David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
On the eve of the second World War, American factories were at peak production, churning out cars, washing machines, building materials, and radios for both domestic consumption and export worldwide.
U.S. factories were so prolific and efficient that they easily pivoted to become the “arsenal of democracy,” a phrase President Roosevelt coined in December of 1940—a year before the U.S. entered the war. At that time, our factories had enough capacity to produce much of the materiel that Britain desperately needed to hold off German advances.
Following Pearl Harbor and the United States’ entry into World War II, American factories threw their full weight behind the war effort. Detroit’s factories switched from manufacturing cars to producing tanks and jeeps. Clothing makers went from sewing dresses to stitching together uniforms and parachutes. Many historians believe that it was America’s ability to outproduce Germany and Japan that won the war.
However, beginning in the 1980s, America began switching from exporting its manufactured goods to exporting its manufacturing capabilities. Goods could be produced more cheaply elsewhere, so it made some sense to outsource production. Slowly, our manufacturing base eroded.
We still make things in the U.S.A., just not at the same percentage of total consumption that we used to. America’s trade deficit currently runs to about $70 billion in goods and services per month. And while some production is being reshored, our manufacturing capabilities are not nearly where they need to be should a major conflict erupt.
The biggest problem is that we don’t have enough trained workers. When we shipped out our manufacturing, we also shipped out our knowledge and skills base. Much of that went to China, a country that is both our second-largest trading partner and one of our chief adversaries.
An August Associated Press article described the U.S. Navy’s ability to build warships as “in a terrible state—the worst it has been in a quarter century” due to a lack of available manpower.
That could be a serious problem. A July report from the congressionally created Commission on the National Defense Strategy concluded that, “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.” It goes on to say that the risks are rising, not diminishing, and we are not prepared for a major conflict.
I don’t write this to scare you. I’m merely asking whether, if the unimaginable happens, America has the manufacturing and supply chain capabilities we need to respond as we once did.
Supply chains continue to deal with a growing volume of returns following the holiday peak season, and 2024 was no exception. Recent survey data from product information management technology company Akeneo showed that 65% of shoppers made holiday returns this year, with most reporting that their experience played a large role in their reason for doing so.
The survey—which included information from more than 1,000 U.S. consumers gathered in January—provides insight into the main reasons consumers return products, generational differences in return and online shopping behaviors, and the steadily growing influence that sustainability has on consumers.
Among the results, 62% of consumers said that having more accurate product information upfront would reduce their likelihood of making a return, and 59% said they had made a return specifically because the online product description was misleading or inaccurate.
And when it comes to making those returns, 65% of respondents said they would prefer to return in-store, if possible, followed by 22% who said they prefer to ship products back.
“This indicates that consumers are gravitating toward the most sustainable option by reducing additional shipping,” the survey authors said in a statement announcing the findings, adding that 68% of respondents said they are aware of the environmental impact of returns, and 39% said the environmental impact factors into their decision to make a return or exchange.
The authors also said that investing in the product experience and providing reliable product data can help brands reduce returns, increase loyalty, and provide the best customer experience possible alongside profitability.
When asked what products they return the most, 60% of respondents said clothing items. Sizing issues were the number one reason for those returns (58%) followed by conflicting or lack of customer reviews (35%). In addition, 34% cited misleading product images and 29% pointed to inaccurate product information online as reasons for returning items.
More than 60% of respondents said that having more reliable information would reduce the likelihood of making a return.
“Whether customers are shopping directly from a brand website or on the hundreds of e-commerce marketplaces available today [such as Amazon, Walmart, etc.] the product experience must remain consistent, complete and accurate to instill brand trust and loyalty,” the authors said.
First, 54% of retailers are looking for ways to increase their financial recovery from returns. That’s because the cost to return a purchase averages 27% of the purchase price, which erases as much as 50% of the sales margin. But consumers have their own interests in mind: 76% of shoppers admit they’ve embellished or exaggerated the return reason to avoid a fee, a 39% increase from 2023 to 204.
Second, return experiences matter to consumers. A whopping 80% of shoppers stopped shopping at a retailer because of changes to the return policy—a 34% increase YoY.
Third, returns fraud and abuse is top-of-mind-for retailers, with wardrobing rising 38% in 2024. In fact, over two thirds (69%) of shoppers admit to wardrobing, which is the practice of buying an item for a specific reason or event and returning it after use. Shoppers also practice bracketing, or purchasing an item in a variety of colors or sizes and then returning all the unwanted options.
Fourth, returns come with a steep cost in terms of sustainability, with returns amounting to 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste in 2023 alone.
“As returns have become an integral part of the shopper experience, retailers must balance meeting sky-high expectations with rising costs, environmental impact, and fraudulent behaviors,” Amena Ali, CEO of Optoro, said in the firm’s “2024 Returns Unwrapped” report. “By understanding shoppers’ behaviors and preferences around returns, retailers can create returns experiences that embrace their needs while driving deeper loyalty and protecting their bottom line.”
Geopolitical rivalries, alliances, and aspirations are rewiring the global economy—and the imposition of new tariffs on foreign imports by the U.S. will accelerate that process, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Without a broad increase in tariffs, world trade in goods will keep growing at an average of 2.9% annually for the next eight years, the firm forecasts in its report, “Great Powers, Geopolitics, and the Future of Trade.” But the routes goods travel will change markedly as North America reduces its dependence on China and China builds up its links with the Global South, which is cementing its power in the global trade map.
“Global trade is set to top $29 trillion by 2033, but the routes these goods will travel is changing at a remarkable pace,” Aparna Bharadwaj, managing director and partner at BCG, said in a release. “Trade lanes were already shifting from historical patterns and looming US tariffs will accelerate this. Navigating these new dynamics will be critical for any global business.”
To understand those changes, BCG modeled the direct impact of the 60/25/20 scenario (60% tariff on Chinese goods, a 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 20% on imports from all other countries). The results show that the tariffs would add $640 billion to the cost of importing goods from the top ten U.S. import nations, based on 2023 levels, unless alternative sources or suppliers are found.
In terms of product categories imported by the U.S., the greatest impact would be on imported auto parts and automotive vehicles, which would primarily affect trade with Mexico, the EU, and Japan. Consumer electronics, electrical machinery, and fashion goods would be most affected by higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Specifically, the report forecasts that a 60% tariff rate would add $61 billion to cost of importing consumer electronics products from China into the U.S.
That strategy is described by RILA President Brian Dodge in a document titled “2025 Retail Public Policy Agenda,” which begins by describing leading retailers as “dynamic and multifaceted businesses that begin on Main Street and stretch across the world to bring high value and affordable consumer goods to American families.”
RILA says its policy priorities support that membership in four ways:
Investing in people. Retail is for everyone; the place for a first job, 2nd chance, third act, or a side hustle – the retail workforce represents the American workforce.
Ensuring a safe, sustainable future. RILA is working with lawmakers to help shape policies that protect our customers and meet expectations regarding environmental concerns.
Leading in the community. Retail is more than a store; we are an integral part of the fabric of our communities.
“As Congress and the Trump administration move forward to adopt policies that reduce regulatory burdens, create economic growth, and bring value to American families, understanding how such policies will impact retailers and the communities we serve is imperative,” Dodge said. “RILA and its member companies look forward to collaborating with policymakers to provide industry-specific insights and data to help shape any policies under consideration.”
As the Trump Administration threatens new steps in a growing trade war, U.S. manufacturers and retailers are calling for a ceasefire, saying the crossfire caused by the new tax hikes on American businesses will raise prices for consumers and possibly trigger rising inflation.
Tariffs are taxes charged by a country on its own businesses that import goods from other nations. Until they can invest in long-term alternatives like building new factories or finding new trading partners, companies must either take those additional tax duties out of their profit margins or pass them on to consumers as higher prices.
The Trump Administration on Thursday announced it may impose “reciprocal tariffs” on any country that currently holds tariffs on the import of U.S. goods. That step followed earlier threats to apply tariffs on the import of steel and aluminum beginning March 12, another plan to charge tariffs on the import of materials from Canada and Mexico—now postponed until early March—and new round of tariffs on imports from China including a 10% blanket increase and the elimination of the “de minimis” exception for individual items under a value of $800 each.
Various industry groups say that while the Administration may have legitimate goals in ramping up a trade war—such as lowering foreign tariff and non-tariff trade barriers—applying a strategy of hiking tariffs on imports coming into America would inflict economic harm on U.S. businesses and consumers.
“This tariff-heavy approach continues to gamble with our economic prosperity and is based on incomplete thinking about the vital role ethical and fairly traded imports play in the prosperity,” Steve Lamar, president and CEO of The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) said in a release. “Putting America first means ensuring predictability for American businesses that create U.S. jobs; affordable options for American consumers who power our economy; opportunities for farmers who feed our families; and support for tens of millions of U.S. workers whose trade dependent jobs make our factories, our stores, our warehouses, and our offices function. Sweeping new tariffs — a possible outcome of this exercise — instead puts America last, raising costs for American manufacturers for critical inputs and materials, closing key markets for American farmers, and raising prices for hardworking American families.”
A similar message came from the National Retail Federation (NRF), whose executive vice president of government relations, David French, said: “While we support the president’s efforts to reduce trade barriers and imbalances, this scale of undertaking is massive and will be extremely disruptive to our supply chains. It will likely result in higher prices for hardworking American families and will erode household spending power. We encourage the president to seek coordination and collaboration with our trading partners and bring stability to our supply chains and family budgets.”
The logistics tech firm Körber Supply Chain Software has a common position. "The imposition of new tariffs, or the suspension of tariffs, introduces substantial challenges for businesses dependent on international supply chains. Industries such as automotive and electronics, which rely heavily on cross-border trade with Mexico and Canada, are particularly vulnerable,” Steve Blough, Chief Strategist at Körber Supply Chain Software, said in an emailed statement. “Supply chains that are doing low-value ecommerce deliveries will have their business model thrown into complete disarray. The increased costs due to tariffs, or the increased costs in processing time due to suspensions, may lead to higher consumer prices and processing times.”
And further opposition to the strategy came from the California-based IT consulting firm Bristlecone. “Tariffs or the potential for tariffs increase uncertainty throughout the supply chain, potentially stalling deals, impacting the sourcing of raw materials, and prompting higher prices for consumers,” Jen Chew, Bristlecone’s VP of Solutions & Consulting, said in a statement. “Tariffs and other protectionist economic policies reflect an overarching trend away from global sourcing and toward local sourcing and production. However, despite the perceived benefits of local operations, some resources and capabilities may simply not be available locally, prompting manufacturers to continue operations overseas, even if it means paying steep tariffs.”