Container-line transformation faces its biggest test from those paying the bills
Ocean carriers are looking to reinvent themselves as providers of premium value-added services. The question is, are shippers willing to pay for the upgrades?
Ira Breskin is a senior lecturer at SUNY Maritime College in the Bronx, N.Y. He is the author of the recently published The Business of Shipping (9th edition).
Liner shipping firms are upgrading their offerings to attract the premium business needed to bolster the industry's anemic margins. Yet it is shippers, intermediaries, and beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) who will render the final judgment on the strategy, and the jury remains very much out.
Led by the Danish giant Maersk Line and French line CMA CGM, carriers are building end-to-end service portfolios that leverage their scheduled sailings. These initiatives come as liner operators posted modest operating earnings in 2017 that followed big losses in 2016. Volume growth has slowed this year due partly to fears, which seem to be becoming reality, of a trade war between the U.S. and China.
Carriers said they are committed to ending their overreliance on pricing regimes that have sacrificed margins on the altar of market share and that have resulted in billions of dollars in losses. Yet such a dramatic shift to emphasizing value-added services is inherently risky. It requires substantial investments in processes and technology, costs that need to be recouped by attracting new high-margin business. It is unclear if users accustomed to enjoying cheap rates on sailing services will go for pricier, value-added solutions or would rather maintain the status quo.
Transforming liner carriers into seagoing versions of nimble competitors is a tall order. Maersk CEO Søren Skou, who outlined a plan earlier this year to become a "global integrator of container logistics" on a par with firms like FedEx Corp., UPS Inc., and DHL Express, acknowledged that Maersk's strategy, which will take three to five years to implement, is "pretty complicated, with multiple dimensions."
CMA-CGM joined the value-added service fray last spring when it took a 25-percent stake in Dutch third-party logistics service provider (3PL) Ceva Logistics and said it would enter into strategic agreements with the 3PL. "With this transaction, CMA CGM aims to grow its presence in the logistics sector, a business closely related to shipping," the company said when announcing the purchase. In mid-July, CMA CGM won regulatory clearance of its investment.
BEEFED-UP SERVICE MENU
Box line users, for their part, give the carriers marks for getting beyond the rate wars and leveraging their global networks to add more heft to the relationship. "What we like is carriers specializing [in] something other than price," said Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, which represents agricultural and forest products exporters.
Underpinning the carriers' strategy is the belief that customers would pay more for services like door-to-door delivery with real-time visibility, compliance labeling, kitting, supply chain services (design, planning, management, optimization, and enhanced visibility and control), customs brokerage, and warehousing and distribution. This, in turn, would allow carriers to break the vicious cycle of dependency on low freight rates. "We want to build a business that can deliver good returns, more consistent returns than what we have today, providing high cash yields and able to grow both revenue and earnings on a less volatile basis," Skou said.
A potential stumbling block is carriers' neutral/in-house nonvessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC) affiliates, such as Maersk's Damco or Japanese carrier NYK Line's Yusen Logistics, potentially alienating large freight forwarder accounts. These two entities conceivably could both seek to provide competing value-added services, the forwarders' bread and butter, directly to the BCO.
Maersk seems to be moving in that direction, given its announcement in late September that Damco Supply Chain Services and Maersk's Ocean Product value-added services would be combined and marketed as Maersk products and services. In the same announcement, the company said that Damco's freight forwarding business—which serves customers requiring air freight or multi-carrier ocean freight options—will continue to operate as a separate and independent business under the Damco brand—a move that will enable the unit to focus solely on freight forwarding.
Swiss forwarding giant Kuehne + Nagel Group "gained significant new business mainly with its integrated digital solutions" during the first half of 2018, it reported in July. It handled 2.289 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) during that period, 172,000 more than in the comparable 2017 timeframe, it reported.
Forwarders, and to a lesser extent NVOCCs, generally don't compete for major shippers' underlying linehaul business because those tariffs are set under terms of pre-negotiated service contracts. However, poaching smaller account business is fair game.
Maersk looks to its expanded service offerings to bolster its annual return on investment (ROI) to 3 percent, up from the 1 percent reported during each of the past five years, said Vincent Cui, general manager, supply chain planning and value-added services for Shanghai, China-based Damco China Ltd., a neutral NVOCC. Damco, Maersk's wholly owned third-party logistics firm, generates two-thirds of its annual revenue by providing value-added service in Asia, Cui said.
FIRST THINGS FIRST
Carriers could not embark on such a major change of direction without first getting their capacity house in order. Though it has been a slog with peaks and valleys, they seem to be making progress. A spate of ship alliances, mergers, and acquisitions over the past two years has reduced to 12 from 24 the number of lines claiming global market share. This is expected to yield better operating efficiencies, reinforce pricing discipline, and keep shippers and BCOs from engaging in such price-destructive behavior as double-booking without any type of consequence.
Friedmann of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition said that, on balance, users will benefit from the carriers' expanded footprint by having more service options. "It's not who is providing the service, but what the service is," Friedmann said. Ideally, carriers will compete both on the range and relative quality of their services, he said.
Larger forwarders shouldn't be too concerned by the carriers' expanded service initiative, Okan Duru, an assistant professor and director of the master's in maritime studies degree program at Nanyang Technical University in Singapore, wrote in an e-mail. The reason, he said, is that freight forwarders control enormous volumes, and they have the economic resources and savvy to blunt the carriers' recent marketing push that emphasizes selling directly to shippers and bypassing traditional 3PLs and forwarders.
In fact, carriers would be better served determining how to better accommodate shippers' ever-changing sourcing arrangements given their invariable supply chain reconfigurations, Duru wrote in the e-mail. Often, that means more freight emanating from lower-wage Asian countries such as Vietnam and India.
Carriers now have full plates. They have begun pushing value-added services while fine-tuning capacity to better address fluctuating demand handled by the latest generation of carrier alliances, which haven't yet meaningfully bolstered members' profit. In the short term, "alliances exaggerate [spot] price volatility," said Gino Marzola, Singapore managing director/ocean shipping for Panalpina, the ocean- and airfreight forwarding giant.
This isn't the first time that steamship lines have tried to extend their value proposition beyond sailings. Prior efforts have yielded little traction. Despite their insistence that this time is different, it remains up to the marketplace to judge whether it will value the full range of services offered by carriers seeking to become more financially secure.
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."