UPS and FedEx have faced major challenges in B2C shipping, not least of which are shippers who expect something for nothing. Now, they're sending clear signals that things are about to change.
Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Satish Jindel, the president of transport consultancy SJ Consulting, had a conversation recently with one of his clients, a large retailer. According to Jindel, the retailer, which spends millions of dollars a year with FedEx Corp., complained that its rep wasn't keen on handling more of its parcel volumes.
Jindel, whose street cred frees him to administer tough love when deemed appropriate, told the retailer he wasn't surprised by the rep's reaction. "It's to be expected when retailers want parcel carriers to deliver to residences at unprofitable pricing just because they've spoiled consumers with free shipping," he said in a phone interview. Retailers, Jindel added, "can't expect FedEx to subsidize free shipping. They have to come up with creative ways to recover that cost."
So far, retailers have been about as creative as a sledgehammer. Caught between offering a supposedly "free" perk and still having to pay parcel carriers for their services, retailers have forced lower rates down their vendors' throats. However, Memphis, Tenn.-based FedEx and its chief rival, Atlanta-based UPS Inc., have had enough. They recognize it is impossible to turn their backs on business-to-consumer (B2C) volumes given their growing relevance (see Exhibit 1), and they are reconfiguring their networks to handle the business more cost-effectively. At the same time, though, the giants are signaling to retailers that they should begin accepting compensatory rates, or they should find another carrier.
MANY PACKAGES, NO PROFITS
Frederick W. Smith, FedEx's founder, chairman, and CEO, spoke bluntly about the profitability problem last December during the company's quarterly analyst call, acknowledging that there are e-commerce shipments it doesn't make any money on. T. Michael Glenn, FedEx's number-two executive until he retired at the end of 2016, said on the call that FedEx had "discontinued relations with a few customers" during the peak holiday season because their shipping profiles didn't align with the company's objectives of volume expansion and yield improvement.
Steve Gaut, UPS's chief spokesman, said in an e-mail accompanying its fourth-quarter results on Jan. 31 that the company must be "appropriately compensated" for the costs of expanding its physical and IT networks. At UPS, where B2C traffic in 2018 is expected to exceed business-to-business (B2B) volumes for the first time ever, 2017 capital expenditures will total $4 billion, up more than 30 percent from 2016 levels.
UPS is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to automate its "Tier 1" U.S. hubs that today handle a little more than half its domestic volume. The modernization should improve network productivity by up to 25 percent when the work is done sometime in 2019, according to Rob Martinez, president and CEO of Shipware LLC, a consultancy. This will allow UPS to route up to 60 percent of its total U.S. ground volumes through Tier 1 hubs, Martinez said.
FedEx Ground, the ground parcel unit that handles the bulk of FedEx's e-commerce deliveries, has added four major U.S. hubs and 19 automated stations in the past year alone, a 10 million-square-foot expansion. Smith called the pace of the build-out "one of the most remarkable things I've seen in my career."
However, massive investments will take a bite out of the carriers' revenues if the traffic mix isn't optimal. UPS's fourth-quarter revenue came in lighter than expected, in part because more customers used its cheaper "SurePost" service, where shipments are tendered to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for last-mile delivery, rather than moving solely through the UPS network, where the company could charge more. Wall Street proceeded to punish UPS's share price in the short run; from Jan. 31 through Feb. 2, the price of UPS's shares fell about $11 a share. FedEx shares fell about half that amount. (Both companies' shares have rebounded as of Feb. 10, the day this story was filed.)
At UPS, domestic B2C operating margins have ranged between 11.6 percent and 14.2 percent from the start of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2016, according to SJ data. However, B2C margin growth has been compressed, albeit slightly, over that time. From the end of 2013 through the end of last year, domestic margins have fallen by 0.6 percent, SJ said. (See Exhibit 2.)
A ROBUST TOOLKIT
Retailers should take heed of the carriers' warnings about price adjustments. First off, there aren't many alternatives. USPS offers low prices and abundant last-mile capacity, but Smith on the analyst call argued that as a primarily last-mile carrier, USPS doesn't have the capabilities to deliver the so-called "upstream" services to parcel shippers and their customers. Amazon.com Inc., the Seattle-based e-tailer, is building out a transport and logistics network to fulfill orders placed on its website as well as those of third-party merchants using Amazon's services. Still, for retailers already competing with Amazon, using its delivery services would be akin to sleeping with the enemy.
If history is any guide, UPS and FedEx will find ways to surmount the e-commerce challenge. They raise their published rates annually, though they often agree to givebacks in return for large volumes. They have squeezed retailers in recent years by charging more for shipments that fail to meet certain dimensional parameters, and they continually impose an array of "accessorial" charges, fees for services beyond the basic delivery.
The carriers also laid down the law this past peak season, putting retailers on notice that the rules of the game had changed. Both adjusted their time-definite express delivery commitments during the critical final week before Christmas, directing drivers to deliver by the end of a committed day rather than by a specific time, according to SJ. In addition, FedEx Ground suspended its ground service guarantees for the entire peak season, while UPS did the same for Cyber Week (the week after Thanksgiving) and Christmas week, according to the firm. The adjustments to the delivery guarantees were designed to blunt the cost impact of residential delivery spikes rather than to maintain profitability by levying additional charges, SJ said.
Perhaps most significant, both are working to generate sufficient e-commerce delivery densities to reduce costs and capture more of the last-mile e-commerce traffic that they have historically tendered to USPS. The companies have operational alliances with USPS where residential packages are inducted deep into the postal network for last-mile delivery by postal carriers. USPS prices the service cheaply because it is already required by law to serve every U.S. address and can pick up or drop off parcels along the way. Though the model is popular with FedEx and UPS customers, the carriers don't generate much revenue from it and have to share what they take in with USPS.
FedEx is also consolidating shipments moving in its FedEx Ground, FedEx Home Delivery, and "SmartPost" service (FedEx's joint service with USPS) in a bid to boost efficiency. UPS, meanwhile, has created about 8,000 U.S. "access points," commercial establishments in residential neighborhoods where packages are dropped off for customers to pick up. Customers using the company's "My Choice" service can redirect a package to a convenient dropoff location. The strategy benefits UPS by consolidating multiple residential stops into one commercial stop, which optimizes UPS's network and minimizes costly "not at home" delivery attempts, said Martinez of Shipware. In addition, UPS has expanded its "Synchronized Delivery Solutions" capabilities, creating what Martinez calls "synthetic density" to speed up or slow down package deliveries so multiple packages get delivered at the same time.
The strategy of diverting last-mile deliveries into the carriers' own systems appears to be paying off, at least at UPS; its drivers now deliver about 35 percent of packages moving under its postal product rather than letting USPS do it. FedEx is nowhere near that level. However, few would bet against the company should it decide to follow the same course.
USPS, for its part, is concerned. In a Feb. 9 government filing, it acknowledged that the growth of that business—known in the postal world as "Parcel Select"—could be jeopardized if three of its biggest customers continue building out rival networks. USPS didn't identify the carriers, but it's clear that they are FedEx, UPS, and Amazon.
There's no question FedEx and UPS can pull multiple levers to get ahead of the e-commerce tsunami. However, they may still find it tough going unless they can convince retailers that they can't constantly demand lower prices just because they've made service commitments to consumers that they may now regret. "Bending the cost curve isn't just about density, but revenue per stop," Martinez said. "We see both carriers walking away if margins are forced too low." For retailers and other B2C shippers, that may require building a bit more cushion into their parcel delivery budgets.
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."