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.
Retailers have enjoyed a huge boost in e-commerce sales to consumers sheltering at home during the pandemic. But that success has come with strings attached. Like a boomerang, a large portion of the goods they ship to buyers’ homes come hurtling back in the form of returns.
Although it varies by the type of goods sold, an estimated one out of every three items bought online is returned, a rate that is three to five times higher than with brick-and-mortar sales. And traditionally, sorting returns has been an expensive, laborious process, relying on workers to manually inspect, repair, and repackage items before they can be shipped back to stores or returned to inventory. That time-intensive handling can seriously erode profit margins, leading many retailers to let returns pile up in a corner of the DC or even send them to a landfill.
But in recent months, companies have been cutting their losses through automation and digitalization. If that sounds familiar, it’s because those are some of the same strategies they’ve deployed to streamline their forward fulfillment operations in an effort to keep pace with industry leaderAmazon.com.
Those tactics have allowed many retailers to survive the pandemic-fueled surge in e-commerce returns and even begin using their “hassle-free returns” policies as a competitive lever to keep fickle customers coming back. However, while consumers care deeply about the “front end” of the returns process—free shipping and quick refunds—warehouses are still saddled with expensive “back end” procedures like sorting, inspecting, and refurbishing goods.
A DELICATE BALANCE
Striking a balance between those competing demands is key to running a finely tuned returns operation, says Mike Venditti, vice president for the Western region at Port Logistics Group, a California-based third-party logistics service provider (3PL) that offers e-commerce fulfillment as well as wholesale and retail distribution services.
“It used to be that returns were an afterthought, tucked away in a corner of the DC until people could just kind of muscle through it. But now you have to look at workflow, optimization, and headcount; labor is huge,” Venditti says. “If you’re not prepared to handle this, it will eat you up. Not only in inconvenience to the customer, but in profitability. It will hurt you very badly.”
As for what makes the process so costly, it’s largely the tension between granting shoppers a quick credit for returned goods—to encourage them to spend that credit with the same retailer—and the complex process of refurbishing those goods for resale.
“You can’t just package it up and put it back on the shelf; it’s a full-blown quality assurance process,” Venditti says. “[For apparel,] you have to open up [the package], inspect the item, and then clean, steam, lint-roll, and repackage it. No retailer wants to get something shipped back to them that looks like someone wore it mowing the lawn.”
THE COST OF QUICK TURNAROUND
To accelerate the process of handling returns, many facilities are turning to automation. For example, some DCs are employing autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) to ferry returned goods to storage locations in far corners of the DC, eliminating travel time for human workers.
Other companies are looking to digitization, applying technology such as data analytics and machine learning to squeeze inefficiency out of the process and maximize the revenue they capture at resale. The movement has led to the emergence of specialized startups like Optoro,Narvar, FloorFound,ReverseLogix, and Happy Returns that help retailers and 3PLs with returns disposition. All founded since 2010, these tech vendors use various strategies to accelerate the process of getting returned goods back into the marketplace at the lowest cost, building efficient networks to handle the goods and applying algorithms to eliminate unnecessary steps and improve inventory visibility throughout the goods’ journey. Other platforms like the online liquidation sites B-Stock and Overstock.comsupport business-to-business (B2B) auctions or virtual consumer marketplaces where the returns can swiftly be resold.
Some 3PLs are combining both approaches, investing in automated material handling equipment as well as specialized software for use in dedicated returns-processing facilities. That is the approach taken by transportation and logistics giant XPO Logistics Inc., which says its strategy allows retailers and manufacturers to profit from the returns revolution, not just survive it.
“We create dedicated hubs—often with hundreds, or even thousands, of employees—that focus entirely on returns. These hubs optimize value for customers by using advanced automation to sort, repackage, and get goods back into the supply chain 10 to 15 times faster than before, minimizing inventory losses,” says Malcolm Wilson, CEO of XPO Europe, who was recently named to lead XPO’s planned contract logistics spinoff.
“Consumers are purchasing more, and different, items online, which means they’re returning more than ever, too. It’s especially evident in apparel now that home is the new fitting room,” Wilson said in an email. “We’ve developed predictive analytics that can forecast the future rate of return for product and adjust for seasonality to ensure our customers are prepared for the next phase of the e-commerce revolution.”
Handling returns at a dedicated hub or regional DC also saves on transportation costs, says Rob Zomok, president of global operations and client experience at Inmar Intelligence, an information technology and services company in North Carolina. By limiting shipments of returns to nearby geographic zones, a retailer can avoid the unnecessary expense of shipping an item returned by a customer in Massachusetts back to a store or processing site in California, only to discover it’s not in saleable condition.
Retailers can also control costs by using specialized returns software to access an expanded range of options for disposing of those goods, Zomok adds. Such technology can help users decide whether to send returned inventory back into stock, return it to the wholesaler, donate it, recycle it, dispose of it through liquidation sales, or—as a last resort—consign it to a landfill.
MORE, BETTER OPTIONS
Despite all the associated challenges, retailers are likely to keep rolling out new “boutique” returns options—largely because they keep shoppers coming back. A recent survey by voice solutions specialist Voxware found that 97% of consumers “agree or strongly agree” that the way retailers handle returns influences whether they will purchase from that retailer again in the future.
So in an age when the customer experience, or “CX,” is king, returns are a new battlefield for customer loyalty. That’s led many retailers to relax their returns policies, whether it’s by extending their returns windows or by giving buyers more options for returning items purchased online. For example, rather than taking the package to the nearest post office, consumers can now return unwanted items to a store, drop them off curbside at a retail outlet, or use alternative dropoff points like shopping mall service desks or UPS Store and FedEx Office outlets. Some retailers will even dispatch carriers to customers’ homes to pick up the returns.
But services like that are expensive to provide, so retailers in 2021 are watching their competitors closely to see who blinks first. The coming year will reveal which practices endure after the pandemic subsides and shoppers once again venture into physical stores.
Editor's note: This article was revised on April 16 to change the description of Inmar Intelligence from “a retail consulting and technology services company” to "an information technology and services company."
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."