Going green with a little help from your friends: interview with David Hyatt
Companies embarking on supply chain sustainability programs don't have to go it alone, says David Hyatt of the University of Arkansas. In fact, they'll go farther faster by partnering with other businesses and outside agencies.
Mitch Mac Donald has more than 30 years of experience in both the newspaper and magazine businesses. He has covered the logistics and supply chain fields since 1988. Twice named one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the U.S., he has served in a multitude of editorial and publishing roles. The leading force behind the launch of Supply Chain Management Review, he was that brand's founding publisher and editorial director from 1997 to 2000. Additionally, he has served as news editor, chief editor, publisher and editorial director of Logistics Management, as well as publisher of Modern Materials Handling. Mitch is also the president and CEO of Agile Business Media, LLC, the parent company of DC VELOCITY and CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.
When implementing sustainability programs for their supply chains, companies don't have to go it alone. They also have the option of teaming up with other businesses as well as outside entities like environmental non-governmental organizations.
Such partnerships can go a long way toward getting a sustainability program off the ground and boosting its chances of success, according to a study by David Hyatt. Hyatt, a clinical assistant professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas' Sam M. Walton College of Business, specializes in research on sustainability in global supply chains—in particular, how non-profits and businesses can collaborate to solve issues related to the natural environment. Last October, the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals presented Hyatt with the 2011 E. Grosvenor Plowman (Best Paper) Award for his report on that research, Proactive Environmental Strategies in the Supply Chain: An Exploration of the Effects of Cross-Sector Partnerships.
Hyatt spoke recently with DC Velocity Group Editorial Director Mitch Mac Donald about his research, the challenges that lie ahead, and the steps any company, large or small, can take right now to start down the path of sustainability.
Q: Current thinking holds that adopting sustainable practices is not just good for the planet but can also be good for a business's bottom line. Does your research support that view?
A: Yes. Businesses are starting to see that they are embedded within a social system and that the social system, in turn, is embedded within the environmental system, which has fixed limitations. The challenge for businesses is to get a sense of what the long-term environmental limitations are and start to work within that framework.
Q: When you say "fixed limitations," what do you mean? A: Well, carbon emissions are becoming a serious issue for a number of businesses. They are taking climate change seriously because it affects what their markets are going to be and where those markets are going to be. Other issues are energy costs, which in recent years have increased dramatically. In the United States, energy is heavily subsidized for businesses, leading to prices that are quite low compared with many other areas of the world. That has not worked in our favor because the other areas of the world have been innovating around energy for a number of years.
Q: The subsidy has removed the free market motivation to look for ways to save energy? A: Yes. The challenge is figuring out a way to internalize the externalities that businesses are creating so that we price goods to reflect their impact. That's where we're going to be heading within 20 years.
One big push we're seeing right now has to do with all these sustainability score cards and transparency across the supply chain. In 2009, the University of Arkansas and Arizona State University formed the Sustainability Consortium. There are now about 70 members of the consortium, most of which are private-sector companies. What the consortium membership seeks to create is some sort of standardized way to measure the sustainability of consumer products. Whether this particular effort is successful at that or not, it shows us the direction.
Q: What's prompting the focus on standards? A: Before they can start down the sustainability road, companies need a full life-cycle analysis for their products, which they can then use to assess their performance and measure their progress. What they all want is life-cycle analysis based metrics, some sort of independent standards that are transparent.
They see that they've got to get a handle on what's happening in their supply chains, and that can open up new opportunities—if you can use your supply chain to generate innovation, that could give you a short-term competitive advantage around particular products. In our research, we just spent some time at Walmart talking with them about sustainability. We are thinking about this idea of a lens of sustainability. If you look at your operations through the lens of sustainability, you see opportunities that you didn't see before. At Walmart, for instance, when they were using the lens of sustainability to look at plastic bags, they realized that in one country, they were sourcing bags from five different vendors. They discovered it because they were using this lens of sustainability.
The other dimension is a systems view. I was interviewing one manager who said, "Well, for me it gets back to seeing a product within the system in which it lives." As you know, retailers generally have focused on their margin between cost and sale price, so this is causing some of them, including Walmart, to become more involved in the product design. This manager described to me the kind of product change he envisions. He wants to think of his product as something that is cast in a mold and is packaged in a particular way to be moved and transported in a particular way, stacked on the shelf in a particular way, and has a particular utility in its consumption. There's a strategy for its use, whether it is recycled or disposed of or repurposed back into the supply chain. That is very much a systems way of thinking—and a potential source of innovation for the company.
Q: If you're responsible for your company's logistics and supply chain operations and you see this coming, what steps can you take to start making your business practices more sustainable? A: Clearly, one of the most important things is just figuring out where you are. Before you can really innovate, you have to know what's going on in your supply chain.
Initiatives like the consortium can help us better measure sustainability. Companies and government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can collaborate in this space without a lot of risk in general for companies around competition. There is a lot of concern about sharing too much. But at this stage, businesses can effectively collaborate with one another in a pre-competitive way. They can compete on it later once the standards are developed.
Q: You noted that some companies are concerned about the potential competitive risks with this program, but isn't there a greater risk if you don't start embracing green initiatives? A: Yes. There's a lot of pressure on companies right now to reduce the environmental impact of their operations. There is also emerging legislation around that kind of thing. So, it does create a greater risk in the organization.
There's another perception around sustainability—that it doesn't reduce costs, it adds costs. Those might be compliance costs or extra costs associated with transparency, for instance. There is probably some truth to that, that in some cases it will add cost. But this is not the right lens to have on. If you think from the perspective that it is going to reduce your costs, then you begin to see all these opportunities.
Q: So what comes next? A: It turns out that there's a lot of data collected by companies about these issues and there are even some large databases that contain life-cycle analysis information. The next step would be to pull this together. Can we establish baseline measurements for a particular kind of product, like a soup can? Once we have ways to measure the sustainability of a consumer product and achieve some consistency across the supply chain in measuring it, then companies will be competing on it.
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."