New research examines how crowd logistics differs from traditional logistics service models and which type of crowd logistics might be the most disruptive.
The Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), published by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), is recognized as one of the world's leading academic supply chain journals. But sometimes it may be hard for practitioners to see how the research presented in its pages applies to what they do on a day-to-day basis. To help bridge that gap, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly challenges the authors of selected JBL articles to explain the real-world applications of their academic work.
THE UPSHOT
Since 2010 a flurry of startups have attempted to adapt the "Uber" or "Airbnb" model of crowdsourcing to logistics services. While much has been written on this development by the media, consultants, and industry analysts, this article by three professors from business schools and universities in France is the first academic paper that takes a close look at the emerging business model. As such, the article provides the first conceptual definition of what the authors call "crowd logistics": "Crowd logistics is done through collaborative platforms and mobile apps that connect individuals and firms to peers (travelers, movers, authorized drivers, owners of empty storage spaces, etc.) in order to make the best use of distributed, idle logistics resources and capabilities." The authors also delineate how crowd logistics differs from more traditional logistics service models, the main difference being that crowd logistics calls on individuals—mostly amateurs—to perform basic logistics services on an ad hoc basis.
What was the impetus for your research?
I began this research program with my two co-authors, Valentina Carbone and Christine Roussat, three years ago. We have been investigating the logistics aspects inherent in the sharing economy. This economy is booming, but it seems to underestimate the importance of controlling the physical flows it generates. In our first study, we identified four types of logistics characteristic of the collaborative economy: business logistics, peer-to-peer logistics, open logistics, and crowd logistics.
The second stage of our research, which is published in the Journal of Business Logistics, focuses on the logistics type that we considered to be most promising: crowd logistics. Although many researchers have investigated crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, the logistics and supply chain management literature is almost devoid of work on crowd logistics. So it was exciting for us to be the first to explore this field.
How does crowd logistics differ from traditional business logistics?
Our definition of crowd logistics highlights three features. The first is the fact that crowd logistics relies on amateurs rather than logistics professionals. The second is that it relies on resources that are spread among the crowd and are underused or even unused. This is extremely different from traditional logistics with its dedicated infrastructure (warehouses, trucks, boats, etc.). The final key feature is that this type of logistics has been enabled by the development of digital technologies, such as mobile apps. Crowd logistics does not rely on traditional corporate information systems, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems or electronic data interchange (EDI).
What do practitioners need to know about the four main types of crowd logistics?
We believe two things need to be noted by practitioners. The first is that crowd logistics firms can provide four major types of logistics services: crowd local delivery, crowd storage, crowd freight shipping, and crowd freight forwarding. The second is that each type of crowd logistics service creates a different type of logistics value.
For example, crowd storage relies on real estate resources, such as cellars and garages, to offer local storage services to city dwellers. Crowd freight forwarding relies on other resources related to individual mobility, such as air or sea travel, to make products that are unavailable in a given country accessible economically or to transport goods. So, each crowd logistics service uses different crowd resources and offers the client a different value proposition.
Why did you choose to exclude some of the companies, such as Cargomatic and Shyp, that are often identified as "Uber for freight" from your study?
Crowd logistics, as we define it, is based on a crowd of amateurs rather than professionals, even though the boundary is becoming increasingly blurred. The two firms that you mention do not call on individuals. Cargomatic can be likened to a marketplace that uses new technologies to transform contacts with logistics service providers. Shyp uses professionals and offers logistics services to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions that have increased enormously with the sharing economy (for example, the types of transactions that occur on eBay). These two firms do indeed propose a form of logistics "uberization," in the sense that they use digital technologies to rethink logistics practices, but not in the precise field of crowd logistics as we have defined it. But it is interesting that the boundaries between these activities are becoming blurred: Some crowd logistics firms use traditional marketplace models, and some traditional businesses are investing in these startups. And the difference between the amateur individual and the self-employed courier is often tenuous!
In your paper, you and your co-authors predict that crowd local delivery will have the strongest disruptive impact. Why do you believe that to be true?
We believe that crowd local delivery is the most promising segment for two reasons. The first is that there is currently a great demand from city dwellers for cheap, personalized, and rapid delivery services. This is just the type of service that crowd local delivery firms are offering. They are using the crowd to make themselves more competitive than traditional logistics service providers, and they are offering brands, which are increasingly looking to develop multichannel distribution methods, a more flexible, modern, and attractive model.
The second is that the resources on which these services are based are widely available and possessed by a wide range of people; in towns, everyone moves around all the time and can easily take a parcel with them! So there is great potential for innovation and development in the field. Moreover, it is clear that firms such as Deliv, Postmates, and Instacart have already reached a significant size.
What impact could crowd logistics have on logistics service providers and their customers?
Crowd logistics is both a threat and an opportunity for logistics service providers. They are a genuine threat because the crowd can replace traditional logistics providers and reduce their market share. But crowd logistics also provides an opportunity to develop new activities. For that reason, service providers can look to include crowd delivery services in their offerings. They are better able to do so if they are positioned as "4PL providers," since by definition they have the skills to orchestrate logistics resources, which are precisely the skills needed by successful crowd logistics firms. DHL, for example, has tested a service of this type in Sweden, called MyWays.
For retailers the risk is that, with the emergence of crowd local delivery firms, they will lose their direct link with the consumer, which is strategically vital. A firm like Instacart is looking to position itself as a new intermediary between consumers and traditional retailers. The risk for the retailers is that they might become just suppliers, where Instacart's shoppers will go to shop for their clients.
What does an academic look at crowd logistics provide that could not be found in other types of analyses or media coverage?
An academic analysis provides multiple benefits. First, in methodological terms, our analysis is thorough, detailed, and, of course, is in no way biased by private interests. We are not here to promote crowd logistics or sell our services, and we provide an objective view of the subject. Second, the value of our approach is that it relies on a systemic analysis, sustained by our knowledge of logistics, logistics operators, and, more broadly, management science. For example, our analysis here is based on a theoretical framework, that of the service-dominant logic. This leads us to propose an original approach to crowd logistics in terms of value co-creation and, above all, to develop theoretical proposals about the boom in crowd logistics.
How has the crowd logistics market evolved since the article was written?
The crowd logistics market is very unstable, and it is difficult to monitor its rapid changes. Since our paper was published, we have observed numerous company creations and failures and mergers between startups. However, the most interesting trend is the fact that traditional players are buying up firms operating in this segment. For example, the French Post Office bought the crowd delivery service Stuart in 2017.
How can practitioners use the information discussed in your paper?
Professionals can use the information in our paper in two ways. First, traditional firms can use it to develop an overall strategy with regard to crowd logistics: Which crowd logistics services can I call on? What startups are currently in this market? What opportunities and threats does it represent for us? Meanwhile, firms that are entering the crowd logistics market can use the paper to develop a successful strategy in this extremely competitive market.
Editor's Note: CSCMP members can access JBL articles by clicking on the "Develop" tab at cscmp.org, selecting "Journal of Business Logistics," and using 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).
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.
That percentage is even greater than the 13.21% of total retail sales that were returned. Measured in dollars, returns (including both legitimate and fraudulent) last year reached $685 billion out of the $5.19 trillion in total retail sales.
“It’s clear why retailers want to limit bad actors that exhibit fraudulent and abusive returns behavior, but the reality is that they are finding stricter returns policies are not reducing the returns fraud they face,” Michael Osborne, CEO of Appriss Retail, said in a release.
Specifically, the report lists the leading types of returns fraud and abuse reported by retailers in 2024, including findings that:
60% of retailers surveyed reported incidents of “wardrobing,” or the act of consumers buying an item, using the merchandise, and then returning it.
55% cited cases of returning an item obtained through fraudulent or stolen tender, such as stolen credit cards, counterfeit bills, gift cards obtained through fraudulent means or fraudulent checks.
48% of retailers faced occurrences of returning stolen merchandise.
Together, those statistics show that the problem remains prevalent despite growing efforts by retailers to curb retail returns fraud through stricter returns policies, while still offering a sufficiently open returns policy to keep customers loyal, they said.
“Returns are a significant cost for retailers, and the rise of online shopping could increase this trend,” Kevin Mahoney, managing director, retail, Deloitte Consulting LLP, said. “As retailers implement policies to address this issue, they should avoid negatively affecting customer loyalty and retention. Effective policies should reduce losses for the retailer while minimally impacting the customer experience. This approach can be crucial for long-term success.”