C. John Langley Jr., Ph.D. (jlangley@psu.edu) is Professor of Supply Chain Management at Penn State University’s Smeal College of Business and the Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems, and Founder of the “Annual Third-Party Logistics Study.”
The markets that logistics service providers (LSPs) serve are changing rapidly. (For a summary of some of the key trends and changes, see the associated sidebar.) In response, both users and providers have been on a relentless drive for innovation and for expansion of available logistics capabilities. As a result, third-party logistics providers (3PL) and fourth-party logistics providers (4PL) have been making significant additions to the range and scope of services that they offer to shippers and other customers.
The evolving roles of LSPs
As the term “supply chain” continues to advance, there have been noticeable changes in many of the terminologies that are used to define various types of logistics service providers. Some of the most widely recognized of these are summarized below.
It is generally accepted that the term “third-party logistics provider” came into being in the 1970s and 1980s. It’s not a coincidence that this timeframe coincides with the legislated deregulation of several transportation sectors in the United States, such as trucking (less-than-truckload and truckload), rail, and air. The deregulated business environment expanded opportunities for logistics service providers to become more market- and customer-focused and created more incentives for LSPs to craft service offerings that better fit their customers’ logistics and supply chain needs.
In response to customer requests and in pursuit of new market opportunities, 3PLs embarked on expansions of their business models beyond what may have been the more limited province of asset-based services. While there are still some identifiable “pure-play” 3PLs, most of today’s 3PL organizations represent an outgrowth and expansion of logistics services from more traditional providers of asset-based logistics services. A quick internet search will validate the large numbers of organizations that operate in the 3PL category. New entrants continue to emerge from former logistics divisions of shipper organizations, wholesalers and distributors, IT organizations, and various international enterprises, to name just a few.
In 1996, Accenture invented and trademarked the term “fourth-party logistics” (4PL) provider to describe “a supply chain integrator that assembles and manages the resources, capabilities, and technology of its own organization with those of complementary service providers to deliver a comprehensive supply chain solution.” Many of these 4PLs are extensions of more traditional LSP organizations, while others have evolved from consulting organizations, firms specializing in data management and analytics, and former logistics divisions of shipper organizations.
In comparison with 3PLs, it is interesting to note that an internet search for 4PL organizations does not turn up much in the way of organized or comprehensive listings of primary participants in this sector. A logical explanation is that this is due to the significant breadth and diversity of the types of services available in general from 4PLs such as lead logistics provider (LLP), consulting/advisory services, advanced IT services, risk management, “control tower” services, and others.
LLP responsibilities are particularly interesting as they require 4PLs to use their high levels of visibility, real-time information, communication abilities, and broad knowledge to align 3PLs, customers, and service providers. A 4PL not only draws on the data it collects itself, it also can draw on data gathered from other supply chain partners. The visibility that is created from that data plays a crucial role in allowing customers and 4PLs to provide seamless supply chain services, manage exceptions, and remove costs and inefficiencies from the supply chain.
Now, some logistics service providers are expanding their offerings to offer the following innovative capabilities:
Develop and implement best possible supply chains or networks,
Plan, design, and implement complete logistics solutions,
Manage networks of supply chains,
Provide linkages to e-business,
Implement logistics solutions and technologies, and
Aggregate demand from 3PLs into more efficient volumes for lower rates.
These innovations and offerings are frequently accompanied by the introduction of a newer term: “5PL.” At face value, these example 5PL capabilities may appear to be similar to those that may be ascribed to many 4PLs. So, a logical next question is: What exactly is a 5PL, and how does it differ from a 3PL and a 4PL? More generally, where in the lexicon of LSPs does the 5PL exist, and how is it unique and different from other types of LSPs? Or, is it perhaps too soon to expect a more succinct and widely agreed upon definition of a 5PL?
The future evolution of LSPs also will be impacted by the current trend toward thinking of supply chains as “ecosystems” instead of linear systems or processes. (See Figure 1.) Essentially, supply chains are evolving into complex international networks that include interlinked companies that interact and collaborate with each other to ultimately create value for their end-user customers or consumers. In addition to including traditional supply chain participants such as suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors, these ecosystems are characterized by the alignment and convergence of digital and physical flows via the internet of things, sensing devices, blockchain, and overall digitization of the supply chain. As this new and innovative context for supply chain continues to gain acceptance, there will be significant opportunities for LSPs to respond and participate accordingly.
Logistics service providers and their clients are facing some very significant changes in their supply chain environments. Just a few of those include:
• “Blurring” of definitions. Over time, the distinctions between terms such as less-than-truckload (LTL), truckload (TL), and parcel have blurred or, in some instances, disappeared. In the past, these terms were suitable descriptors of specific types of “pure-play” service providers, but today most organizations have materially broadened the scope of their service offerings.
• Asset- vs. nonasset-based services. Historically, the predominant model for LSPs was the “asset-based” model where the provider served its customers through use of its own assets and services. In recent decades, however, there has been significant growth and development of “nonasset-based” LSPs that rely on relationships with capable asset-based providers to serve their customers. Even though there are a growing number of products that have become digitized or otherwise electronically transformed (such as books, music, software, and 3D-printed parts and products), most supply chains still depend on capable asset-based services to manage the logistical flows of physical products.
• Greatly enhanced supply chain technologies. Supply chain practices have been greatly impacted by newer technologies such as cloud-based solutions, software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms, advanced analytics, and 5G broadband networks. Findings from annual 3PL studies conducted by Penn State, Infosys, and Penske confirm that shippers overwhelmingly agree that information technologies are necessary elements of 3PL expertise.
• The “Amazon effect.” While there are many ways to define this term, it is clear that the presence of Amazon and the overall growth of the omnichannel phenomenon have had disruptive impacts on more traditional supply chains. In turn, this has created a need for individual LSPs to reconsider their operating strategies and to make appropriate changes.
• COVID-19. Regrettably, any discussion of the future of supply chains and the roles of 3PLs and 4PLs must consider the impacts of COVID-19. As the effects of this pandemic have become significantly intertwined with global economic and political issues, it is certain that there will be long-lasting and likely fundamental changes ahead for supply chains.
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.”