Art van Bodegraven was, among other roles, chief design officer for the DES Leadership Academy. He passed away on June 18, 2017. He will be greatly missed.
Who, us? Well, yes. And we swell a bit with pride whenever the strains of that anthem from the late, and much lamented, Freddie Mercury and Queen drift in on the iPod or XM/Sirius.
It is no longer very arguable. Supply chain management has usurped operations and/or manufacturing as the driving force behind corporate performance, financial success, and shareholder delight. A few cling to last-century paradigms, but an enlightened C-suite is making what our profession does: 1) a strategic differentiator, and 2) the magic that transforms vision to operational reality.
It is a very good time to be in supply chain management, and the future looks to be even brighter, in terms of organizational performance and individual opportunities.
WHO ARE THE CHAMPIONS?
Champions abound in our field. Some are people—the movers, the shakers, the thought leaders, the visionaries, and the talent scouts who create legions of superbly competent and highly motivated followers. They are (and have been) dispersed throughout our universe, to the benefit of their employers and the next generation of champions that they are nurturing. They were and are the academic pioneers and practitioners who virtually invented the profession—the Andraskis, the Bowersoxes, the LaLondes. They are the next generation, who lead powerful assemblages of supply talent and are busy creating more followers, those who build legends in the industry at places such as Kraft, L Brands, Johnson & Johnson, Apple, Coca-Cola, Tesco, and others, too many to be listed.
Some are the corporations, including those already mentioned, who lead the field in the collection of sundry annual listings of the however-many best supply chains.
WHAT DEFINES A CHAMPION?
Sticking with the corporate theme, the champions are, firstly, winners. They set the bar high in anyone's assessment of leaders and laggards, to use the popular but awkward consulting pet terms. Their costs are typically low, their service levels typically high; their asset leverage is powerful; and their companies' overall performance tends to lead the pack.
But "winning" is an event, a transient experience. What really counts is winning repeatedly over the long haul. Those annual lists of the "best" always seem to include a new name or two. Some pop up once, then disappear. Others stay, eventually supplanting many—if not most—of the names from the original list.
Winning once does not define a champion. Winning several times, then fading into obscurity, does not define a champion. Taking the noble science of pugilism as a metaphor, we expect a boxing champion to lose a little power over time and no longer be a champion. We expect, and should, that organizations can renew themselves and stay fresh and strong, if not forever, at least for some generations.
THE DIFFICULTY OF WINNING
Anyone, or any organization, with championship aspirations tends to concentrate on winning now, winning the next battle, being the best this year, as if a snapshot of the driver who has won the Indianapolis 500 pouring milk all over his hat defines him (sorry, Danica) for all time.
The fact is that, while trying to win every time out and leaving it all on the field of combat is a minimum requirement, winning it all, all the time, is extraordinarily challenging. And genuine champions have learned to live with that reality, even though the effort to win every time remains a defining characteristic.
The 1972 Miami Dolphins are much heralded for their unmatched unbeaten (16-0) season. While the NFL, its competitors, and its predecessors have seen other undefeated seasons, they occurred in the game's golden era, when Monsters truly ruled the Midway and Ohio was the football capital of the universe. No other Super Bowl winner has experienced a season without a loss.
The only heavyweight boxing champion to retire undefeated was the Pride of Brockton, Rocky Marciano, in the 1950s. Other legendary figures, including Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, Muhammad Ali, and Jack Johnson, all experienced losses. (Note: Marciano lost one fight, to Muhammad Ali, 13 years after his retirement and last previous bout.)
The Atlanta Braves, in baseball, managed by Bobby Cox and with Ted Turner finally smart enough to stay out of the team's affairs, strung together 14 consecutive divisional championships in 1991-2005, unequaled before or since. They only won the World Series once during that remarkable run. Winners? Of course. Champions? You bet.
WHAT MAKES CHAMPIONS DIFFERENT?
OK, so champions don't win each and every time. What's the point? There are several. One is that champions try to win every time, especially following a loss. Another is that champions look past this year, or this year's rankings, or next quarter's financial performance. They are focused on repeated and repeatable high performance levels for as far as they can see into the future. Sometimes that means sacrificing the short-term in favor of the long-term as a conscious management call.
A huge difference between champions and mere winners in the moment is that champions take loss not as a motivation to try harder, but as an experience to learn from. They build new strategies and fine-tune execution to overcome the factors that led to a loss, then catch and pass whomever beat them out. Then, they concentrate on widening the gap between themselves and the competition by continuing to restrategize and re-engineer and re-imagine what makes them special in the marketplace. This, coupled with integrated planning among supply chain management, senior management, sales and marketing, and information technology, continues to reinforce the likelihood of continued success—and more championships.
CHAMPIONS COME AND GO
We have noted that there is a lot of churning in the "best supply chain" listings, which, despite attempts at quantitative objectivity, are essentially subjective assessments by seasoned professionals. Household names appear, then disappear, for no apparent reason (at least as seen by distant observers). But others, notably Apple, hover at or near the top year after year. Are the placements and distinctions real? Is #8 really all that much "better" than #17? Perhaps. Time will tell.
But we do have some parallels in other measures. Xerox was an early technology-breakthrough darling. And now? 3M was a legendary innovator, with a constant stream of new products and new applications. Until Kodak owned cameras, film, and motion picture media markets, and even pioneered digital photo technology. And today Polaroid Eastern Airlines? Long-distance passenger rail? TWA? Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips? And on and on.
From a supply chain perspective, did Best Buy's supply chain spell the end for Circuit City? And is that one-time advantage helping it now? Does Walmart's supply chain prominence help Sam's Club as it engages in mOréal combat with Costco? Can Aldi's low prices continue to overcome the disadvantage of a widely dispersed thin footprint? Do megaplayers (not limited to Walmart) stumble when they try to impose merchandising and supply chain techniques in unfamiliar markets?
FOR THE FUTURE
Are there no champions forever? The economic battlefield is littered with the bodies of one-time winners and sometime champions. Is the best we can hope for a couple of generations of dominance?
We don't honestly know. But we are pretty sure that taking a breather and enjoying a cooling breeze after winning one race is not the way to approach the demands of a steady stream of new days.
We are also pretty sure that champions go down fighting. And that champions get up and fight again. Sometimes they win—and win big—after losing. Oops, there's that pesky Apple again.
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."