Turnaround for reverse logistics: interview with Tony Sciarrotta
With e-commerce expected to continue its growth trajectory, retailers have to get serious about how they handle returns. Tony Sciarrotta has some ideas.
Ben Ames has spent 20 years as a journalist since starting out as a daily newspaper reporter in Pennsylvania in 1995. From 1999 forward, he has focused on business and technology reporting for a number of trade journals, beginning when he joined Design News and Modern Materials Handling magazines. Ames is author of the trail guide "Hiking Massachusetts" and is a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism.
The supply chain world has witnessed an explosion in e-commerce orders during the past year, largely driven by the Covid-19 pandemic. That, in turn, has led to a spike in product returns. The activity is unlikely to die down anytime soon. Most experts predict that online sales—and thus, returns—will continue to grow, even after the pandemic subsides. Among them is Tony Sciarrotta, the executive director of the
The association Sciarrotta heads up is a global trade organization dedicated to providing information and resources to companies managing the ever-more-difficult task of processing returned goods. Its members include retailers, manufacturers, and companies that offer solutions. Sciarrotta spoke recently with DC Velocity Senior News Editor Ben Ames about the challenges and opportunities of reverse logistics.
Q: Reverse logistics is a subject we don’t normally hear much about. But it’s made the headlines recently as companies struggled with a flood of post-holiday e-commerce returns. Was that a surprise to retailers and parcel carriers, or could they see this one coming?
A: That’s a great question, because it’s related to a lack of forecasting software in the industry. You hear about SAP and Oracle and all the great systems like that. You don’t hear anything about reverse logistics software—forecasting, processing, etc.
The reason it was a bit of a surprise—though not a complete surprise—is online returns are two to three to four times higher than in-store returns for simple reasons. If you’re going to buy a shirt, an L.L.Bean size 15/34 is different than another brand’s. And so, people do bracketing: They buy a size bigger, a size smaller, and maybe two colors. And so suddenly, you may have 10 items go out, two items kept, and the rest sent back. That’s a simple example of the surprise that some retailers did not understand was in store for them.
You also have issues of interoperability. The electronics product that you bought: You take it home or it comes to your house, you put it into your system, and it doesn’t connect or doesn’t “talk” to the other components. So, those issues drive returns higher as well.
In the old days, all we had was the famous Super Bowl returns period. People would buy a big-screen TV, use it for the Super Bowl, and take it back to the store. That was an expensive period. But nowadays, there is this trend of high e-commerce sales with proportionately higher returns.
Q: Aside from sheer volume, were there other factors this year that made this returns peak different from other years?
A: Absolutely. There were financial issues, and there were quarantine issues. First off, returns are supposed to be limited to maybe 30 days after the purchase, and you run a financial book based on that. And now suddenly because of the pandemic, you’ve given them 90 or 120 days to return items, so you’ve got that liability on your books for a much longer term. That’s driving the financial people, the CFO world, crazy.
And then part two: If you took things back to a Walmart or Best Buy store, or shipped it back, you had quarantine issues in the early days. Nobody knew where the virus would live. Could it live on clothing inside a box for two days? It just wasn’t known. And retailers in the brick-and-mortar world were taking things back and putting them in a separate area and leaving them there for a while.
And then there was the issue of returns that were simply being credited to the consumer—they were being told to keep it. And again, imagine the financial implications of that. So, it was a very different returns peak this year because nobody really took all of those factors into account, especially the quarantining of the products.
Q: How did those constraints affect returns operations?
A: Imagine a truck backing up to a warehouse where there are long lines of conveyor belts. Products are loaded onto these belts and have to be opened and inspected. Do they work? Does the clothing have stains? If so, what are the stains from? Can the items be resold? Can they go back to stock as new? You have to physically touch this stuff, and you have to make a decision on each item.
Products also do not come back packaged the same way and in the same box they were originally shipped in. Imagine a ceiling fan that you buy at your local hardware store only to find that you can’t get it to work once you get it home. Do you ever put it back in the box with the blades in the right spot? No, it sticks out of the box. And that’s exactly how it gets processed all the way down the line.
And then, just imagine the flow where you used to have people literally standing next to each other so they could process hundreds of units per hour. Now, you’ve had to cut out people to space them out [for social distancing]. Instead of 10 people in a 12-foot space, you’ve got three people. That’s a disaster in a reverse logistics operation. It’s just impossible to keep up. There are so many challenges.
Q: That would be difficult. And for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, returns are known for being one of the most expensive parts of the e-commerce cycle. What steps are companies taking to control those costs?
A: Not enough. And the problems are worse because of the silos that exist. Not every organization understands the holistic end-to-end costs of reverse logistics. Shipping costs are allocated to one area. Repair costs go to another area. The cost of reselling at a loss goes to another area. So, nobody really puts all of the costs together.
Some companies are saying it’s costing more to take it back than the product is worth. So, they just give a credit. But that’s a nightmare too, because they’re destroying brand equity by telling people to just keep the item. The consumer has to throw it away or give it away. Or they may auction it off on eBay or sell it at a flea market.
Q: Where should companies focus their attention?
A: More than anything else, they should focus on improving the customer experience. Basically, you have to make sure that people actually get what you tell them they’re going to get, and then try to exceed their expectations. Amazon and some other online retailers are very good at that. They deliver exactly when they say they’re going to deliver. The product is packaged safely in the box. And it does what it says it’s supposed to do.
When I worked at [healthcare technology company] Philips and we did a survey of consumers, we found that 75% of the returns were being generated because people said, “It didn’t do what I expected it to do.” That’s a customer-experience issue discussion. On the returns side, I, as returns director, was being blamed for taking too many things back from retailers whose liberal returns policies were making it too easy. But I was able to use actual customer feedback to fight back a little and tell them, “But you need the customer experience to be better. You need to give them an instruction book that they can read in English, not in 12 languages. You need pictures. You need to make it easier. You need the clothing to be the size it’s supposed to be. And showing it on a model on the website is a bad idea, period. Because when I get it at home, it never looks that good.”
These are all customer-experience issues, right? It’s got nothing to do with whether it fits or not. It’s more, “You showed it in green on the website, and when I got it, it was more chartreuse than green.” So, these are customer-experience steps that companies can take, but unfortunately, most of them are not doing it yet.
Q: That’s so interesting. Also, I’ve noticed some trends, like extending the returns window, as you mentioned earlier. Another is partnering with storefronts, such as a UPS Store or a FedEx Office outlet, to make it easier for consumers to ship products back. As we start to emerge from pandemic conditions, are any of those changes here to stay?
A: Absolutely. Some of those changes are definitely here to stay—certainly, those partnerships are. For instance, the Amazon partnership with Kohl’s is brilliant. You go to the back of the store to drop the package off, they give you a coupon, and you look at it and say “Wow, I get a discount off something today. Maybe I’ll shop a little bit.” That’s a brilliant partnership. That’s definitely here to stay.
The longer windows—that’s a huge risk, and it’s because items like clothing or electronics become outdated really fast. In the apparel industry, a consumer may have until June to return winter clothing and get their money back. It’s a huge loss then. And electronics—it seems like those things change capacity and versions every three weeks. That was a joke in the early 2000s with digital cameras. You could buy one—let’s call it a two-megapixel camera—at retail. Then, within three months, 12-megapixel cameras would come out and you could take your old one back and exchange it. So those long windows are actually very dangerous for retailers to use—except that they’re forced to, to be accommodating to customers during the pandemic. So, I hope the long windows go away, but I hope the “convenience factor” for consumers stays.
If you’re an online retailer or a brick-and-mortar retailer and you live by a policy of “satisfaction guaranteed,” it means you could take anything back anytime from anybody. The last company that had “Satisfaction Guaranteed” as their slogan on the front door was called Sears. And so, I hope that explains why some of the steps that have been taken really need to be followed closely.
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."