How supply chains can support the shopper experience
This new department challenges the authors of selected Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) articles to explain the real-world implications of their academic research.
The Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), published by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), is recognized as one of the leading academic supply chain journals in the world. But sometimes it may be hard for practitioners to see how the research published in its pages applies to what they do on a day-to-day basis. To help bridge that gap, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly will challenge the authors of selected JBL articles to explain the real-world implications of their academic research. Here, then, is the first installment of our new series, "Research for the Real World."
THE ARTICLE
"What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Shopper? Exploring the Shopper Service Ecosystem," by Hannah J. Stolze, Wheaton College; Diane A. Mollenkopf, University of Tennessee; and Daniel J. Flint, University of Tennessee, published in the June 2016 issue of the Journal of Business Logistics.
THE UPSHOT
Supply chain managers are accustomed to thinking about and designing their companies' supply chains to match either the products they are delivering or the needs of the end consumer of the final product. But those models may not reflect how goods and services are actually bought in an omnichannel retailing environment. Many times the person who buys a product is not the end consumer; accordingly, supply chain managers miss opportunities if they focus only on the end consumer and not on the shopping experience where the purchase decision is actually made. In the marketing realm, this is leading to a new concept called "shopper marketing."
The authors argue that because the shopper's experience is the point at which marketing and the supply chain meet, retail supply chains should be capable of supporting marketing efforts that are aimed at shoppers. Toward that end, the article identifies three types of shoppers (goal shopper, bargain shopper, and social shopper) and matches them with three types of supply chain (efficient, coordinated, and responsive).
Stolze, the lead author, spoke with Supply Chain Quarterly about what this concept could mean for practitioners.
What issues were you seeking to explore through this research?
In 1997 there was a pivotal article in the Harvard Business Review that asked, "What is the right supply chain for your products?" It was very product-focused and followed a very inventory-intensive mindset [in regard to] supply chain management. The article focused on making sure that you had the right product at the right place in the right amount at the right time—what's known as "the four Rs." So, if your product was a can of soup, it was a very functional product, and that automatically placed you in the "efficient supply chain" category. And if your product was a high-end fashion item that was purchased less frequently, then you were automatically placed in the "responsive supply chain" category.
The challenge is that as marketing shifts, the understanding of the shopper shifts, and that shift also needs to occur in the supply chain. To execute [retail] supply chain strategy, it's not so much about having the right supply chain for the product. It's about what occurs at the point of purchase—the mindset of what will the product look like in the retail environment—because the job of the supply chain is really delivering the product to the shopper, not the end consumer.
Consumers are still part of the supply chain, of course; you can't leave them out, but the most important part of the supply chain is when the person makes the purchase. There are different reasons people buy soup, and you need to be able to meet the needs of these different types of shoppers.
Briefly, what are the implications of this research for supply chain practitioners?
It requires a shift in their thinking from the traditional focus on product, inventory, and consumers to the person who will be shopping in the retail store or online in the retail environment. There needs to be a shift to thinking instead about the dynamics of place.
In marketing, the focus is on product, price, promotion, and place. Logistics is all about the "place" piece. Is the product in the right place so it is available when the shopper wants to buy it? Do you have enough product in the right quantity and assortment? Now it's not just about having the right quantity of product, it's also about how the shopper wants to experience the product. So if it's around the time of the Super Bowl that might mean specialized packaging—maybe a shift to larger bags with pictures of football. Or it might mean putting the product in a different place in the store so that it is easier for shoppers to find.
How will (or should) your findings change the way retail supply chain executives think about their supply chains?
Historically, companies have had one supply chain strategy. Either it's been "we are focused on breakbulk closer to the customer" or "we are very fast and responsive." Now they need multiple supply chains, not just for different products but also for the same product.
Let's go back to the soup example. Some people just want to buy a can or package of soup off the store shelf, some customers want to buy soup from a soup bar, some want to buy it bundled with a coupon for bread and American cheese so they can make a grilled-cheese sandwich to go with the soup. How you package and deliver soup to market is different depending on whether it is being delivered to the shelf, being ladled into a container at a bar, or bundled with a grilled-cheese promotion.
Could this also reshape how supply chain organizations interact with marketing organizations?
It is definitely going to increase the need for cross-functional interaction. For example, currently the insights into "who the shopper is" reside in marketing, and the responsibility for executing on those insights resides with logistics and operations. So now, even more than in the past, the two are going to have to talk to one another.
Marketing needs to understand what is possible in the market. And operations and logistics need to understand why they are [designing different supply chains for different shoppers], because it does increase costs, and if they don't know why they are doing it, they are not going to execute it properly.
What is the most important takeaway from your article for practitioners?
I think the big idea is really this concept of an ecosystem focused on the shopper. Traditionally, companies have focused their attention on their own products and their own goals. Now there is more of a need for marketing and supply chain to have a common goal-setting environment for the planning of promotions and the execution of them.
TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE ...
As a member benefit, CSCMP members can access articles in the Journal of Business Logistics at no charge. To read this and other JBL articles, go to CSCMP's website and choose Journal of Business Logistics under the "Develop" tab. Log in to your account and click on the secure link to the Wiley Online Library.
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.