In this excerpt from Episode 1, supply chain pioneers Joseph Andraski, George Gecowets, Roger Kallock, and Mark Richards discuss how the discipline evolved from physical distribution into supply chain management.
How did the discipline of supply chain management come to be? Four individuals instrumental in shaping the profession—Joseph Andraski, George Gecowets, Roger Kallock, and Mark Richards—came together for a panel discussion on how supply chain management has evolved over the years. Their experience in the field and their decades-long involvement with CSCMP provide them with a valuable perspective on the way companies have viewed what we now know as supply chain management.
Active in CSCMP since 1976,Joseph Andraski is president of the consulting firm Collaborative Energizer. He has been the president and CEO of the Voluntary Interindustry Commerce Solutions (VICS), and prior to that held executive positions in logistics and supply chain at Nabisco. He received CSCMP's Distinguished Service Award in 1995.
George Gecowets joined CSCMP in 1964, one year after its formation. He later became the organization's first full-time executive director. At the time of his retirement in 2001, Gecowets, the 1988 recipient of CSCMP's Distinguished Service Award, held the position of executive vice president and chief operating officer.
Roger Kallock served as U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for logistics and material readiness from 1998 to 2001. Currently chairman of Chagrin Consulting, he has worked in both consulting and in industry. A member of CSCMP since 1968, he received the organization's Distinguished Service Award in 1990.
Mark Richards, currently vice president of Associated Warehouses Inc., has been very involved in CSCMP since he began his career in the field some 34 years ago. His first job was with the public warehouse company Distribution Centers Inc. He later went on to work for such companies as Nabisco, Gillette, and Oral-B.
The interview was conducted by CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly Group Editorial Director Mitch Mac Donald.
A brief history of CSCMP
The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) was originally founded as the National Council of Physical Distribution Management (NCPDM) in January 1963. The NCPDM was formed by a visionary group of educators, consultants, and managers who envisioned the integration of transportation, warehousing, and inventory as the future of the discipline.
In 1985, NCPDM's name was changed to the Council of Logistics Management (CLM) to reflect the evolution of physical distribution into logistics management. Over the coming years, CLM greatly expanded its international membership to become a true global organization.
Twenty years later, in 2005, the organization was renamed the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). This change acknowledged the evolving needs of the council's members, whose responsibilities had expanded within their companies and the profession to encompass not only logistics, but also procurement, manufacturing operations, and sales and marketing functions.
CSCMP remains dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of research and knowledge of supply chain management. It currently serves over 8,500 members representing industry, government, and academia from 67 countries.
What were some of the events that led to the formation of the association in 1963? Andraski: In the late '60s and early '70s we had a transportation discipline, a warehousing discipline, and inventory management. Thought leaders said warehousing and transportation should really come together. We called that physical distribution. Over time we began to have control of the product and the ability to work with customers. It wasn't as though somebody came up with a great idea that we need to have this holistic organization.
Gecowets: We really didn't have a profession back then. As I look back on what happened in each decade, we really created a profession as well as built a profession. Most of the people in [CSCMP's] founding group had a marketing background, and as marketing people they happened to be the person who was responsible for the movement and storage. They didn't know what to call it. Even traffic and transportation, which wound up being the big dollar area in logistics, was not well organized back then.
When you look back, it looks like all this was well planned and everything fell into place. It didn't. There was an awful lot of confusion. We didn't know what we didn't know. We didn't know what made a professional association. Fortunately, the executive committees that I have worked with in all the years right from the very beginning were highly professional.
Kallock: My first annual [CSCMP] conference was in 1968 in Chicago. Having come from Procter & Gamble and having joined A.T. Kearney in Chicago, I had no idea how the experiences that I had at P&G would fit into a broader consulting environment, but the people I met at the meeting allowed me to quickly develop a network of people I could trust and work with.
Richards: In many regards you could say I am a product of this organization, because my father was actively involved, and while I was still in school I went to an association meeting. Even when I went to that event, I had no plans to get into this profession. But it was that couple of days' experience that I had tagging along with my dad as a college student that made me decide to get into it.
Did the events of the '80s, such as the deregulation of transportation, change the dynamic of the profession? Richards: It sure did. I was very new to the profession at the time and was working for a third party. My focus was more within the four walls, but what you started to see were people—manufacturers, for example—that were getting very creative with how they dealt with transportation, through things like consolidation. That is really when it started. People were collaborating. We were saying, let's share resources and as a result we would all benefit, including the customer. Again, being new to the profession, I thought this was exciting.
What were some of the visions and aspirations of the early founders? Gecowets: We wanted early on to get to know each other. Then later on we wanted others in the corporation to get to know us. ... Incidentally, the founders were primarily interested in transportation, and I don't think we even met a warehouseman until we were in it about two years. Then, strangely, the warehousemen came in and provided the strong leadership of the organization very early on. Then we added the other functions. I think from the '70s to the '80s we started bringing in our peers from the marketing department. ... So we started in the '80s to work with our counterparts throughout the corporation.
When did we first start seeing job titles with the word "logistics" in them becoming more common? Gecowets: I think we caused that. When we changed the name [from the National Council of Physical Distribution Management to the Council of Logistics Management in 1985] and moved from distribution to logistics, the demand for coalescence was there.
Kallock: The word "logistics" first started to appear on motor carriers' trailers. The company's name was "So and So Logistics Company." It was a military term at that point.
Gecowets: At first, "distribution" was more appropriate for what we were really doing, and logistics seemed kind of like a foreign word. I knew what it meant but I didn't know whether we could get others to know what it meant. It caught on so much faster than I thought.
Kallock: The hallmark of the organization was deeper than worrying about what it was called or what the title was. It had progressed through the '80s to become an amalgamation of individuals who respected each other and who were creative enough to try new technologies that were rapidly becoming available, and to put that in the context of what they as practitioners saw to be the challenges, not of today but of tomorrow.
For example, take distribution planning. Models were static. They assumed everything happened at a point in time versus the dynamic processing of orders and the real-time interaction between consumers or customers and the supplier. [Because it gave us] that opportunity to coalesce around what the needs of tomorrow were going to be in supply chain management, respect for then-CLM [Council of Logistics Management] as being a safe haven for sharing ideas across the supply chain and across industry grew pretty rapidly.
Andraski: We also have to recognize that senior management began to invite the logistics people, the supply chain people to talk with customers. It was important to have that representation so that when the customer was talking about service requirements and service failures, you had someone there who had the [relevant] knowledge and the understanding.
Richards: That has been one of the keys to the [success of the] organization. This organization helped to elevate the profession through research and through education, so that the C-level did say, "Wow, we need to have these folks involved." So again, it is the organization not being a lobby but being an influencer. There is a big difference.
Kallock: Going back to my experience at Procter & Gamble, we were moving from an organization that was focused on getting shipments out the door, to an organization that was dedicated to the education of people who thought the customer's point of view relative to how well the company was performing was very important. We moved from the supply side to the demand side, and then we put energy around carrying that message from the customer's perspective, from the consumer or the customer supplying the consumer back through the supply chain. And that is that way I look at it today.
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.”