Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a freelance writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, material handling, and international trade. She previously was Editor at CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. and Senior Editor of SCQ's sister publication, DC VELOCITY. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
This article originally appeared in the February 2018 issue of Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity.
The retail sector has been permanently disrupted by technology, and retailers of all sizes are battling to manage technology's impact on their business models. For many of them, gaining control of e-commerce, multichannel and omnichannel fulfillment, and customers' expectations of ever-faster and customized delivery is a matter of survival.
To find out how companies are responding to these and other pressures, Auburn University
annually polls supply chain executives about their overall strategies as well as their
experiences and plans regarding several "hot topic" areas. As in the past, this year's
study was conducted by the university's Center for Supply Chain Innovation under the leadership
of professor Brian Gibson, with colleagues Rafay Ishfaq, Cliff Defee, and Elizabeth Davis-Sramek.
The researchers surveyed members of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, readers of
Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication, DC Velocity, and companies that
collaborate with the Center for Supply Chain Innovation. To round out the picture, the
research team conducted telephone interviews with supply chain executives.
Getting a grip on change
The researchers conducted 20 interviews with retail supply chain executives, most of whom were chief supply chain officers or senior vice presidents of supply chain. All work for medium-sized to very large retailers; all but a handful of those companies report annual revenues exceeding US$1 billion, and together, they account for nearly US$1 trillion in annual sales.
When asked about their overall strategy for 2018, many executives cited better management of omnichannel commerce as a top priority. Although a small "lagging" group of retailers are still rolling out basic omnichannel capabilities, companies that can be described as "leaders"—generally, the biggest brand names—are looking at refining the omnichannel strategies and practices they already have in place, such as cutting delivery times to consumers and ensuring service consistency across all channels. Those companies, the researchers say, have come a long way since their previous survey report was published. "Last year, we were still getting a lot of companies wondering how to respond to the 'Amazon effect.' Now, retail leaders have taken control of their omnichannel operations and have a game plan they're ready to execute," Defee says.
The interviews with retail supply chain executives also zeroed in on several specific areas, including urban fulfillment, relationships with third-party logistics service providers (3PLs), sustainability, and disruptive technologies. Here is the research team's take on the issues and trends the interviewees addressed.
Managing urban fulfillment. As the array of products consumers order online continues to expand, urban fulfillment has become a major concern for an increasingly wide range of retail segments. But retailers are being cautious about the delivery services they offer. Some interviewees said they would "move as fast on [urban delivery services] as [their] customers demand it," Gibson says. In other words, they are investing in various delivery options only when demand is sufficient and the cost of providing those services can be justified. One surprise: Although many people assume that urban delivery only matters in a few big markets like New York City and Los Angeles, respondents said they were working to meet rapidly growing demand for same-day and next-day delivery in dozens of other urban markets across the country.
Increasingly, retailers are using urban stores as fulfillment locations to accommodate their "BOPIS"—buy online, pick up in store—services. Some are also investing in small-footprint distribution centers in urban areas that offer same-day delivery for a limited assortment of stock-keeping units (SKUs). A third option mentioned by respondents is a "dark store"—a facility that's set up like a retail store but is used for assembling e-commerce orders, which are then delivered to consumers or to pickup locations. In Gibson's view, the benefit of the latter two options compared with in-store fulfillment is that it avoids disrupting store operations and offers quick access to backup inventory if a nearby store runs out.
The cost of meeting consumers' expectations is forcing retailers to rethink how they deliver orders in cities. Some are testing the use of employees to drop off packages on their way home from work. Others are setting up their own private fleets of local-delivery vehicles. But they're most likely to use for-hire services, such as Uber, Lyft, Shipt, and Instacart, because of their flexible capacity and variable cost structure, according to Gibson.
Working with logistics service providers. As retailers contend with changing business models, their relationships with 3PLs are also changing. Their strategies appear to follow two different paths. Several executives said they are seeking fewer, more strategic partnerships with 3PLs in order to reduce complexity. This trend is leading service providers to expand their portfolios in hopes of becoming a "one-stop shop" for big retail accounts, Ishfaq says. Of course, when 3PLs expand their reach and their service portfolios, their costs go up—and so do the prices they charge their customers. That, he says, could undermine one of their core value propositions: that they can handle logistics activities more cost-effectively than their clients could on their own.
That's one reason why other executives are considering a different approach: taking some warehousing and distribution activities back from 3PLs. "If a market was mature and the service demand was stable and predictable, then some would talk about doing it in-house," Ishfaq says, adding that these were all "really big players with thousands of stores who see the scale in a particular brand or product category." In addition, concerns about transportation capacity are prompting some to consider private delivery fleets or dedicated contract carriage. Still, interviewees said they would continue working with 3PLs when expansion to a new market/location or the rollout of new services was involved.
As customers put pressure on retailers to improve their service, the retailers, in turn, expect 3PLs to "up their game," Ishfaq says. But those expectations seem to be changing faster than the 3PLs can keep up with. "That has put pressure on them from both a cost and a performance-guarantee standpoint. It's a pressure cooker right now," he says. "We could see failures or tougher going."
Achieving supply chain sustainability. How much priority retailers give to sustainability, which includes environmental, health and safety compliance, and labor considerations, varies widely. Large companies that have published sustainability reports, made someone responsible for sustainability, or integrated it into their corporate culture considered it to be very important, but for others, sustainability is not a strategic priority, Davis-Sramek says. Those companies' efforts often focused on things like energy and fuel efficiency, where they can see a direct connection to cost savings. Several executives said it's critical that their sourcing organizations ensure that goods are in compliance with relevant regulations, make sure products are environmentally safe, and address problems like forced labor, but that focus didn't necessarily carry over into supply chain activities.
The interviewees have not widely considered an issue that could have a major impact on their supply chain costs in the future: the conflict between sustainability goals and consumers' escalating demands for fast, convenient service. "We asked them, 'If you ship one item to one customer in one box, what does that do to your ability to meet sustainability goals?'" Davis-Sramek recalls. "The pretty universal response was, 'We've placed so much emphasis on fulfillment and meeting customer requests that we haven't really made that connection yet.'"
Davis-Sramek expects that at some point, retailers will come under external pressure to resolve the tension between e-commerce and sustainability. That pressure may come from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), perhaps through a study on the impact of home delivery on the environment. Or it could come in the form of regulation, such as a carbon tax or European-style regulations on packaging waste. Nobody knows how far in the future that will happen, but Davis-Sramek expects retailers will step up when it does. "I think they'll apply the same kind of innovative thinking they used to develop omnichannel commerce," she says.
Leveraging disruptive technology. Disruptive technology is still more concept than reality for most retailers. "There's no single cutting-edge technology that everybody's focused on," says Defee. "They know it's coming, but nobody sees one they're really banking on right now." Technologies that were mentioned most frequently included artificial intelligence and machine learning, which were seen as potentially having a beneficial impact on such areas as demand forecasting, understanding customers' preferences, and identifying trends that will impact inventory plans.
Most, though, are just beginning to investigate those and other technologies, such as robotics, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. "There's a lot of interest and there's monitoring, but not a lot of money invested," Gibson says. "There's still a healthy amount of skepticism about how these technologies will play in the supply chain area." Return on investment (ROI) is another top concern; Defee says one interviewee called articulating an ROI to justify investment "the No. 1 challenge of disruptive technology."
Not surprisingly, then, when it comes to new technology, retailers are focusing on proven winners, such as analytics and warehouse automation. E-commerce fulfillment is driving investment in those and other technologies, but retailers are also using them to improve store operations, Gibson notes. For example, some are buying automated picking and sequencing technology for their stores because the automated systems do a much better job of picking aisle-specific pallets or cartons than a human can, thus allowing for faster on-shelf replenishment.
Common principles
During the course of the researchers' interviews, several common principles came to the fore. One was that retailers should ensure consistent service and product availability regardless of how they are interacting with customers. Another was that they must become true omnichannel organizations, leveraging inventory, technology, and distribution networks to get to a single pool of stock. Omnichannel success also requires the capacity to deliver orders wherever and whenever the customer wants them. "We're going to hit that tipping point where a retailer's capacity to make last-mile deliveries will either be game-changing or it will bog [the operation] down and get very expensive," Gibson says.
Finally, the researchers say, retailers are starting to understand that being involved in omnichannel does not mean they are obligated to be "all things to all people." Instead, many are taking advantage of advances in supply chain analytics to judge whether their scope of offerings and cost to serve specific channels and customers are justifiable. How they respond to the data will be driven by external competition and/or internal strategies, Gibson points out. Something may be costly from a supply chain standpoint, he says, but in an omnichannel world, retailers ultimately must make decisions based on overall strategic benefit.
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article originally said that the Retail
Industry Leaders Association conducts the poll. While RILA members (among others) are
polled, the survey itself is conducted by Auburn University's Center for Supply Chain
Innovation.
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.