Results of a recent survey show that retailers believe omnichannel commerce can increase revenue and improve customer satisfaction. But they're still trying to figure out what that means for their supply chain operations.
Omnichannel commerce is one of the most powerful trends to sweep through the retail world in recent years. More retailers than ever are getting involved in this strategy, which not only allows customers to order anywhere, any time, and on any device, but also lets them take delivery when and where they want.
But building a profitable omnichannel commerce system can challenge nearly every function in a company, from supply chain management and information technology to marketing, store operations, and order fulfillment. In search of more efficient ways to control the flow of inventory, companies in nearly every corner of the retail industry are experimenting with various distribution strategies, whether that's filling both e-commerce and store replenishment orders from a single distribution center (DC), running separate fulfillment operations, or filling online orders directly from the shelves of brick-and-mortar stores.
To get a better understanding of how companies are meeting the challenges of omnichannel distribution, ARC Advisory Group, a research and consulting firm based in Dedham, Massachusetts, USA, has teamed up with Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity, to conduct an annual survey on retail fulfillment practices. Respondents to the 2015 survey answered some 30 questions about their approaches to meeting current challenges in omnichannel commerce and their plans for the future.
The results show that retailers are moving toward omnichannel operations with a goal of gaining customers and boosting revenue. Asked to list the top three reasons their company was participating in omnichannel commerce or building up those capabilities, survey respondents appeared to be squarely focused on revenue, saying they did it to increase sales (57 percent), increase market share (56 percent), and improve customer loyalty (55 percent).
Although the survey respondents clearly shared a common goal, that's where the commonality ended. The research results also showed that respondents are employing a wide variety of strategies and methods to omnichannel efforts.
The mechanics of omnichannel distribution
One of the biggest challenges of fulfilling orders in an omnichannel world is that picking and packing smaller, single-line-item orders that will ship directly to the consumer requires much different processes and automation than the traditional method of picking and packing pallets and cases for brick-and-mortar stores. For this reason, there has been some debate among industry experts about whether it is better to fulfill e-commerce orders from the same facility as traditional orders or through a completely separate operation. The majority of respondents to the ARC/DC Velocity study (69 percent) indicated that they were following the combined approach, with only 31 percent handling e-commerce orders separately.
Many companies are not locking themselves into one method of fulfilling omnichannel orders. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents said they fulfilled orders through a traditional DC that also handles e-commerce. Forty-seven percent used an Internet-only DC, 43 percent fulfilled orders from the store, and 36 percent said they filled e-commerce orders directly from the manufacturer or supplier. Respondents were allowed to select more than one response, and as the percentages indicate, a number of them are using multiple methods. (See Figure 1.)
Many respondents have opted to outsource the fulfillment end of their e-commerce operations to a third-party logistics service provider (3PL). More than half—55 percent—of respondents said they relied on their own corporate (internally managed) distribution centers to perform that function, while 22 percent used sites operated by their outsourcing partners. Another 23 percent said they are using both.
Within the warehouse, workers are using a wide variety of tools and methods to select items needed to fill e-commerce orders. Survey respondents said order pickers in distribution centers were using the following technologies: warehouse management systems (WMS) combined with radio frequency technology (53 percent), voice-recognition systems (33 percent), pick-to-light technology (22 percent), paper-based WMS (35 percent), and goods-to-person automation (20 percent).
Their managers also use a range of tools to support omnichannel commerce initiatives. When asked what technologies they currently use, respondents' top three answers were high-end warehouse management systems (91 percent), demand management software (72 percent), and basic bar-code scanning on the store floor or in the backroom (61 percent). (See Figure 2.)
Delivering the goods
A crucial link in any omnichannel fulfillment operation is the final step: getting e-commerce orders into customers' hands. Here, the options range from in-store pickup to home delivery. The survey delved into current practices in this area as well as respondents' plans for the future. The responses suggest that e-commerce delivery is an area that's very much in flux.
The most popular method for handling "last mile" deliveries was delivery services such as FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service (84 percent), followed by drop shipping directly from partners' DCs (61 percent), 3PL delivery partner (50 percent), and store fleet (40 percent).
It was a different story altogether when it came to respondents' plans for the future. When asked which shipping methods they "do not use, but plan to use," their responses pointed in some interesting directions. For instance, they showed particular interest in crowdsourced delivery services such as Deliv or Instacart: 0 percent use them today, but 28 percent plan to use them in the future. (See Figure 3.)
Meanwhile, back at the store ...
One of the more distinctive aspects of omnichannel commerce is that many purchases are never processed or shipped from warehouses or DCs at all, but are handled directly through retail stores. As previously noted, currently 43 percent of respondents use store-based fulfillment.
To better understand how retail outlets fit into the picture, we asked that group of respondents which fulfillment-related activities they carried out at their store locations. In keeping with omnichannel's focus on flexibility, respondents are taking multiple approaches. Sixty-eight percent said e-commerce orders were both picked and shipped from the store, while 64 percent said orders were picked at the store and then held for customer pickup. A smaller percentage—46 percent—said they shipped e-commerce orders from a distribution center to the store for customer pickup.
That raised another issue: whether the retailers' employees picked the items from the stockroom or the showroom. For many respondents, the answer is "both": 71 percent said they picked orders from the back of the store and 64 percent said they picked from the front.
Finally, respondents were asked what methods their stores used to communicate order information to the workers who picked those orders. The answers showed that stores lag well behind warehouses and DCs when it comes to the adoption of fulfillment technology, since the most popular reply was a paper-based method, with 56 percent. Trailing far behind were radio frequency (RF) gun with textual display (26 percent), RF gun with graphical display (also 26 percent), and some other mobile device (15 percent).
The economics of omnichannel
The survey results also revealed that despite the rapid growth of omnichannel commerce, e-commerce revenue has a long way to go before it eclipses brick-and-mortar sales income.
ARC asked survey respondents what percentage of their direct retail revenue—that is, revenue from items sold to consumers through their own sales platforms, as opposed to being moderated by a retail partner—currently came from each channel. The average for brick and mortar was 63 percent, far above online and mobile (24 percent), and call center and catalog (15 percent).
Despite the modest revenue generated through online, mobile, call center, and catalog sales, a solid majority of respondents had sales operations up and running in every channel. When asked to list all the channels in which they currently receive direct retail orders, respondents cited online (84 percent), brick and mortar (76 percent), call center and catalog (57 percent), and mobile (46 percent).
Taken together, the survey results indicate that omnichannel retailing is here to stay, but that fulfillment practices remain in flux. In particular, the study points to changes ahead in the area of parcel delivery.
These results seem to indicate that companies' fulfillment strategies are still trying to catch up with the new retailing reality. Figuring out the nuts and bolts of fulfilling the omnichannel promise remains a key issue for retailers. But these practical issues must be resolved quickly, or retailers risk losing the customers and revenues that are the very reason they are involved in omnichannel in the first place.
About the study
The 2015 omnichannel study was conducted by ARC Advisory Group in conjunction with DC Velocity. ARC analyst Chris Cunnane oversaw the research and compiled the results. This year's study builds on research conducted last year in this area, which found that significant opportunity gaps exist among companies when it comes to technology deployment.
This year, the study explored the details of distribution center operations that support omnichannel initiatives, as well as how companies are handling the last-mile dilemma. The findings reported here are based on 120 responses.
As for the demographic breakdown, the majority of respondents (57 percent) sold goods through a combination of direct and indirect sales channels. Another 31 percent sold through direct retail only, and the remaining 12 percent through indirect sales channels only.
A report containing a more detailed examination of the omnichannel survey results is available from ARC for a fee.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.