Shifting production to Latin America sounds like a can't-miss for companies looking to boost speed to market. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it sounds.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
Companies that engage in "near shoring"—manufacturing in countries that are close to target markets—may think they have it made. After all, they've cut transit times, reduced transportation costs, and improved their products' speed to market. But those that shift production from Asia to Latin America will find there's more to the story. While the distances may be less daunting, they're likely to confront a whole new set of transportation challenges.
For starters, there's infrastructure. Few Central and South American countries boast the kind of transportation infrastructure found in the United States. That means that with some exceptions (like Mexico or Colombia, where manufacturing sometimes takes place in the country's interior), a company looking to locate a plant in Latin America will likely find its options limited to sites near an airport or seaport.
Another potential complication is access to suppliers. While companies that offshore operations to China have little difficulty finding domestic sources of parts and materials, that's not the case in most of Latin America. In order to run an assembly operation in that part of the world, a company will most likely have to bring in parts and components via ocean.
Despite these obstacles, Latin American countries continue to generate interest from companies interested in pursuing the near-shoring option. Four nations in particular are drawing attention these days: Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Brazil. What follows is a capsule look at the transportation climate in each of these countries.
Mexico. If it weren't for the country's ongoing drug war, Mexico would be the site of choice for virtually every company contemplating near shoring. There are a number of reasons for that. To begin with, there's proximity. Because Mexico borders the United States, it offers the shortest transit times of any Latin American country. Plus, exporters have the option of using trucks, rather than steamship lines, for U.S.-bound shipments. In addition, Mexico offers a trained work force, with skills acquired during decades of maquiladora manufacturing. On top of that, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has virtually eliminated trade barriers.
As for inbound transportation options, companies bringing materials into Mexico from Asia typically use the Port of Lázaro Cárdenas. Located on the country's Pacific coast, Lázaro Cárdenas can accommodate large containerships. With inbound shipments from Europe, companies typically use Veracruz, Mexico's oldest and largest port.
Export shipments, by contrast, typically move north by truck (the one exception being shipments of cars, which generally are moved via rail). For the most part, Mexican truckers are still mom and pop enterprises, although many have formed relationships with major U.S. motor carriers and third-party logistics service companies.
Companies looking to hire truckers in Mexico should be aware that practices differ south of the border, says Paul M. Karon, president of The Entrada Group, which helps clients set up manufacturing operations in Mexico. For example, he says, they can't assume the carrier will provide insurance coverage for their cargo. "None of the [Mexican] trucking companies carry insurance," he says. "You have to make sure that the shipment is insured door to door."
At the moment, Mexican truckers haul cargo only as far as the U.S. border, where they interchange trailers with U.S. carriers for delivery to destinations in the United States. That's because Mexican motor carriers are prohibited from operating in the United States beyond a 25-mile commercial zone along the border. A tentative deal announced by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón in March would change all that, allowing Mexican truckers to operate deeper into U.S. commerce. But most experts believe that even if the ban is lifted, the practice of swapping trailers at the border will continue for the foreseeable future. "We're not banking on overcoming that restriction anytime soon," says Chad Spence, a director in the enterprise improvement practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners LLP.
Costa Rica. Costa Rica's highly educated work force has proved a powerful draw for makers of electronics and medical devices, prompting a number of manufacturers to shift operations from Puerto Rico to this Central American nation.
As for transportation options, the country has a major port, Puerto Limón, on the Atlantic Coast as well as a smaller port, Puerto Caldera, on the Pacific side.
Karon says that companies manufacturing in Costa Rica generally set up shop within 10 miles of the airport in San José, the country's capital. That's because most of them are makers of high-value products, which typically ship their goods via air freight rather than ocean, as is common in other Central American countries.
Honduras. Low labor costs have attracted a number of apparel makers to Honduras. And easy access by water has only added to this nation's appeal. The country boasts the only deep-water harbor in Central America, the Port of Puerto Cortés. "The logistics are good in Honduras, if you can live with moving your product by boat," says Karon.
Most of the manufacturers that do business in Honduras set up plants near Puerto Cortés and truck their finished goods to the port. In many cases, they don't even have to go out and find their own truckers. Typically, major steamship lines have relationships with trucking companies to handle the freight movement to the port, explains Guillermo Coindet, a lecturer in logistics at UNITEC (Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana), a university in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa.
Brazil. Because of the country's protectionist laws, most of the foreign-owned plants in Brazil produce goods strictly for domestic consumption. Still, Brazil has considerable promise for near shoring. For one thing, unlike other Latin American nations, it offers an abundance of domestic sources of raw materials and parts. For another, Brazil is much closer to the United States by ocean than, say, China. "From Brazil, it's 8,000 miles to the United States [by sea] versus 12,000 miles from China," says Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, a non-profit group that promotes near shoring.
Brazil's railroads are used mostly to haul commodities, minerals, and agricultural products, making trucking the default choice for companies looking to move goods to one of the seaports on Brazil's Atlantic coast.
But trucking in Brazil presents some challenges, says Carlos Thome, a vice president with AlixPartners. Individual states within Brazil tax truckers at different rates, and the government imposes onerous insurance regulations on cargo shipments, he says. Plus, some truckers will refuse to move shipments at night for fear of hijacking.
On the plus side, shippers don't have worry about sudden rate hikes due to a spike in fuel prices. "Petrobras [the government-owned energy monopoly] controls the price of diesel, so you don't see fluctuations or fuel surcharges like in Europe or the United States," Thome says. (For more on Brazil, see "The rocky road to Rio: What shippers need to know about doing business in Brazil.")
The challenges don't necessarily end once a shipment reaches a port. It's not uncommon for shippers to encounter transit delays due to port congestion, a byproduct of Brazil's thriving export trade. "These ports are saturated in terms of capacity because export movements have doubled," says Thome.
Time to market
In the end, of course, transportation is just one of many factors companies consider when weighing the near-shoring decision. Taxes, wage rates, labor availability, tariffs, and duties all play a role as well.
Nonetheless, the prospect of slashing time to market and reducing the amount of overall inventory in the supply chain pipeline holds undeniable appeal for corporate decision makers. "Companies are looking at near shoring because of speed to market," says Karon. "Being closer to the U.S. market is the number one reason to be in Latin America as opposed to Asia."
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."