When AMR Research unveiled its annual rankings of supply chain management (SCM) software vendors earlier this year, a lot of people were left scratching their heads. Conspicuously absent from the top of the list, which ranked players by 2003 revenue, were some of the best-known vendors in this space: the so-called best-of-breed SCM software providers like Vastera, Manugistics and Aspen Technology. More surprising still was the pre-emption of the ranking's top spot by a company most people wouldn't consider to be a supply chain management software vendor at all—SAP AG, the German company famous for its enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. Number two and number three were also non-traditional SCM vendors—Oracle and PeopleSoft. It's not that the best-ofbreed vendors didn't make the list—they were there all right—but it was evident at a glance that they trailed well behind the ERP giants in revenue.
That's no accident. Though ERP vendors came late to the supply chain management game, they're trying to make up for lost time. About six years ago, says Shridhar Mittal, senior vice president of solutions marketing for i2 Technologies in Dallas, ERP vendors woke up to the vast market potential of supply chain management applications. At first, they partnered with companies such as i2 to dovetail solutions with their own. But as the ERP vendors started to develop their own solutions, those partnerships broke down in the late '90s. Now the two factions are engaged in a head-to-head battle.
Chances are, whether you're using ERP, human resources management software or just database management services from any of these companies, you'll soon be hearing pitches for their dazzling new supply chain management capabilities.And you may be tempted to take them up on the offer. A lot of companies jump at the chance because they perceive the ERP supply chain capabilities "as being virtually free," says Greg Aimi, analyst at AMR Research in Boston. The thinking goes like this: You've already paid a fortune for ERP; why pay another company even more for additional capabilities that the ERP vendor might throw in?
But should you bite? Aimi, for one, urges buyers to proceed with extreme caution. Though he acknowledges that it can work out, he's quick to warn that the decision requires "a great deal of scrutiny, not just blindly accepting [the ERP vendors' promises]." The ERP companies are strong on persuasion, he says, but they often fall short on delivering on their promises when it comes to supply chain execution, especially for transportation management.
No more tangles
Still, a surprising number of companies are willing to sacrifice some functionality if it means they can stay with one solution provider and avoid the cost and hassles of systems integration, Aimi says. That thinking is reinforced by upper management. "Once a company has decided to go with SAP or Oracle and have one backbone, as it were, the bias is so strong, starting with the CEO and CFO, that it's very difficult for any supply chain execution vendor to penetrate," he says.
Lori Schock, supply manager for chemical company Dow Corning, based in Midland, Mich., acknowledges that her provider, SAP, lags behind the niche supply chain vendors, but she says she's happy with the supply chain solution it provides. "When they deliver, they deliver a 90- to 95-percent solution, where the niche players tend to go for 100 percent. It's a broader piece rather than a customized solution," Schock says. "What you need to ask is how important is that piece between 90 and 100 percent and, after you add the cost of taking it to 100 percent, is it worth it? When I did that comparison for Dow Corning, I found that the solution provided by SAP met our needs. It allows us to offer our customers choices, and at a very reasonable price."
Schock is clearly not alone. "What we're seeing is a big move toward buying from an integrated vendor rather than a best-of-breed—a large company that customers feel is going to be around tomorrow," says Carol Ptak, vice president of manufacturing and distribution industries at PeopleSoft, based in Pleasanton, Calif. Ptak says PeopleSoft has made huge inroads into the WMS market, attracting more than 1,000 WMS customers, including Wolseley UK Ltd., a distributor of building and plumbing supplies, and Saint-Gobain, a French glass manufacturer and distributor of building supplies.
Ptak rejects the notion that PeopleSoft's WMS falls short of the best-of-breeds' offerings. The company has partnered with Atlanta-based Manhattan Associates and RedPrairie of Waukesha,Wis., to fill in any gaps in functionality when it comes to supply chain management, she says. Furthermore, Ptak adds, PeopleSoft is now working with Barry Lawrence, assistant professor with Texas A&M's Department of Engineering Technology in College Station, Texas, to make sure what it's building is "compliant with the best in class out there."
SAP, too, dismisses claims that its products still lag behind the niche players' offerings. "I think we've made a lot of progress," says Bob Ferrari, formerly an analyst with AMR and now director of supply chain business development at SAP. Ferrari points to SAP's "rigorous schedule of annual releases to add functionality" since the company entered the supply chain space in 1998.
Promises, promises
But not everyone's convinced that the ERP companies will be able to match the best-of-breeds' capabilities anytime soon. "[ERP vendors profess to be] a short distance away from providing you with what you need and more than what you need," says Aimi. "However, once you get rolling with implementation, gaps in capability surface and the customer says: 'I can't live with this. I can't do business with release 4.0 when the promised stuff [won't be available until version] 6.0.'" Once they realize that they can't get by with 60 percent functionality, he adds, "they embark on a costly effort to get up to where they would have been with the best-of-breed companies anyway."
That makes Rick Kelley happy. Kelley, director of sales and marketing at Nistevo, based in Eden Prairie,Minn., says a considerable amount of his business comes from customers who need an "interim solution before SAP delivers." International Paper, he says, has been waiting four years for promised transportation management functionality from SAP and has meanwhile been using Nistevo. "I worked at Oracle for four years before I came here," says Kelley. "They have bright product development folks, but delivering on the TMS side is still several years away."
Although some suggest that the well-capitalized ERP giants could catch up quickly if they wanted to, Larry Ferrere isn't worried. Ferrere, chief marketing officer with supply chain software vendor Manhattan Associates, believes their size will work against them. "ERP vendors are spread very thin," says Ferrere, whose credentials include a stint at ERP vendor JD Edwards (which PeopleSoft bought in August 2003) and also in logistics at Andersen Consulting (which has since been renamed Accenture). "SAP has a large development investment, but they're spread over lots of applications and lots of verticals over lots of geographies. A big ERP vendor has the pressure of having lots of very big customers who have their own needs, and even SAP has limited resources in terms of money and people. They still have gaps, I believe, even in their ERP world."
Even in cases where ERP vendors have tried taking a shortcut—that is, by simply buying a company with a welldeveloped application—it hasn't always worked out, Ferrere points out. He cites the example of PeopleSoft's acquisition of Red Pepper, an advance planning and scheduling software vendor, in October 1996. "[Red Pepper's] was frankly a better solution [than PeopleSoft's]," says Ferrere. "But when they didn't run it as a separate and focused division over the long haul, it lost focus, even though they had the basis of a great product."
Despite appearances, the ERP giants aren't possessed of unlimited resources, Ferrere adds. Because the ERP vendors are publicly traded companies, they have to justify investment in new areas to Wall Street. "I think any one of the supply chain execution areas represents a $100 million investment, if you're going to design a world class WMS or world trade management system," he says. "Are [they] going to be able to justify half a billion dollars or more to get this capability?"
Manhattan Associates recently ended its formal partnership with SAP. "We now clearly feel we're a competitive threat and take business away from them," says Ferrere. "I keep coming back to the fact that if people could use one vendor, they would. But I don't think people are prepared to sacrifice getting the best business solutions they can get. The world is too competitive."
Keep it simple
In the meantime, the tech world is evolving in ways that could work to the best-of-breeds' advantage. For example, the task of integrating different software systems into one company's operations—or even a group of companies joined in a supply chain network—is no longer the same hurdle it once was, Ferrere points out. Best-of-breed supply chain software vendors have been forced to address connectivity as they've evolved, linking together the elements inside the supply chain muddle—integrating WMS with demand planning and TMS and so on. So these days, plugging supply chain functionality into ERP systems is just another run-of-the-mill integration, or should be.
Mittal at i2 concurs. "With all the new technologies available with supply chain operating services, it's not difficult to integrate systems any more," he says. "The CIOs should understand that this is the way the world is moving and that there isn't one application or architecture that can meet your needs. It has to be a composite application."
Ferrere believes that's particularly true where complex operations are concerned. Although getting supply chain management capabilities from your existing ERP vendor might work if your operations are relatively simple, he says, large, highly automated and complex systems still need best-of-breed software.
That's not to suggest anyone should run out to find 20 different vendors to work with. There's still merit to the idea of keeping things simple, the analysts agree. "My advice," says Aimi, "is if you can't do it with one company, keep the number of vendors as low as possible."
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."