As retailers continue to expand their omnichannel service offerings, they're increasingly turning to a traditionally underused resource: the brick-and-mortar store.
Talk to enough retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, and they'll tell you that building up their omnichannel fulfillment networks is imperative for maintaining market share. But dig a little deeper, and you'll soon realize that omnichannel retailing is not a single bullseye target, but rather a diverse mosaic of operations that can include everything from shuttling inventory between brick-and-mortar storefronts to offering BOPIS, or "buy online, pick up in store," services.
Many practitioners have traditionally defined "omnichannel" as "distribution from anywhere," including the distributor's distribution center (DC), direct from the supplier, or shipped from a store or third-party logistics partner (3PL). But today, the term "omnichannel" seems to have almost as many definitions as the number of players in the marketplace.
Article Figures
Which omnichannel capabilities do you currently enable?Enlarge this image
Which of the following technologies do you currently use as part of your omnichannel initiative?Enlarge this image
What percentage of your direct retail revenue comes from each channel?Enlarge this image
To learn more about the current state of omnichannel fulfillment practices, Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication DC Velocity teamed up with ARC Advisory Group, a Dedham, Massachusetts-based management consulting firm, to conduct an industry survey. Respondents answered 32 questions about their approach to meeting current challenges in omnichannel commerce, with a focus on order fulfillment and, especially, the changing role of the retail store in helping companies deal with a surging tide of online orders. (For more information on the study, see the sidebar.)
ABOUT THE STUDY
This year's omnichannel study was conducted by ARC Advisory Group in conjunction with Supply Chain Quarterly's sister publication DC Velocity. ARC analyst Chris Cunnane oversaw the research and compiled the results.
The study explored current challenges in omnichannel commerce,with a focus on order fulfillment and, especially, the changing role of the retail store. Respondents included logistics professionals from a variety of industry verticals, who submitted answers during July and August 2018.
As for the demographic breakdown, the majority (60 percent) of respondents sold goods through a combination of direct and indirect sales channels. Another 30 percent sold merchandise through direct retail only, and the remaining 10 percent through indirect sales channels only.
A report containing a more detailed examination of the omnichannel survey results is available from ARC. For order information, visit https://www.arcweb.com.
Many different shades
The survey revealed that retailers deploy a broad spectrum of cross-channel tactics to support sales in today's challenging omnichannel environment from "order at store, fulfill from a warehouse (or another store)" to "return to store, even when goods are ordered online." (See Figure 1 for the full rundown.) The survey also looked at what particular tools respondents rely on to get those jobs done. The data showed that the most common technologies or applications currently used by respondents as part of their omnichannel initiatives are warehouse management systems (80 percent), transportation management systems (76 percent), and total-landed-cost analytics (61 percent). (See Figure 2 for the complete list.)
The respondents are also taking a variety of actions to recover the supply chain costs associated with fulfilling omnichannel orders. The numbers show that the most common approach is to collect fees for expedited delivery, cited by 51 percent of survey-takers. Next on the list was charging delivery fees for all orders (40 percent), followed by collecting fees for returns shipments (28 percent). (See Figure 3.)
Even with these efforts to recover costs, retailers' investments in their omnichannel capabilities (which include software, hardware, training, and shipping, among others) add up to serious money. So, what's motivating companies to continue adding tiles to the omnichannel mosaic? Respondents said the top four reasons they were participating in omnichannel commerce or intending to do so were: to increase sales (51 percent), to increase market share (50 percent), to improve customer loyalty (45 percent), and to increase margins (21 percent).
A growing role for stores
Over the past few years, there has been increasing attention paid to the practice of using store inventory to fulfill e-commerce orders. In response to this growing trend, this year's survey took a particularly close look at the role of the store in omnichannel fulfillment. While some major retailers, such as Walmart and Best Buy, are certainly using stores in this capacity, the survey found that the majority of e-commerce orders are still being filled from distribution centers. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they were fulfilling at least some of their orders through a traditional DC that also handles e-commerce. Thirty-nine percent said items were shipped directly from the manufacturer or supplier, and 32 percent said they filled orders through a web-only DC. Only 26 percent of respondents said they were filling e-commerce from the store.
When were retailers choosing to use stores to fulfill e-commerce orders? The primary reason cited was inventory constraints or stockouts at the local DC (63 percent). That was followed by distance to the customer delivery location (53 percent) and resource constraints at the DC (13 percent).
"Survey respondents indicated that they frequently use stores for e-commerce picking, packing, and shipping when DCs are unable to meet overall order volumes," said ARC Senior Research Analyst Chris Cunnane, who oversaw the research and compiled the results. "In this case, when the DC is flooded with orders and will not be able to meet delivery timeframes, it will [hand off] the order to a local store to make sure the customer gets the order when they expect it."
To get a better sense of store-based fulfillment practices, the survey also asked respondents how they handled e-commerce orders filled through a store. The overwhelming majority (94 percent) said the stores both picked orders and shipped them to customers. Another 59 percent said their stores picked orders and held them for customer pickup, while 47 percent said orders were shipped from the DC to the store for customer pickup. (Survey-takers were allowed to select multiple responses to this question.)
"The most popular method for store fulfillment, as selected by 94 percent of respondents, is to pick orders in the store and ship them to the customer," Cunnane said. "Compared to last year's survey, when fewer than 70 percent of respondents identified pick and ship from the store, this is becoming a bigger part of store operations."
Turning retail stores into fulfillment operations will not be easy, however. Survey respondents identified three main capabilities that were crucial to a successful in-store fulfillment program. More than half (58 percent) of respondents said that they needed to  have visibility of inventory across all locations (58 percent), while 53 percent said the fulfillment process had to be easy for store staff to implement. Finally, 42 percent acknowledged that store associates would have to be trained in how to properly pick, pack, and ship orders.
"Training is a big part of ship-from-store, as the skills required for floor staff and warehouse staff are significantly different," Cunnane said. "Training store associates on how to properly pick, pack, and ship speeds up the process while helping to eliminate errors or damaged merchandise."
Given the need for additional investment in time and training, retailers appear to be somewhat selective about the stores they use for e-commerce fulfillment. Only 40 percent of respondents said they had enlisted all or almost all of their stores in the effort. From there, the numbers dropped off quickly. Twenty-seven percent indicated they handled e-commerce fulfillment at "a widespread selection" of stores, and another 27 percent at "a select subset" of stores. Thirteen percent said they used stores on a limited pilot basis, and 7 percent indicated that they didn't use stores for e-commerce fulfillment at all.
Brick and mortar is still king
The e-commerce revolution is happening fast, and our survey showed that most retailers are investing large amounts of time, labor, and money to keep up. But every gold rush needs a reality check, so it's worth remembering that brick and mortar is still king. Asked what percentage of their direct retail revenue currently comes from each channel, respondents said 57 percent came from brick-and-mortar outlets, 33 percent from online (including mobile) sales, and 14 percent from call center/catalog sales.
Still, it's clear where the trend line is going. Just five years ago, brick and mortar generated a full 64 percent of sales, according to the survey respondents. Brick and mortar's share has slipped to 57 percent today, and respondents expect it to slide further—to 50 percent—in five years' time. By contrast, survey-takers see online's share, which stood at just 22 percent five years ago, rising to 39 percent by 2023. (See Figure 4.)
Work in progress
Taken together, the survey results indicate that omnichannel fulfillment is still in a state of flux. As retailers scramble to adjust to a shifting marketplace, they continue to fine-tune their networks, processes, and technologies. At the same time, they're adding tiles to the complex omnichannel fulfillment mosaic. To make it all work, they're relying more and more on a resource that was once just a bit player in the omnichannel game: the retail store.
Editor's note:Â A similar version of this article originally appeared in the November 2018 issue of DC Velocity magazine.
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.
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.”