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 ARTICLE
"Crowdsourcing Last Mile Delivery: Strategic Implications and Future Research Directions," by Vincent E. Castillo of The Ohio State University, John E. Bell of the University of Tennessee, William J. Rose of University College Dublin, and Alexandre M. Rodrigues of the University of Tennessee. Published in the December 2017 issue of the Journal of Business Logistics.
THE UPSHOT
As e-commerce sales continue to grow, last-mile delivery has become increasingly important to retailers. In response, many companies have started experimenting with "crowdsourced logistics" (CSL) to fulfill their customers' desire for fast, on-demand delivery. This sharing economy model patterns itself after ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft, but instead of transporting people, the drivers transport goods.
Because the sharing economy model is so new, it's not yet clear just how effective CSL is as a delivery strategy. For example, when companies work with a driver on an individual contract basis, they expose themselves to more risk and uncertainty than when they have a dedicated fleet of full-time drivers. That's because, under the sharing economy model, drivers manage their own schedules and work as long or as little as they desire. Therefore, companies cannot be certain of the supply of drivers that will be available to them at a particular time.
To get a better idea of how CSL compares to a dedicated fleet, the article's authors designed a simulation model of delivery services from an Amazon distribution center to 1,000 customer locations throughout New York City. The model compared the logistics effectiveness of a traditional dedicated fleet of delivery drivers to the use of crowdsourced logistics.
The article's lead author, Vince Castillo explained to Supply Chain Quarterly Executive Editor Susan K. Lacefield what the model revealed about crowdsourced logistics and how companies can apply these findings.
Why were you interested in studying crowdsourced logistics?
We wanted to study the last-mile delivery version of crowdsourced logistics for a few reasons. First, at that point in time, most of the academic literature was focused on the ridesharing model that moves people rather than goods, so there was an opportunity to try to build knowledge about and draw attention to this phenomenon that was emerging in practice. Second, the topic is one that we thought both practitioners and academics would be interested in. This meant that as long as we could develop a rigorous study, it would definitely have relevance, and both of those things are required to make worthwhile contributions. Finally, with the continued growth of e-commerce, the importance of last-mile delivery, and the impression that crowdsourced last-mile delivery could be a scalable solution, we felt this was a timely study to undertake.
Why did you decide to use a simulation model to look at the logistics effectiveness of crowdsourced logistics vs. a more traditional fleet of delivery drivers and vehicles?
Being such a novel innovation for delivery, we wanted to learn if and how CSL affects a shipper's last-mile strategy and more generally, its supply chain strategy. To answer these questions and to understand how and when CSL could be used in practice, we felt it was important to first understand the capabilities of a crowdsourced fleet in terms of logistics effectiveness. But for those capabilities to make any sense, we needed a comparative baseline, which is why we chose to think about CSL's effectiveness relative to a fleet of dedicated delivery agents. We were hoping to find differences in logistics effectiveness between the two fleet types that we could use to build middle-range theory about the contexts in which CSL might be used.
What results did the model show, and were any of them surprising to you?
We had some results that were somewhat counterintuitive and rather surprising. There are a number of differences between crowdsourced and dedicated fleet types that shippers have to consider when using CSL. We focused on one new variable in this study—the uncertainty in a supply of crowdsourced drivers that emanates from their autonomy. It's this autonomy of gig economy workers that intrigued us because it is common to all types of services that can be crowdsourced, so our findings could feasibly be more generalized. By looking first at the uncertainty in the availability of a supply of crowdsourced drivers, we expected that effectiveness in terms of total deliveries and on-time delivery rate would be lower for CSL than in a dedicated fleet of drivers across a number of delivery scenarios. Our hypotheses in these cases were mostly supported, and we confirmed that most of the time, dedicated is likely to be more effective than crowdsourced delivery.
However, when we increased delivery demand intensity (increasing the number of orders received and with less time between order receipts), we found that there were cases in which CSL was actually more effective than the dedicated fleet in terms of making more total deliveries. This was one of the surprising results because we expected that a dedicated fleet with known capacity and availability would always outperform the crowdsourced fleet comprised of amateurs who may or may not accept deliveries they're offered. It turns out though that when the fixed-size dedicated fleet reaches maximum utilization, additional delivery requests received beyond the capacity of that dedicated fleet are more likely to be late or even rejected, potentially meaning lost sales. Thus, fewer deliveries can be made because of the fixed capacity if the dedicated fleet is too busy. CSL, on the other hand, doesn't have the same upper boundary on its capacity, so a company could activate a crowdsourced fleet in the event demand starts rising above a certain level to respond in kind and perhaps not lose out on any sales.
How could practitioners apply your research?
I would say that practitioners interested in crowdsourcing last-mile delivery should recognize that this research highlights some of the nuance that they need to understand before employing this business model. CSL is not a panacea for last-mile delivery, and I don't recommend that anyone doing home delivery go and cancel their dedicated delivery contracts in favor of a fully crowdsourced last-mile strategy. However, there are other benefits, namely in the use of CSL as a backup plan to be able to serve delivery demand when it surges unexpectedly. That is, CSL appears to be a way of increasing agility and responsiveness in the last mile of the supply chain. Furthermore, CSL could also be used where delivery time windows are not critical to customer service—like in the case of online returns. These two applications need more research though, which we are currently undertaking.
For this particular study you looked at an Amazon distribution center in Manhattan. Do you think your results would have been significantly different if you had used a different kind of company or a different location?
Yes, and in fact, if you look at other types of companies that are crowdsourcing last-mile delivery, the product type seems to make a difference. For instance, shipping groceries and meals from local restaurants have been some of the more successful ventures, while a startup that crowdsourced flower delivery recently went out of business. Now there could be any number of reasons that the latter firm did not succeed, but the product seems to be important, namely because different products have different demand predictability, which affects intensity of on-demand delivery orders received.
I would also expect that in practice, CSL's effectiveness would differ across cities. For CSL to be somewhat reliable, you have to be near a population that is amenable to working in the gig economy. That mostly exists in large cities for the time being, although there are an increasing number of citizens from rural areas interested in working gig economy jobs. Furthermore, cities are designed differently with some being more conducive to logistics traffic than others as well as having different policies and regulations to account for. It's a question certainly worth exploring more deeply.
What do you see as the key takeaway message?
At first glance, it may seem like the draw of CSL is that it is cheaper than dedicated delivery, but this isn't necessarily the case. Companies typically guarantee an hourly wage or pay drivers by the mile on top of a per delivery wage. The primary benefit of CSL is actually increased agility, responsiveness, and flexibility in the last mile, which goes a long way to increasing repeat- purchase behavior and customer-service quality. Furthermore, crowdsourcing provides the potential for shippers to acquire a scalable last-mile delivery solution that has a much higher capacity than a dedicated fleet...if they can find the right formula that works for them.
Just 29% of supply chain organizations have the competitive characteristics they’ll need for future readiness, according to a Gartner survey released Tuesday. The survey focused on how organizations are preparing for future challenges and to keep their supply chains competitive.
Gartner surveyed 579 supply chain practitioners to determine the capabilities needed to manage the “future drivers of influence” on supply chains, which include artificial intelligence (AI) achievement and the ability to navigate new trade policies. According to the survey, the five competitive characteristics are: agility, resilience, regionalization, integrated ecosystems, and integrated enterprise strategy.
The survey analysis identified “leaders” among the respondents as supply chain organizations that have already developed at least three of the five competitive characteristics necessary to address the top five drivers of supply chain’s future.
Less than a third have met that threshold.
“Leaders shared a commitment to preparation through long-term, deliberate strategies, while non-leaders were more often focused on short-term priorities,” Pierfrancesco Manenti, vice president analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a statement announcing the survey results.
“Most leaders have yet to invest in the most advanced technologies (e.g. real-time visibility, digital supply chain twin), but plan to do so in the next three-to-five years,” Manenti also said in the statement. “Leaders see technology as an enabler to their overall business strategies, while non-leaders more often invest in technology first, without having fully established their foundational capabilities.”
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to identify the future drivers of influence on supply chain performance over the next three to five years. The top five drivers are: achievement capability of AI (74%); the amount of new ESG regulations and trade policies being released (67%); geopolitical fight/transition for power (65%); control over data (62%); and talent scarcity (59%).
The analysis also identified four unique profiles of supply chain organizations, based on what their leaders deem as the most crucial capabilities for empowering their organizations over the next three to five years.
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.”
Facing an evolving supply chain landscape in 2025, companies are being forced to rethink their distribution strategies to cope with challenges like rising cost pressures, persistent labor shortages, and the complexities of managing SKU proliferation.
1. Optimize labor productivity and costs. Forward-thinking businesses are leveraging technology to get more done with fewer resources through approaches like slotting optimization, automation and robotics, and inventory visibility.
2. Maximize capacity with smart solutions. With e-commerce volumes rising, facilities need to handle more SKUs and orders without expanding their physical footprint. That can be achieved through high-density storage and dynamic throughput.
3. Streamline returns management. Returns are a growing challenge, thanks to the continued growth of e-commerce and the consumer practice of bracketing. Businesses can handle that with smarter reverse logistics processes like automated returns processing and reverse logistics visibility.
4. Accelerate order fulfillment with robotics. Robotic solutions are transforming the way orders are fulfilled, helping businesses meet customer expectations faster and more accurately than ever before by using autonomous mobile robots (AMRs and robotic picking.
5. Enhance end-of-line packaging. The final step in the supply chain is often the most visible to customers. So optimizing packaging processes can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support sustainability goals through automated packaging systems and sustainability initiatives.
That clash has come as retailers have been hustling to adjust to pandemic swings like a renewed focus on e-commerce, then swiftly reimagining store experiences as foot traffic returned. But even as the dust settles from those changes, retailers are now facing renewed questions about how best to define their omnichannel strategy in a world where customers have increasing power and information.
The answer may come from a five-part strategy using integrated components to fortify omnichannel retail, EY said. The approach can unlock value and customer trust through great experiences, but only when implemented cohesively, not individually, EY warns.
The steps include:
1. Functional integration: Is your operating model and data infrastructure siloed between e-commerce and physical stores, or have you developed a cohesive unit centered around delivering seamless customer experience?
2. Customer insights: With consumer centricity at the heart of operations, are you analyzing all touch points to build a holistic view of preferences, behaviors, and buying patterns?
3. Next-generation inventory: Given the right customer insights, how are you utilizing advanced analytics to ensure inventory is optimized to meet demand precisely where and when it’s needed?
4. Distribution partnerships: Having ensured your customers find what they want where they want it, how are your distribution strategies adapting to deliver these choices to them swiftly and efficiently?
5. Real estate strategy: How is your real estate strategy interconnected with insights, inventory and distribution to enhance experience and maximize your footprint?
When approached cohesively, these efforts all build toward one overarching differentiator for retailers: a better customer experience that reaches from brand engagement and order placement through delivery and return, the EY study said. Amid continued volatility and an economy driven by complex customer demands, the retailers best set up to win are those that are striving to gain real-time visibility into stock levels, offer flexible fulfillment options and modernize merchandising through personalized and dynamic customer experiences.
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.