Apparently it does. Companies that match their supply chains to the demand aspects of their products enjoy a higher market capitalization than those without a good supply chain fit.
Whether it's on Wall Street or Fleet Street, investors take notice of companies that have effective supply chains. Manufacturers with well-run supply chains command a higher valuation because they have mastered the match between demand and supply for their product. Companies that have not achieved this alignment, on the other hand, experience delivery delays, quality issues, and excessively high inbound logistics costs, all of which have a negative effect on their financial performance. In short, successful supply chain management equates to the ability to create shareholder value.
One of the key factors for achieving effective supply chain management (and therefore financial success) is having the right "fit" between the demand aspects of a product and the design of its underlying supply chain. For example, innovative products with unpredictable demand are best served by a responsive supply chain that is able to meet quick turnaround times and make the most of short product lifecycles. Functional products with predictable levels of demand, by contrast, are best served by an efficient supply chain that focuses on minimizing costs.
And yet, many companies still fail to adjust their supply chain strategies to match the underlying product.1 Granted, it's not easy. Most companies deliver a number of products in parallel, which complicates the alignment of supply chains with product portfolios. Additionally, companies must continually reformulate their supply chain fit as they adopt new product lines, enter new markets, build new warehouses and production plants, and lose the protection of traditional industry barriers.
It makes sense, then, that achieving supply chain fit would have a positive impact on a company's financial position. To test this hypothesis and determine to what degree supply chain fit affects financial success, we surveyed the largest manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe. Our financial analysis of 259 U.S. and European manufacturers shows that those companies demonstrating a good supply chain fit have a market capitalization (or the total market value of all of a company's outstanding shares) that is approximately 19 percent higher than that of counterparts that do not have a good supply chain fit. This article explores that critical link between supply chain fit and corporate performance in terms of market capitalization. Specifically, we demonstrate how companies that have achieved a supply chain fit outperform Standard & Poor's S&P 500 index, an index of stock performance of 500 leading U.S. companies in a number of industries.
Do you have a good fit?
Our concept of supply chain fit is based on a framework developed by Marshall Fisher in his seminal 1997 Harvard Business Review article, "What is the right supply chain for your product?" and further developed by Sunil Chopra and Peter Meindl in their book Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation.
Top companies achieve supply chain fit by understanding the demand aspects of their products, building a supply chain with the capabilities needed to satisfy its targeted customer segments, and aligning the supply chain strategy to the overall competitive strategy of the company. To achieve supply chain fit, then, supply chain managers must take the following steps:
1. Understand the product's demand and supply uncertainty levels. To devise the right supply chain strategy for a product, you must first understand where it lies on the "uncertainty spectrum"—in other words, how unpredictable demand and supply for that product is. Is it a functional product with a predictable level of demand, an innovative product with unpredictable demand, or something in between?
It is important to understand customers' needs for each targeted segment and the uncertainty that the supply chain faces in satisfying those needs. Next, combine demand and supply uncertainty for the underlying product and map the results on the implied uncertainty spectrum. This helps to identify the level of demand unpredictability, disruption, and delay that the supply chain must be prepared to handle. (The implied uncertainty spectrum is shown along the x-axis in Figure 1.)
2. Assess your supply chain capabilities. Assess what type of supply chain you have: Is it a responsive supply chain or an efficient supply chain? A highly responsive supply chain is able to create innovative products, handle large varieties of products, fill a wide range of product quantities, and meet requests for very tight lead times and high service levels.
Unfortunately, responsiveness is not free. For every strategic choice to increase responsiveness, additional costs are incurred and efficiency declines. A more efficient supply chain, on the other hand, would focus on ways to cut costs in the supply chain at the expense of some responsiveness. (The responsiveness spectrum is shown along the y-axis in Figure 1.)
3. Match the level of responsiveness to the level of uncertainty. Next, you need to ensure that the degree of supply chain responsiveness is consistent with the implied uncertainty level. The goal is high responsiveness for a supply chain facing high implied uncertainty and efficiency for a supply chain facing low implied uncertainty,2 as shown in Figure 1.
By achieving supply chain fit, a company ensures that its supply chain strategy is sufficiently linked to its overall competitive strategy and that its supply chain capabilities help it satisfy the company's target customers. Any misalignment between strategic vision (or the strategy for a product) and execution (or the strategy for the product's supply chain) presents a significant improvement opportunity for a company.
To succeed, however, companies will need to develop a new set of strategic managerial competencies. Managers must be able to view the company holistically with a thorough understanding of the linkages among functions. This will not be easy; in many companies, different departments devise different competitive and functional strategies. Without proper information sharing between departments and coordination by executives, companies are not likely to achieve supply chain fit.
Calculating supply chain fit
To find out whether achieving supply chain fit affected a company's financial position, we contacted 1,834 supply chain, logistics, and purchasing executives at the 1,000 largest manufacturing companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. We received 259 responses. The respondents have a very good knowledge of their companies' main product lines, supply chain structure, and supplier base. On average, they have worked in the fields of procurement, logistics, supply chain, production, or related fields for 13.2 years. They have held their current positions for 3.9 years and have worked for their current employers for 9.9 years. Figure 2 summarizes the respondents' characteristics. (For a more detailed breakdown of respondents by title, function, company size, and industry sector, see Figure 3.)
We asked respondents a series of questions that helped them assign their companies a score for product innovativeness (demand uncertainty) and a score for supply chain responsiveness. Product innovativeness was measured in terms of product lifecycle; number of available variants; average forecast error; number of sales locations; and frequency of order changes in terms of content, size, delivery time, or other patterns. As outlined in Figure 4, supply chain responsiveness was measured in terms of delivery reliability, buffer inventory of parts or finished goods, buffer capacity in manufacturing, quick response to unpredictable demand, and frequency of new product introductions.3
Companies achieve a high degree of fit when the degree of supply chain responsiveness matches the degree of product innovativeness. Supply chain fit can therefore be calculated by measuring the difference between those two factors. Accordingly, we computed a supply chain fit (SCF) index for each company as follows:
SCF = |PI - SCR|
where PI is the standardized score for product innovativeness (the degree of demand uncertainty for the product) and SCR is the standardized score for supply chain responsiveness. The ideal supply chain fit score would be 0, indicating that the supply chain responsiveness exactly fit the level of product innovativeness (demand uncertainty). Any deviation from zero indicates the degree of misfit.4 (For a simplified example of the computation for two similar companies, see the above sidebar "A sample fit assessment.")
Impact of supply chain fit
To differentiate between companies with and without a supply chain fit, the data sample was split into two groups: "supply chain fit companies," whose supply chains meet their products' requirements, and "supply chain misfit companies," whose supply chains do not meet their products' requirements. Supply chain fit companies comprised all cases with +/- one standard deviation (0.61) around the arithmetic mean (N = 163). Supply chain misfit companies constituted the remaining cases (N = 96). Figure 5 includes a list of the 10 companies from our survey with the best supply chain fit.
In order to investigate the financial impact of supply chain fit, we analyzed whether the 163 companies with a supply chain fit outperformed the S&P 500 Index. We developed a market-capitalization index consisting of daily share prices of supply chain fit companies, and then measured it against the S&P 500 Index between Quarter 1 of 2005 and Quarter 4 of 2008. Our results indicate that market capitalization of supply chain fit companies outperforms the S&P 500 Index on average by 18.9 percent—and by as much as 44.5 percent (see Figure 6).
This finding fits very well with previous research,5 which indicated that companies that adapt their supply chains to the demand aspects of their products achieve superior profitability—up to 100-percent higher profits in terms of sales growth, earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) margins, return on assets (ROA), and return on capital employed (ROCE).
A call to action
This research shows that the impact of supply chain management on a company's financial success is much greater than classic logistics key performance indicators (KPIs) may suggest. A well-run supply chain helps companies to not only reduce costs but also to improve profitability. Indeed, the concept of supply chain fit can be used to identify key supply chain metrics that tie directly to the three key components of economic value added (EVA)—revenue, costs, and assets. As a consequence, the concept of supply chain fit can also be used to show how supply chain initiatives can help improve a company's market capitalization.
Despite the clear benefits of achieving supply chain fit, 37 percent of companies have not yet achieved that goal. Many companies, therefore, have a significant opportunity to boost their financial performance by improving their supply chain fit.
There are several important steps companies can take to move in that direction. First, supply chain management should be represented in the highest echelons of management. This will help to ensure that corporate management understands how supply chain performance impacts market capitalization. Second, everyone who is responsible for managing supply chain activities must be aware of the company's financial performance metrics, so that decisions made at the operational level are tied to expected outcomes. Third, executives have to understand how supply chain fit is achieved, maintained, and continuously adapted. And finally, a process must be established to educate those in operational roles on the impact of their daily actions on the company's overall performance.
It's important to bear in mind, however, that supply chain fit is a dynamic concept. Because customer preferences—and thus the demand aspects of products—are always in flux, any supply chain fit can only be temporary. Therefore, a manufacturing company must always be adapting and aligning its competitive strategy (and resulting implied uncertainty) and supply chain strategy (and resulting responsiveness) as closely as possible.
Endnotes: 1. See, for example, D. Li and C. O'Brien, "A quantitative analysis of relationships between product types and supply chain strategies," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 73, no. 1 (2001): pp. 29-39; G.N. Stock, N.P. Greis, and J.D. Kasarda, "Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure: The role of fit," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 18, no. 5 (2000): pp. 531-547; and D.H. Doty, W.H. Glick, and G.P. Huber, "Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 6 (1993): pp. 1196-1250. 2. S. Chopra and P. Meindl, Supply Chain Management—Strategy, Planning, and Operation, 4th edition, (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2010). 3. The criteria that we used to assess innovativeness and supply chain responsiveness are suggested by Marshall Fisher in his Harvard Business Review article, "What is the right supply chain for your product?" Vol. 75, no. 2 (1997): pp. 105-116. 4. Similar "fit" procedures have been applied in the literature. For example, see C. Gresov, "Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3 (1989): pp. 431-453; N. Venkatraman and J.E. Prescott, "Environment-strategy coalignment: An empirical test of its performance implications," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 1 (1990): pp. 1-23; J.A. Siguaw, G. Brown, and R.E. Widing II, "The influence of market orientation of the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes," Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 31, no. 1 (1994): pp. 106-116; and D. Miller, "Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment," Management Science, vol. 37, no. 1 (1991): pp. 34-52. 5. P.T. Grosse-Ruyken, S.M. Wagner, and F. Erhun, "The bottom line impact of supply chain management: The impact of a fit in the supply chain on a firm's financial success," working paper, Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 2009.
A sample fit assessment
To demonstrate how we assess supply chain fit, let's look at a simplified example involving two electronics manufacturers. Both manufacture a DVD player, which is a standardized product. However, manufacturer A achieves a supply chain fit, and manufacturer B does not. Why? After gathering empirical data from both electronics manufacturers about their supply chain responsiveness and product innovativeness, we assessed those factors on five-point scales (see chart).
In this example, electronics manufacturer A has a deviation from the ideal profile (0, or perfect alignment of product and supply chain) of only 0.2. This represents a supply chain fit degree of 95 percent [(100% - (0.2/(5 - 1))]. In other words, electronics manufacturer A has achieved a supply chain fit.
It is evident that the product and supply chain of electronics manufacturer B are not adapted to each other, nor are they sufficiently aligned. For its DVD player, manufacturer B has a low level of product innovativeness but a high level of supply chain responsiveness. Thus, manufacturer B achieves a fit degree of only 45 percent [(100% - (2.2/(5 - 1))] and fails to achieve a supply chain fit.
Census data showed that overall retail sales in October were up 0.4% seasonally adjusted month over month and up 2.8% unadjusted year over year. That compared with increases of 0.8% month over month and 2% year over year in September.
October’s core retail sales as defined by NRF — based on the Census data but excluding automobile dealers, gasoline stations and restaurants — were unchanged seasonally adjusted month over month but up 5.4% unadjusted year over year.
Core sales were up 3.5% year over year for the first 10 months of the year, in line with NRF’s forecast for 2024 retail sales to grow between 2.5% and 3.5% over 2023. NRF is forecasting that 2024 holiday sales during November and December will also increase between 2.5% and 3.5% over the same time last year.
“October’s pickup in retail sales shows a healthy pace of spending as many consumers got an early start on holiday shopping,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a release. “October sales were a good early step forward into the holiday shopping season, which is now fully underway. Falling energy prices have likely provided extra dollars for household spending on retail merchandise.”
Despite that positive trend, market watchers cautioned that retailers still need to offer competitive value propositions and customer experience in order to succeed in the holiday season. “The American consumer has been more resilient than anyone could have expected. But that isn’t a free pass for retailers to under invest in their stores,” Nikki Baird, VP of strategy & product at Aptos, a solutions provider of unified retail technology based out of Alpharetta, Georgia, said in a statement. “They need to make investments in labor, customer experience tech, and digital transformation. It has been too easy to kick the can down the road until you suddenly realize there’s no road left.”
A similar message came from Chip West, a retail and consumer behavior expert at the marketing, packaging, print and supply chain solutions provider RRD. “October’s increase proved to be slightly better than projections and was likely boosted by lower fuel prices. As inflation slowed for a number of months, prices in several categories have stabilized, with some even showing declines, offering further relief to consumers,” West said. “The data also looks to be a positive sign as we kick off the holiday shopping season. Promotions and discounts will play a prominent role in holiday shopping behavior as they are key influencers in consumer’s purchasing decisions.”
Even as the e-commerce sector overall continues expanding toward a forecasted 41% of all retail sales by 2027, many small to medium e-commerce companies are struggling to find the investment funding they need to increase sales, according to a sector survey from online capital platform Stenn.
Global geopolitical instability and increasing inflation are causing e-commerce firms to face a liquidity crisis, which means companies may not be able to access the funds they need to grow, Stenn’s survey of 500 senior e-commerce leaders found. The research was conducted by Opinion Matters between August 29 and September 5.
Survey findings include:
61.8% of leaders who sought growth capital did so to invest in advanced technologies, such as AI and machine learning, to improve their businesses.
When asked which resources they wished they had more access to, 63.8% of respondents pointed to growth capital.
Women indicated a stronger need for business operations training (51.2%) and financial planning resources (48.8%) compared to men (30.8% and 15.4%).
40% of business owners are seeking external financial advice and mentorship at least once a week to help with business decisions.
Almost half (49.6%) of respondents are proactively forecasting their business activity 6-18 months ahead.
“As e-commerce continues to grow rapidly, driven by increasing online consumer demand and technological innovation, it’s important to remember that capital constraints and access to growth financing remain persistent hurdles for many e-commerce business leaders especially at small and medium-sized businesses,” Noel Hillman, Chief Commercial Officer at Stenn, said in a release. “In this competitive landscape, ensuring liquidity and optimizing supply chain processes are critical to sustaining growth and scaling operations.”
With six keynote and more than 100 educational sessions, CSCMP EDGE 2024 offered a wealth of content. Here are highlights from just some of the presentations.
A great American story
Author and entrepreneur Fawn Weaver closed out the first day of the conference by telling the little-known story of Nathan “Nearest” Green, who was born into slavery, freed after the Civil War, and went on to become the first master distiller for the Jack Daniel’s Whiskey brand. Through extensive research and interviews with descendants of the Daniel and Green families, Weaver discovered what she describes as a positive American story.
She told the story in her best-selling book, Love & Whiskey: The Remarkable True Story of Jack Daniel, His Master Distiller Nearest Green, and the Improbable Rise of Uncle Nearest. That story also inspired her to create Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey.
Weaver discussed the barriers she encountered in bringing the brand to life, her vision for where it’s headed, and her take on the supply chain—which she views as both a necessary cost of doing business and an opportunity.
“[It’s] an opportunity if you can move quickly,” she said, pointing to a recent project in which the company was able to fast-track a new Uncle Nearest product thanks to close collaboration with its supply chain partners.
A two-pronged business transformation
We may be living in a world full of technology, but strategy and focus remain the top priorities when it comes to managing a business and its supply chains. So says Roberto Isaias, executive vice president and chief supply chain officer for toy manufacturing and entertainment company Mattel.
Isaias emphasized the point during his keynote on day two of EDGE 2024. He described how Mattel transformed itself amid surging demand for Barbie-branded items following the success of the Barbie movie.
That transformation, according to Isaias, came on two fronts: commercially and logistically. Today, Mattel is steadily moving beyond the toy aisle with two films and 13 TV series in production as well as 14 films and 35 shows in development. And as for those supply chain gains? The company has saved millions, increased productivity, and improved profit margins—even amid cost increases and inflation.
A framework for chasing excellence
Most of the time when CEOs present at an industry conference, they like to talk about their companies’ success stories. Not J.B. Hunt’s Shelley Simpson. Speaking at EDGE, the trucking company’s president and CEO led with a story about a time that the company lost a major customer.
According to Simpson, the company had a customer of their dedicated contract business in 2001 that was consistently making late shipments with no lead time. “We were working like crazy to try to satisfy them, and lost their business,” Simpson said.
When the team at J.B. Hunt later met with the customer’s chief supply chain officer and related all they had been doing, the customer responded, “You never shared everything you were doing for us.”
Out of that experience, came J.B. Hunt’s Customer Value Delivery framework. The framework consists of five steps: 1) understand customer needs, 2) deliver expectations, 3) measure results, 4) communicate performance, and 5) anticipate new value.
Next year’s CSCMP EDGE conference on October 5–8 in National Harbor, Md., promises to have a similarly deep lineup of keynote presentations. Register early at www.cscmpedge.org.
2024 was expected to be a bounce-back year for the logistics industry. We had the pandemic in the rearview mirror, and the economy was proving to be more resilient than expected, defying those prognosticators who believed a recession was imminent.
While most of the economy managed to stabilize in 2024, the logistics industry continued to see disruption and changes in international trade. World events conspired to drive much of the narrative surrounding the flow of goods worldwide. Additionally, a diminished reliance on China as a source for goods reduced some of the international trade flow from that manufacturing hub. Some of this trade diverted to other Asian nations, while nearshoring efforts brought some production back to North America, particularly Mexico.
Meanwhile trucking in the United States continued its 2-year recession, highlighted by weaker demand and excess capacity. Both contributed to a slow year, especially for truckload carriers that comprise about 90% of over-the-road shipments.
Labor issues were also front and center in 2024, as ports and rail companies dealt with threats of strikes, which resulted in new contracts and increased costs. Labor—and often a lack of it—continues to be an ongoing concern in the logistics industry.
In this annual issue, we bring a year-end perspective to these topics and more. Our issue is designed to complement CSCMP’s 35th Annual State of Logistics Report, which was released in June, and includes updates that were presented at the CSCMP EDGE conference held in October. In addition to this overview of the market, we have engaged top industry experts to dig into the status of key logistics sectors.
Hopefully as we move into 2025, logistics markets will build on an improving economy and strong consumer demand, while stabilizing those parts of the industry that could use some adrenaline, such as trucking. By this time next year, we hope to see a full recovery as the market fulfills its promise to deliver the needs of our very connected world.
If you feel like your supply chain has been continuously buffeted by external forces over the last few years and that you are constantly having to adjust your operations to tact through the winds of change, you are not alone.
The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals’ (CSCMP’s) “35th Annual State of Logistics Report” and the subsequent follow-up presentation at the CSCMP EDGE Annual Conference depict a logistics industry facing intense external stresses, such as geopolitical conflict, severe weather events and climate change, labor action, and inflation. The past 18 months have seen all these factors have an impact on demand for transportation and logistics services as well as capacity, freight rates, and overall costs.
The “State of Logistics Report” is an annual study compiled and authored by a team of analysts from Kearney for CSCMP and supported and sponsored by logistics service provider Penske Logistics. The purpose of the report is to provide a snapshot of the logistics industry by assessing macroeconomic conditions and providing a detailed look at its major subsectors.
One of the key metrics the report has tracked every year since its inception in 1988 is U.S. business logistics costs (USBLC). This year’s report found that U.S. business logistics costs went down in 2023 for the first time since the start of the pandemic. As Figure 1 shows, U.S. business logistics costs for 2023 dropped 11.2% year-over-year to $2.4 trillion, or 8.7% of last year’s $27.4 trillion gross domestic product (GDP).
“This was not unexpected,” said Josh Brogan, Kearney partner and lead author of the report, during a press conference in June announcing the results. “After the initial impacts of COVID were felt in 2020, we saw a steady rise of logistics costs, even in terms of total GDP. What we are seeing now is a reversion more toward the mean.”
This breakdown of U.S. Business Logistics Costs for 2023 shows an across-the-board decline in all transportation costs.
CSCMP's 35th Annual "State of Logistics Report"
As a result, Figure 1 shows an across-the-board decline in transportation costs (except for some administrative costs) for the 2023 calendar year. “What such a chart cannot fully capture about this period is the intensification of certain external stressors on the global economy and its logistical networks,” says the report. “These include a growing geopolitical instability that further complicates investment and policy decisions for business leaders and government officials.”Both the report and the follow-up session at the CSCMP EDGE Conference in October provided a vivid picture of the global instability that logistics providers and shippers are facing. These conditions include (but are not limited to):
An intensification of military conflict, with the Red Sea Crisis being particularly top of mind for companies shipping from Asia to Europe or to the eastern part of North America;
Continued fragmentation of global trade, as evidenced by the deepening rift between China and the United States;
Climate change and severe weather events, such as the drought in Panama, which lowered water levels in the Panama Canal, and the two massive hurricanes that ripped through the Southeastern United States;
Labor disputes, such as the three-day port strike which stopped operations at ports along the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States in October; and
Persistent inflation (despite some recent improvement in the United States) and muted global economic growth.
At the same time that the logistics market was dealing with these external factors, it was also facing sluggish freight demand and an ongoing excess of capacity. These twin dynamics have contributed to continued low cargo rates through 2024.
“For 2024, I foresee a generally flat USBLC as a percentage of GDP,” says Brogan. “We did see increases in air and ocean costs in preparation for the East Coast port strike but overall, road freight is down. I think this will balance out with the relatively low level of inflation seen in the general economy.”
Breakdown by mode
The following is a quick review of how the forces outlined above are affecting the primary logistics sectors, as described by the “State of Logistics Report” and the updated presentation given at the CSCMP EDGE Conference in early October.
Trucking: A downturn in consumer demand plus a lingering surplus in capacity led to a plunge in rates in 2023 compared to 2022. Throughout 2024, however, rates have remained relatively stable. Speaking in October, report author Brogan said he expects that trend to continue for the near future. On the capacity side, despite thousands of companies having departed the market since 2022, the number of departures has not been as high as would normally be expected during a down market. Brogan accounts this to investors expecting to see some turbulence in the marketplace and being willing to stick around longer than has traditionally been the case.
Parcel and last mile: Parcel volumes in 2023 were down by 0.5% compared to 2022. Simultaneously, there has been a move away from UPS and FedEx, both of which saw their year-over-year parcel volumes decline in 2023. Nontraditional competitors have taken larger portions of the parcel volume, including Amazon, which passed UPS for the largest parcel carrier in the U.S. in 2023. Additionally, there has been an increasing use of regional providers, as large shippers continue to shift away from “single sourcing” their carrier base. Parcel volumes have increased in 2024, mostly driven by e-commerce. Brogan expects regional providers to claim “the lion’s share” of this volume.
Rail: In 2023, Class I railroads experienced a challenging financial environment, characterized by a 4% increase in operating ratios, a 2% decline in revenue, and an 11% decrease in operating income compared to 2022. These financial troubles were primarily driven by intermodal volume decreases, service challenges, inflationary pressures, escalated fuel and labor expenses, and a surge in employee headcount. The outlook for 2024 is slightly more promising, according to Kearney. Intermodal, often regarded a primary growth driver, has seen increased volumes and market share. Class I railroads are also seeing some positive operational developments with train speeds increasing by 2.3% and terminal dwell times decreasing by 1.8%. Finally, opportunities are opening up for an expansion in cross-border rail traffic within North America.
Air: The air freight market saw a steep decline in costs year over year from 2022 to 2023. Rates in 2024 began flat before starting to pick up in the summer, and report authors expect to see demand increase by 4.5%. Part of the demand pickup is due to disruptions in key sea lanes, such as the Suez Canal, causing shippers to convert from ocean to air. Meanwhile, the capacity picture has been mixed with some lanes having a lot of capacity while others have none. Much of this dynamic is due to Chinese e-commerce retailers Temu and Shein, which depend heavily on airfreight to execute their business models. In order to serve this booming business, some airfreight providers have pulled capacity out of more niche markets, such as flights into Latin America or Africa, and are now using those planes to serve the Asia-to-U.S. or Asia-to-Europe lanes.
Water/ports: The recent “State of Logistics Report” indicated that waterborne freight experienced a very steep decline of 64.2% in expenditures in 2023 relative to 2022. This was mostly due to muted demand, overcapacity, and a normalization from the inflated ocean rates seen during the pandemic years. After the trough of 2023, the market has been seeing significant “micro-spikes” in rates on some lanes due to constraints caused by geopolitical issues, such as the Red Sea conflict and the U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports strike. Kearney foresees a continuation of these rate hikes for the next few months. However, over the long term, the market will have to deal with the overcapacity that was built up during the height of the pandemic, which will cause rates to soften. Ultimately, however, Brogan said he did not expect to see a return to 2023 rate levels.
Third-party logistics (3PLs): The third-party logistics (3PL) sector is facing some significant challenges in 2024. Low freight rates and excess capacity could force some 3PLs to consolidate, especially if they are smaller players and rely on venture capital funding. Meanwhile, Kearney reports that there is some redefining of traditional roles going on within the 3PL-shipper ecosystem. For example, some historically asset-light 3PLs are expanding into asset-heavy services, and some shippers are trying to monetize their own logistics capabilities by marketing them externally.
Freight forwarding: Major forwarders had a shaky final quarter of 2023, seeing a decline in financial performance. To regain form, Kearney asserts that forwarders will need to increase their focus on technology, value-added services, and tiered servicing. Overall, the forwarding sector is expected to grow at slow rate in coming years, with a projected annual growth rate of 5.5% for the period of 2023–2032.
Warehousing: According to Brogan an interesting phenomenon is occurring in the warehousing market with the average asking rents continuing to rise even though vacancy rates have also increased. There are several reasons for this mixed message, according to the “State of Logistics” report, including: longer contract durations, enhanced facility features, and steady demand growth. A record-breaking level of new construction and new facilities, however, have helped to stabilize rent prices and increase vacancy rates, according to the report authors.
Path forward
What is the way forward given these uncertain times? For many shippers and carriers, a fresh look at their networks and overall supply chains may be in order. Many companies are currently reassessing their distribution networks and operations to make sure that they are optimized. In these cost-sensitive times, that may involve consolidating facilities, eliminating redundant capacity, or rebalancing inventory.
It’s important to realize, however, that network optimization should not just focus on eliminating unnecessary costs. It should also ensure that the network has the right amount of capacity to response with agility and flexibility to any future disruptions. Companies must look at their supply chain networks as a whole and think about how they can be utilized to unlock strategic advantage.