of Adidas' scale. Adidas outsources production to approximately 1,280 independent factories in 65 countries, with the majority located in China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. In some cases, it contracts directly with its suppliers. In others, it works with them through intermediaries. The amount of influence it has with any given partner varies according to the type of relationship it has and the volume of business Adidas does with that company.
In working with suppliers to reduce pollution at their plants, Adidas has opted for the soft sell approach—offering advice and support rather than handing down mandates. For example, to encourage its suppliers to upgrade their equipment to lower-emissions machinery, Adidas recently joined with a number of other international companies to promote a public-private sector partnership known as "P2E2."
P2E2 (the name stands for "pollution prevention and energy efficiency") is essentially a government- backed match-making program that seeks to bring together environmental services companies, banks and other investors, and Asian factories, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. "Banks and equity investors provide the funding and loans to environment and energy service companies, as they are called, which then strike deals with the [Asian] factories, offering to upgrade their equipment free of charge," the newspaper reported. "The factories will pay back the environmental service companies over time by giving them a cut—to be agreed on between the two parties—of the savings the plants are achieving on energy costs." Though the focus has been on Chinese factories, factories in other Asian countries are also eligible as long as the business has a legal or financial presence in Hong Kong.
Attitude adjustment
Though the P2E2 program has both the U.S. and the Chinese governments' backing, persuading Asian factories to participate in the initiative will likely take some doing. Adidas is well aware of the challenges it faces. "It's a daunting task when you think about all of the factories, especially the 300 or so in China, that need to be educated about the program," says Lyn Ip, Adidas' areas manager for the environment for the Asia-Pacific region. "We can't force them to change because that's not part of the Adidas culture. You can change the equipment, but not the mindset."
Ip and other Adidas executives have set out to educate the management of supplier companies about the benefits of going green as well as the financial benefits—mostly from potential energy savings—they can reap by installing new equipment. Education must come before implementation, Ip says, especially since so many manufacturing sites have done things the same way for years and are reluctant to change.
"What we want to try to do is change the cultural thinking that the factory management has and help them visualize what the economic benefits are," says Ip. "There are environmental benefits as well, but at the end of the day, they are businessmen. They have to see the economic sense in it. If they don't, you will see resistance to making any changes in the factory.
"We've moved more away from a compliance effort to more of really partnering with our factories," she adds. "We'd like to see them succeed. It's a win-win situation for both parties."
Taking the sea route
Even as it works to raise environmental awareness at suppliers' factories, Adidas is also scrutinizing other links in its supply chain for opportunities to become greener. One of those areas is transportation.
To reduce the amount of carbon emitted in the distribution process, the company has made it a priority to cut down on the distances its goods must travel. For example, Adidas is making a conscious effort to locate raw material suppliers around the big factory locations in Asia to reduce transportation between these links in the supply chain.
It also tries to use factories in China that are located close to ports, cutting down on the trucking required to get products to the docks. In cases where it can't find a suitable factory within easy driving distance of a port, Adidas uses railroads for transportation.
The company is also looking at the way its products are transported to market. Specifically, Adidas makes it a point to ship by ocean whenever possible. Shipping via ocean container is more cost effective and more fuel efficient (and therefore, more environmentally friendly) than the alternative, shipping by air.
Although the company occasionally resorts to air freight (see sidebar), it has largely achieved its objective of shipping mainly by sea. In 2006, 97 percent of the shoes and sneakers made by Adidas were moved by ocean containers.
Kuerner says he's optimistic that ocean transportation will soon become even more eco-friendly than it is today. He points to recent experiments using giant computer-controlled sails on container ships to take advantage of wind power. Advocates of the wind sails say use of the devices could cut diesel usage by up to 20 percent.
As for the future, Kuerner says that Adidas is in the process of surveying its primary carriers to learn what environmental management systems, if any, they have in place. Adidas will review the idea of creating a scorecard for its carriers to measure their performance against a set of green metrics. To show that it's serious about going green, Adidas might even consider getting tough and shifting business to those carriers that follow the best environmental practices.
no fly-by-night decision
Although Adidas makes every effort to ship its products by the greenest mode possible—which usually means ocean carrier— sometimes market demands take priority over the environment. That was the case in 2004, when the Greek national soccer team stunned the world by capturing the UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) European championship.
Greece's upset victory caught the whole world off guard (at the time it entered the competition, Greece had never won a match in a major tournament). But for Adidas—an official licensee of Euro 2004—the upset also had business implications.
Almost out of nowhere, demand exploded for caps and other goods proclaiming Greece the champions, as well as for T-shirts emblazoned with the name of Angelos Charisteas, the lanky striker who helped to write history by scoring the winning goal for Greece.
"As they moved through the tournament, there was increasing demand, and when they won the final, there was an explosion of demand," says Marcus Kuerner, senior environmental manager at Adidas.
That kind of unanticipated demand places enormous pressure on production facilities, of course. But it also puts a strain on the supply chain. In this case, Adidas was forced to ship its goods by air freight. Air is less fuel-efficient and more costly than shipping by sea, but the company had no choice: Shipping the goods by ocean would have taken six to eight weeks.
"Because the victory was such a big surprise, nobody had these fan items like T-shirts and caps in stock," says Kuerner. "But the [stores] were saying they needed it today. If it got there in eight weeks, the hype would be gone and they wouldn't be able to sell those products."
Though the company remains committed to using container ships, Kuerner concedes that the same thing could happen again. Despite Adidas' preference for ocean, he says, "air shipments will continue to be used when market demand requires quick response times."
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."