The results of two longstanding research projects on third-party logistics hold some practical lessons for shippers and service providers. Here are a few highlights from the latest studies.
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
Third-party logistics may not be a typical subject for academic research, but it's one that has garnered a lot of attention over the years—so much so that presentations on two longstanding research projects on logistics outsourcing routinely play to a packed house at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' (CSCMP) Annual Global Conference.
These annual studies, led by Dr. Robert C. Lieb of Northeastern University and Dr. John Langley of Penn State, track current practices and emerging trends in third-party logistics. Both offer insights into the health of this global industry and into the complex relationship between shippers and third-party logistics service providers (3PLs).
What follows is a look at just some of these in-depth studies' findings, with an emphasis on practical takeaways for both shippers and service providers.
Financial picture improves
The older of the two studies is the "18th Annual Survey of Third-Party Logistics Providers," conducted by Dr. Robert C. Lieb, professor of supply chain management at Northeastern University's College of Business Administration, and Dr. Kristin Lieb, assistant professor, marketing at Emerson College, with support from Penske Logistics. In mid-2011, the researchers surveyed CEOs of 3PLs in North America, Europe, and Asia; this article will consider only the North American results, which included responses from CEOs of 17 of the largest 3PLs operating in this region.
Economic conditions for third-party service providers in North America have dramatically improved, according to the survey. In 2010, 88 percent of the companies surveyed met or exceeded their revenue projections, up from 50 percent in 2009. All 17 companies were profitable in 2010, and on average they expected to achieve 10.8 percent revenue growth in 2011.
That suggests that 3PLs may have fresh funds to reinvest in operations and personnel. It could also explain why 10 of the companies were able to launch new offerings during the previous 12 months; these included reverse logistics, transportation, consulting, and purchase-order management services.
Still, the CEOs found plenty to worry about. They identified pricing pressure and employee recruitment and retention as their top challenges. These were followed by fuel price volatility, difficulties meeting customer expectations, economic uncertainty, and rising costs. The executives said they are trying to mitigate the impact of pricing pressures through more collaborative relationships with customers, gain-sharing agreements, and "unbundling" of service offerings.
Natural disasters prompt change
This year's study also considered the impact of Japan's March 2011 earthquakes and tsunami on 3PLs. Although many of their customers were affected by that disaster, only half of the CEOs said it had affected their own operations in North America, mostly due to disruptions of customers' supply chains and declining freight volumes into and out of Japan.
The 3PLs seemed to be well prepared to deal with such an event. Fifteen of the 17 companies already had business continuity and disaster response plans in place before the tsunami/earthquakes hit. Several later modified those plans to incorporate lessons learned as a result of the disaster.
Many of the 3PLs' customers, though, were unprepared, and they will have to change their supply chain strategies to help prevent future disruptions, said Dr. Robert Lieb in an interview. "The tsunami's impact led many 3PL customers to reassess their stocking levels," he explained. "Some of those companies have told their 3PLs that the money they lost due to related shutdowns of plants around the world dwarfed the inventory cost savings they had generated through just-in-time and lean practices."
The 3PLs, Lieb added, can help their clients develop new strategies and may have to modify their service offerings to reflect those changing requirements.
The sustainability push
Despite economic uncertainty, North American 3PLs did not reduce their commitment to environmental sustainability. According to the survey, 10 of the 17 CEOs reported that their companies had expanded their sustainability projects. Examples of those efforts included providing more resources for existing programs, expanding the use of alternative fuels, increasing involvement in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay program, and developing better tools for measuring carbon emissions.
Half of the 3PLs said they had launched new environmental initiatives during the previous year, including using solar and/or wind energy at company facilities, using more energy-efficient lighting in warehouses, and instituting a "no idling" policy at logistics centers.
The 3PLs' environmental efforts appear to be driven more by internal considerations than by customers' demands, the researchers said. Respondents said that only 8 percent of their customers had asked for an analysis of their supply chains' environmental impact.
Furthermore, when asked how often their company's "green" capabilities were a major factor in determining whether they won either new business or contract extensions, 15 of the CEOs said "infrequently," and only two said "frequently."
"Questions about 3PLs' green practices will typically be part of a request for proposal, but it's of low importance [to shippers] compared to economics," said Joe Gallick, senior vice president of sales for Penske Logistics, in an interview.
Focus on talent management
The second research report, the "2012 16th Annual Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Study," was led by Dr. C. John Langley Jr., clinical professor of supply chain management at Penn State University, and the consulting firm CapGemini, with support from Panalpina, Heidrick & Struggles, and eyefortransport.
The 2012 study was based on over 2,250 responses from shippers and logistics service providers worldwide, gathered through questionnaires, interviews, and workshops. The report examines the current state of the 3PL industry, emerging markets, strategic trends, outsourcing in the electronics industry, and for the first time, talent management.
Many shippers and 3PLs, the research found, are troubled by the state of talent management—recruiting, developing skills and experience, retention, performance reviewing, succession planning, and so forth—within their organizations, and they see an opportunity to improve it, Langley said in an e-mail interview.
Action is critical, as shippers and 3PLs agreed that having the right people and leadership in place would be the most important factor in their companies' success in the next five years, he added.
With supply chains growing more complex, companies require leaders who are more multifaceted, the researchers said. Operational execution was the skill most highly valued by both shippers and 3PLs. Other key qualities included talent management and development, strategic planning, relationship building and networking, technical competence, change management, and international business exposure.
Economic conditions affect the ways in which shippers and 3PLs work together, the researchers said. For example, 24 percent of shipper respondents reported "insourcing" some formerly outsourced services. Meanwhile, 58 percent said they are reducing or consolidating the number of 3PLs they use—a finding that's consistent with current trends in procurement and strategic sourcing, according to the report.
Still, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of shipper respondents reported an increase in their use of outsourced logistics services. Regionally, 58 percent of North American shippers, 57 percent of European, 78 percent of Asia-Pacific, and 73 percent of Latin American shippers reported increased use of outsourced services.
"A logical conclusion from these figures is that greater growth opportunities seem to exist in Asia-Pacific and Latin America (read: emerging markets) than in the more well-developed economies in evidence in North America and Europe," Langley said.
Those emerging markets are important to many of the respondents: 80 percent of shippers and 77 percent of 3PLs participating in the survey said they conduct business with or within rapidly growing economies like China, India, Brazil, and Mexico.
Shippers were clear about the capabilities they want from 3PLs in emerging markets: visibility, expertise in global trade regulations, and management of shipment routing based on a knowledge of free trade agreements. Others on their list included consulting services, local insight and expertise, and integrated solutions.
Perception gap
One significant finding was that 3PLs appear to have some difficulty convincing customers that they can be strategic partners and not simply providers of transactional and operational services. Only 71 percent of shipper respondents said that 3PLs provide them with new and innovative ways to improve logistics effectiveness—yet 91 percent of the 3PL respondents said that statement accurately characterizes the services they provide.
This gap was especially evident in the electronics industry, said Shyamal Roy, a managing consultant with CapGemini Consulting, in an interview. "For example, 58 percent of electronics industry respondents said supply chain complexity was one of their top challenges, yet only a small percentage thought 3PLs could help them address that challenge." However, 42 percent of the 3PLs that work with customers in that industry said they are capable of providing such assistance.
The survey found similar disparities relative to other electronics industry challenges, such as new product launches and seasonal demand, high obsolescence rates, and service parts logistics.
This gap suggests that 3PLs must do a better job of selling their services, perhaps by building relationships at more strategic rather than tactical levels, Roy said.
At the same time, shippers may not always realize that a 3PL's experience in other industries could help solve common problems in the electronics industry, Roy said. For example, a provider with experience managing supply chain security in the pharmaceuticals industry or dealing with products with short shelf lives in the fashion industry may be able to transfer that expertise to electronics, he said. "The 3PLs know about [various] solutions, and they can share that knowledge and best practices across industries," he said.
There are other areas where the perceptions of third-party providers and their customers appear to be at odds. Langley noted that 3PLs tend to rate themselves higher on some service attributes—such as overall satisfaction, agility and flexibility, and interest in gain-sharing agreements—than do the shippers who participated in the study. "Our interpretation is that this is an understandable bias, but it does highlight the need for 3PL providers and users to develop sound processes for comparing evaluations of each other to make sure there is an accurate alignment between both parties' perspectives of each other," he said.
To close the perception gap, 3PLs and their customers may have to improve other aspects of their communication, too. This year, 69 percent of shipper respondents reported satisfaction with their 3PLs' openness, transparency, and communication, while only 62 percent of the 3PLs said the same of their customers.
Both of those percentages are disappointing, Langley said. The data indicate that "there is considerable room for improvement in the ability of 3PLs and customers to have relationships that are open, transparent, and benefit from good communication."
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."