How to set up a green transport program with your carriers: interview with Deverl Maserang
Internal sustainability programs will only get you so far, says Deverl Maserang of Chiquita Brands. But bring your carriers into the effort, and you stand to make noteworthy gains.
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.
there's one thing that Deverl Maserang believes passionately, it's this: Distribution and supply chain management is all about relationships. If you're looking to improve performance in your distribution network, says Maserang, who is vice president of North America product supply and logistics for Chiquita Brands, you're not going to get very far on your own. For truly meaningful results, you have to work collaboratively with your carrier partners.
when the fresh fruit and vegetable company launched a fuel efficiency program in 2007, it was a given that Maserang and his team would enlist their carriers' help. At its carrier conference that year, Chiquita brought in industry experts to talk about today's eco imperatives as well as techniques for cutting an operation's carbon footprint. The company also urged its carriers to sign on with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) SmartWay Transport Program, a collaborative initiative between government and the freight sector to boost energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In order to become a certified partner in the program, a carrier must agree to reduce emissions by a certain percentage each year.
The results have been impressive. Under Maserang's direction, Chiquita has cut CO2 emissions by 44 percent in its North American transportation/distribution network in just three years. At the same time, it has boosted fuel efficiency by 9 percent and reduced food miles (the distance food is transported from the place where it's grown to the point of consumption) by 8.3 percent.
Maserang, who previously held supply chain management positions at the information technology firm Freedom Pay and at Pepsi Bottling Group, joined Chiquita in 2003. He recently spoke with DC Velocity associate managing editor Susan Lacefield about the techniques Chiquita used to reduce its North American supply chain's carbon footprint.
Q: What led Chiquita to start looking at ways to boost fuel efficiency and sustainability in its transportation operations?
A: For decades now, Chiquita has looked for innovative ways to continue our efforts to be a good corporate citizen, especially regarding the environment. Even prior to the change in presidential administrations and the potential for a cap-and-trade policy, we were engaged in reducing our carbon footprint.
We also saw that fuel was not going to get any cheaper. If you remember back to the '06 to '08 time period, fuel was just going through the roof. We saw $4 dollar-plus diesel, almost $5 diesel. So we knew we were going in the right direction.
We're constantly looking for ways to drive efficiencies. That's partly because if you can drive efficiency, you can drive cost out, which is good for the customer and good for the carrier. But there's the sustainability side to consider as well. And that's more important because more people—at least from a consumer customer perspective—are focusing on food miles and on buying local. We just felt we needed to get as far ahead of that as possible to remain competitive in the market.
Q: How did Chiquita go about introducing its program to carriers? A: For the last 18 years, we've held annual carrier conferences, and we decided that would be the ideal opportunity to get the word out. So at our 2007 conference, we started encouraging carriers to participate in SmartWay.
Then, we set a goal of 100 percent SmartWay miles [freight miles logged by SmartWay-certified carriers] and using 100 percent SmartWay-certified carriers in the network. We also put out a challenge that year to push the network to work toward achieving 10 miles per gallon with the new engines that were coming out in 2010 [to meet the EPA's new stricter emission standards].
During the conference, we talked about some of the things that carriers should be doing. Obviously, you need to be thinking about single-wide tires [as opposed to using two thin tires]. We'd done our own internal application of single wides on about a thousand chassis that year, and we've seen a 0.3 to 0.5 mile-per-gallon differential. So we were trying do within our own network—our private fleet and dedicated operations—some of the same things we were asking all the common carriers to do.
We also installed cowlings, which are aerodynamic devices that you put on the roof of a truck, and freight wings, which go underneath the vehicle. We looked at some APU (auxiliary power unit) technology, which eliminates the need for drivers to keep their engines idling during long stops to provide heat, light, and power.
That's what we did at first. We measured ourselves so we'd have baseline numbers. Then, we started introducing small, incremental improvements. Each year since, we've gotten a little stronger.
Probably the most impressive thing we've done is change the way we compensate carriers for fuel. A couple years back, we decided the only way we were ever going to drive the right behavior was to take a different approach to fuel surcharges. Basically, we pulled all costs related to fuel out of the base transportation rate. We then created a new fuel surcharge table for the carrier that incorporates all of the fuel costs that were previously embedded in the base rate. Doing it this way provides full transparency to all costs related to fuel. Bottom line: You cannot impact effectively what you cannot measure.
Q: Was there any grumbling from the carriers? A: Oh, sure. Some didn't understand it or didn't want to change because they had been using the fuel surcharge to their advantage. I would always tell them, "You know, guys, I'm with you when it comes to competing in other areas of the business. But when it comes to fuel, I want all of us to be competing together to reduce fuel consumption levels or to achieve the highest miles per gallon. Now's the time for all of us as an industry to look at fuel because we've got to figure out how to use as little of it as possible."
Q: What else have you done in the past year? A: We've outfitted vehicles in both our private and dedicated fleets with a simple device called an "Eco-flap." Instead of the traditional mud flap you see on tractors and trailers, the Eco-flap features an aerodynamic design that allows for optimal airflow through the flap but still protects the cars behind from rocks and such. You get a pretty interesting increase in fuel efficiency just from reducing rolling resistance and reducing drag in terms of the air that's being stopped by the truck, the tractor, the wheels, and the flaps.
We did two other major things this past year as well. First, we upgraded all of our reefer units and the gensets on our chassis. The genset is the unit that generates the electricity to power the reefer unit. That alone has saved us a tremendous amount of diesel.
Second, we installed more plug-ins for electrical reefer units. Normally, when you're hooked up to a truck, the refrigerated trailer runs off diesel. So we collaborated with a couple of our carriers on the West Coast, and we put electrical plug-ins at our dock doors. Then, we converted some of the fleet to get off of genset fuel and run those reefers on the electrical grid. So they plug into our facility when they're there, and that has had a dramatic impact as well. Taken together, these steps have yielded substantial results.
Q: What was the carriers' response to all of this? Were they willing to partner with you on these efforts? A: People ask me that question a lot. We've had an incredible response from our carrier community. I think it's because of the way we manage our carriers. We're not in this for the short run. We've always taken a long-term view. We don't expect that they are getting disproportionately wealthy, nor are we getting disproportionately advantaged.
As an example, when we got into 2009, we voluntarily elected to hold our rates intact through the balance of the year, because we knew that our carriers were having problems. Everyone else was going out to bid constantly. The carriers were seeing more bids in the market than they had ever seen. But we take a long-term view with our carriers.
That long-term view has enabled us to gain their cooperation because they're more willing to listen to us and try to make things happen. We are constantly putting ideas in front of them, and we listen to them when they have a great idea. It's a nice give and take in terms of trying to push the network to a new level.
Q: What kinds of results have you seen from your sustainability program? A: In our baseline year of 2007, 21 percent of our carriers were SmartWay-certified. We're now up to 88 percent. And in 2007, 75 percent of our miles were SmartWay miles. Now, that number is north of 95 percent.
Also, from 2007 to 2010, we reduced our CO2 emissions by 44 percent in our North America network. Plus, between 2009 and 2010, we improved our fuel efficiency by 9 percent. In addition to the fuel savings, we were able to reduce the total number of trucks. As a result, we consumed 17 percent fewer gallons of fuel in 2010 than we did in 2009. And we reduced our food miles by 8.3 percent.
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."