Trending Now

Chinese E-Retailers Drive Surge in Air Cargo Prices to the U.S

New Articles

Five Important Ways to Negotiate Better Shipping Terms

Shipping 3pl
Archives, Global Shippers 101, Global Trade Daily

Five Important Ways to Negotiate Better Shipping Terms

Leave a comment

The final price of your product or service depends on a wide range of factors. Shrewd people in business know there is more to making profits than keeping your buying price low and selling price high. Additional business expenses can reduce your final margin. These include shipping, marketing, storage, and a range of legal expenses.

Negotiating a low price from your manufacturers is just the beginning. Supply chain negotiation training seminars can teach you several ways to gain value before your products reach your customers.

The shipping industry can offer you notable savings opportunities. To identify these, you have to have a keen eye. In this article, we look at five ways you can apply negotiation training skills to obtain better shipping rates.

Understand the Shipping Terms

Global trade has thrived on the back of shipping and logistics companies for hundreds of years. As a result, the shipping industry has developed a unique culture and language. Whether you are dealing with local or multinational shipping companies, there is a range of terms that you should know.

Terms such as CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) and FOB (Free on Board) are used freely in the shipping industry. If you are new to the business, you can learn shipping terms by attending a seminar on the essentials. If you don’t understand the industry’s regular terms, you risk making a deal that can be negative for your business. 

Negotiation training seminars can teach you how to prepare before sitting down to make a deal. You can improve your position by researching the industry before meeting companies. Also, you can carry out mock discussions with shipping company agents. This can give you a feel of the language and questions that may come up during a real negotiation.

Research Possible Hidden Costs

One of the things that can diminish your profits is hidden logistics costs. The final price for your products should factor in all the costs you expect to incur before delivery. Talking to the different authorities that can come into contact with your products in transit can clarify your overall costs. Knowing the factors affecting your shipping rates can help you negotiate to reduce hidden costs.

By working closely with your shipping company, you can identify smart ways to cut down your costs. Many companies have different shipping rates based on weight as well as box dimensions. If you use the standard boxes the shipping company provides, you can save a few dollars on each load.

Develop Your Negotiation Strategy

Once you have understood the market and options available, negotiation training can help you plan your strategy. Writing down your strategy and goals can give you an overview of the entire process. The points listed below are some of the elements taught in negotiations seminars that can help to strengthen your strategy.

Budget

Based on your business model, you should have a price you are not willing to go above. Your strategy should include the ideal and maximum price you are willing to offer for the shipping service.

BATNA

A BATNA is your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It refers to a set of alternative options you can take if you cannot reach a viable deal in your negotiations. A well-planned BATNA can help you to recognize a bad deal and give you the confidence to walk away.

Timelines

Time constraints can have a significant impact on your negotiations strategy. The earlier you start discussions with shipping companies, the less pressure you will have to close a deal. Beginning your negotiations early can give you more time to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

The Urgency of Delivery

Your strategy should state how fast you need the products to be delivered once ordered. Same day deliveries often cost more than two or three days of delivery. The delivery time constraints depend on the nature of your products and promises made to your customers.

Payment Terms

Although one-off payment offers come with attractive discounts, they can also be quite risky. Making payments in installments is safer and keeps the shipping company committed until the final payment. Offer well-balanced payment terms that enable your shipping company to deliver your products on time while limiting your financial risk.

Concessions

Well-trained negotiators plan the concessions they are willing to give before discussions begin. In your research, find concessions that can create value for the shipping company and present them in your meeting. The negotiation process can become very challenging if you are too rigid.

Use Third Party Logistics Providers (3PL)

According to the World Shipping Council, the intermodal shipping network plays a significant role in the cost and rate of service delivery. An intermodal network is made up of ships, airplanes, trucks, and trains. The connection points where cargo is transferred between modes of transport are also part of the network. Many companies depend on intermodal networks for the inland dispersal of cargo from harbors and airports.

Third Party Logistics Providers (3PL) provide a useful service by shipping your cargo via their own intermodal networks. A trusted 3PL provider can save you time and money while allowing you to focus on your core business.

3PLs allow you to negotiate with one service provider who can manage all the regulatory and intermodal networking issues you may face. Further, your 3PL can help you connect and share shipping costs with other dealers in your vicinity.

Negotiate with Other Shipping Companies

Before signing off on a deal, make sure you have exhausted your other options. If you only deal with one shipping company, you may miss a better option. In a comprehensive negotiation seminar, you can learn how to leverage competitive bids to secure better deals.

Additionally, training to negotiate with multiple companies feeds into your research. It teaches you more about the existing challenges in the shipping industry. The knowledge you acquire can help you create value as you deal with the shipping companies.

Round-Up

The shipping industry presents smart people in business with a wide array of chances to negotiate better deals. The techniques in this article are not exhaustive. However, they can set you on the right track and feed into your strategy.

Negotiation training seminars are designed to maximize your potential and spur you into action. However, there is no strict rule book that is applicable in every case. As you grow in business, you can develop your own strategies based on your training and personal preferences.

freight invoicing
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

How to Tackle the Freight Invoice Management Obstacles

Leave a comment

A freight invoice is a detailed bill which includes information regarding the transportation of a company’s goods from one place to the other, along with the inclusion of the amount of charges, its weight, due dates, complete goods’ description, contact information, and names of both the receiver and the shipper, etc.

On the other hand, logistics is defined as the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the storage and movement of services and goods from the point of origin to the point of consumption within a supply chain, explains a top provider of Invoice Processing Services. The companies which deal with these processes become a part of the logistics industry and handle a few or all of the functions of supply chains as per the logistic requirements of the client.

Past Examples of Invoice Issues

-In recent times, an IT company was overbilled throughout 14 days by an amount of $935,578 owing to the incorrect weight applied by a parcel carrier.

-Auditing helped a national level entertainment retailer in saving around $35,000 from a wrong monthly invoice charge

-A worldwide renowned LED manufacturer had to pay $93,147 more due to incorrect billing currency, but the amount was recovered after the fault was discovered during the auditing process.

Top Freight Invoice Management Obstacles

Multiple Challenges

Managing invoices is extremely hard as a lot of challenges like reconciling contract terms with Bill Of Lading (BOL), invoices’ rating for correct rate selection, decisions about the acceptance of differences in charges, getting invoices resubmitted after making the carriers do corrections, etc. have to be dealt with extreme care. When these challenges are not addressed properly, they lead to errors, which further lead to overcharging, eventually adding to the overall Invoice Processing complexity.

Tedious Information Processing

The processing of information for the invoices is really tiring and tedious in nature. This is the reason employees who process the information for billing, weight, ledgers, data entry, and more commit multiple mistakes and make the final outcome inaccurate and hard to understand.

Bill Entry Issues

The very first concern which the logistics industry has to deal with during invoice management is the efficient functionality of the billing entry process which is defined below:

-Shortage of non-standardized processes and control due to operations which are not centralized for billing entry

-Multiple systems integration

-Due to missing BOL information, incomplete billable items are captured

-Multiple formats for BOL 

-Lost information regarding a customer or local-specific procedures for billing

Refund Management Issues

There are a lot of instances where the goods and services do not land safely at the doorstep of the receivers. In such cases, goods and services are returned back to the suppliers, which involves going through all the invoice processing steps again, which is extremely time-consuming for the owners of the logistics company.

Best Practices to Tackle Invoice Management Obstacles

Must-Include Invoice Listings

-Consignee and consignor names

-Shipment date

-Packages number

-Freight description

-Volume, weight, and measurement of freight

-Total outstanding charges

-Each carrier name engaging in transportation and movement route

-Shipment’s transfer point

-Issuer’s business address and remittance address

Freight Management Controls

It is important to incorporate internal controls which are powerful into the management structure of the freight. An authorization system, duty separations, and internal audits on a periodical basis are one of the most important tasks for managing risks like favoritism and fraud, which have the potential to bring down the overall profitability. 

The main objective is to make sure none of the employees have any chance for concealing and committing any illegal or unethical activity. For example, an employee who has been given the responsibility of getting the estimates should never be made the in charge of making the final freight invoice payment or selection.

Proficient Auditing System

According to a report by ReconLOgistics.com, wrong freight bills appear in about 5-6% of the entire invoices, which can raise the expenses of transportation to a great extent. With a proficient auditing system in place, along with a thorough recalculation and review can save you from overpaying due to inaccuracies in the freight bills. 

Apart from this, normal dealing procedures for lost shipment or damaged dealing, and timely claims reconciliation are an imperative part of a cost-saving management program for the freight.

Outsourcing Payment and Freight Audit

When it comes to finding the best solutions for streamlining the freight invoice management process, Outsource Invoice Processing remains a top favorite amongst the businesses due to its cost-cutting feature, along with the following benefits provided by it:

-Paper routing, filing, and handling elimination

-Centralized system for entire processing functions of the freight invoice

-Eliminating multiple systems and non-uniform processes

-Real-time insights into the invoices

-Latest technology use like artificial intelligence and automation

-Invoices’ long-term archival in the electronic form

-Carrier queries

-Increase cash flow to the maximum levels with timely invoice payments

-Receive correct and detailed accrual files and cost allocation straight into your system

-Gain visibility into operational metrics, invoice status, and payment information

Invoice Automation

Most of the industries have already incorporated the use of automation in a majority of their work processes, and have reaped great benefits in the following forms:

-Faster processing of invoices

-Elimination of costly human errors

-Invoice costs reduction by 80%

-Preventing payments duplicity and maximizing initial incentives for payments

-Enabling enhanced cash flow control and visibility

-Achieving 100% accuracy for invoice entry

Freight Software

Businesses who are trying to manage their freight invoices by themselves can ease their management workload with some of the top freight software mentioned below:

The Magaya Cargo System

This user-friendly software helps in eliminating duplicity of data entry, streamlining shipment workflows, generating Bill Of Lading, etc., along with a fully-integrated system for Invoice Accounting.

A1 Tracker

This software meets the unique business demands of the present scenario, make the working of the logistics systems smooth, and bring the required value to your business.

Freightos

The online platform for global trade management and freight booking, along with providing logistics owners with digital sales tools.

Excalibur WMS

This is a software which is fully integrated for warehouse management, accounting system, and third-party logistics (3PL) service billing.

CargoWise One

A central software system platform for worldwide providers giving logistics services.

Managing the freight invoices is definitely challenging owing to the various complexities in the form of inaccuracies and irregularities in the data and work processes, respectively. These complexities can be brought down greatly with the use of automation, outsourcing, audit systems, etc., eventually streamlining the process of freight invoice management at large, along with saving time and money at the same time.

_________________________________________________________________

Gia Glad holds the position of Business Content Writer at Cogneesol – an outsourcing firm offering finance and accounting services along with other value-added services to the small and mid-sized businesses globally.

Vietnam
Archives, Features, Global Trade Daily

Why Washington Shouldn’t see Vietnam as the Next China

Leave a comment

In a recent Senate Finance Committee report, U.S. Trade Czar Robert Lighthizer opined that Vietnam must take action to curb its growing trade surplus with the U.S., including removing barriers to market access for U.S. companies.

While it is true that Vietnam’s trade surplus has grown significantly in 2019, much of it is the result of the trade war between the U.S. and China that has prompted importers to source from Vietnam as an alternative to China.

Rather than attempt to stunt Vietnam’s trade surplus through tariffs or other trade actions, Washington should be establishing alliances with countries in Southeast Asia as part of its quest to ensure balanced trade and market stability.

Lighthizer’scomments were in response to queries from the Committee and echoed previous statements made by White House administration officials who have identified Vietnam as one of several countries to watch with respect to trade activity. And while there hasn’t been a direct threat of imposing tariffs on Vietnamese imports, the recent implementation of a 400% duty on Vietnamese steel imports and the recent rhetoric in Washington regarding transshipment has many businesses nervous that their new safe haven may be the President’s next target for trade action.

Troublesome to United State Trade Representative (USTR) is that the surplus thus far in 2019 is already more than 30% higher than it was at this time last year, making Vietnam the leading nation in terms of percentage increase of import value in 2019.

Hastening trade imbalance

Washington has been at least somewhat complicit in hastening Vietnam’s growing trade surplus. Since the U.S. began imposing tariffs on China-origin goods, many U.S. companies (and some Chinese companies) have been looking to shift production to neighboring markets in Asia. A recent poll of U.S. companies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in China showed that more than 40% of American companies with production in China were looking to move to a neighboring country if they hadn’t already done so. These include the likes of Dell, HP, Steve Madden, Brooks and others. Even non-U.S. companies, like Japan’s Nintendo and China’s own electronics giant TCL are looking to shift production out of China and into Vietnam.

Vietnam was an obvious choice for many of these manufacturers looking to circumvent Washington’s onerous tariffs. For years, Vietnam has been investing heavily in improving its roadway and port infrastructure, as well as augmenting its pool of high-skilled laborers so that it can attract large hi-tech giants. The advancements were well-timed to coincide with increasing wages and regulatory restrictions in China that were driving up costs and forcing foreign producers to look elsewhere for low-cost manufacturing alternatives. This was taking place well before the current administration in Washington began cracking down on China’s questionable trade practices.

To be fair, Washington does have some cause for complaint. It’s one of Asia’s worst kept secrets that Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand have become convenient transshipment hubs for Chinese companies looking to circumvent quotas and, more recently, tariffs by making minor tweaks in neighboring countries to products almost wholly manufactured in China and sending them along to the U.S. as “Vietnamese” or “Malaysian” exports. In the end, there is little monetary gain for Vietnam and much opportunity for reputational damage. Hanoi’s incentive for playing along is purely political; it wants to placate China, its much larger neighbor and regional hegemon.

Hanoi has already said it will crackdown on Chinese transshipments labeled as being of Vietnamese origin. Nikkei Asian Review is reporting the Vietnamese government is considering new rules that would require 30% of a good’s price to be comprised of Vietnamese manufacturing for it to be considered as being of Vietnamese origin. Whether or not this will pacify the USTR remains to be seen.

Yet while Chinese transshipments may have been a catalyst to Vietnam’s soaring trade surplus, the ongoing U.S-China trade war has unquestionably accelerated the development of a trend that was only in its infancy a few short years ago.

If Washington is looking to penalize Vietnam for a trade surplus born out of Washington’s trade war with Beijing, where will the cycle of tariffs end?

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

Let’s assume Washington succeeds in quelling the growth of Vietnam’s trade surplus by imposing tariffs in the same manner it has with China, the EU and other entities. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then look to Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Cambodia (as many have already) to replace or supplement their production in China.

Let’s assume that Washington then imposes similar tariffs on imports from those countries. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then shift their attention to India, Mexico or any other country that offer lower cost labor and limited regulatory burden. And on and on it goes.

Washington wants to see production repatriated back to the United States, but only six percent of American companies moving production out of China are looking at reshoring their manufacturing facilities. One of the key reasons is that the facilities currently in China are intended to support regional exports and reshoring production to the U.S. would result in unnecessary transport costs and time in transit. In other cases, the cost of moving production to the U.S. could be too onerous to allow companies to compete globally.

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

This is not to suggest Washington’s war on China’s unsavory trade practices is unjust or futile. On the contrary, China’s history of misappropriating intellectual property through technology transfer, cybersecurity incidents and other trade violations requires America to act. But tariffs only punish American companies that will continue to shift their production as necessary to reduce their landed costs.

Instead of reprimanding and punishing countries like Vietnam with tariffs in response to growing trade surpluses, Washington should be working with them to forge alliances that will ensure China is forced to play by the rules.

If the U.S. truly wants to stave off bad actors such as China from continuing to abuse the global trade’s rule-based system, it will need the support of friends and allies in the eastern and western hemispheres. Acting alone and imposing unilateral restrictions only throws Washington into a battle of wills for which collateral damage is certain, but the outcome remains unknown.

_________________________________________________________________

Cora Di Pietro is vice president of Global Trade Consulting at trade-services firm Livingston International. She is a frequent speaker and lecturer at industry and academic events and is an active member of numerous industry groups and associations. She can be reached at cdipietro@livingstonintl.com.

Qatar Trade Summit
Archives, Executive Education, Global Trade Daily

Qatar Trade Summit: Innovation and Disruption Revolutionising the Logistics Industry in Qatar.

Leave a comment

Valuable insights into the future of Qatar’s Trade and investments sector aligned with logistics and supply chain in the region will be showcased at the exclusive Qatar Trade Summit scheduled to take place from 25th to 27th November 2019 in Doha, Qatar, The summit is Qatar’s only event focusing on the nation’s economic diversification plans and progress with strategic plans on becoming the regions logistics hub. 

The summit will strive to examine the nation’s potential on becoming the region’s economic powerhouse via 3 days of deliberations on sea ports development, Shipping and Air Cargo industry, future of logistics and supply chain as well as a final day dedicated to engage in interactive sessions on Qatar’s trade and investment prospects. Attending delegates and partners will get a first-hand knowledge of Qatar’s logistics and supply chain industry, the planned development of sea ports to support regional growth, the influence of shipping air cargo and the free zones in opening up opportunities for regional and foreign companies to invest and do business in Qatar” stated Allan Martin, Communications Director, Qatar Trade Summit. 

All aspects of the shipping industry, port development, air cargo, supply chain and logistics and trade and investments will be discussed at this summit. The event will engage the entire ecosystem of the logistics business in Qatar focusing on procurement, forwarding, planning, new business, infrastructure and investments. The theme of the summit is to explore the scale of innovation and disruption which is revolutionizing the logistics industry in Qatar and the nation’s keen intent on diversifying into a thriving economy prior to the prestigious FIFA 2022 football world cup taking place in Qatar. Qatar Trade Summit will directly impact a comprehensive range of sectors in the region and will cover solutions and products to uplift these sectors. The areas covered will be Ship building, Port management, Port Infrastructure development, Air Cargo expansion, Logistics and supply chain solutions and the investments and business opportunities in Qatar. 

The summit’s profile includes key dignitaries such as H.E. Akbar Al Baker, Group CEO, Qatar Airways, Capt. Abdulla Al-Khanji, CEO, Mwani Qatar, Qatar, Mr. Abdulrahman Essa Al-Mannai, President & CEO, MILAHA, Qatar, Mr. Lim Meng Hui, CEO, Qatar Free Zones Authority (QFZA), Mr. James Baker, Editor, Lloyd’s List Containers, UK, Mr. Glyn Hughes, Global Head of IATA Cargo, Switzerland, Mr. Turhan Özen, Chief Cargo Officer, Turkish Airlines, Mr. Amadou Diallo, CEO, DHL Global Forwarding, Middle East & Africa, Mr. Bertrand Maltaverne, Solutions Consultant, Ivalua, Austria, Mr. Fikret Ersoy, MD, BDP International, Middle East, Turkey & Africa from Qatar and across the globe who will be presenting at the conference and the summit will also host some of the world’s best solution providers and also invite attendees from leading government and private entities from Qatar. 

The Qatar Trade Summit will also feature one of the most exhaustive and inclusive knowledge sessions seen at a national summit. The conference will include 19 topics spread across 4 sessions, and two key workshops all scheduled over 3 days of high level networking and interaction. Qatar Trade Summit will assist in realising Qatar’s ambitions to become the logistics and trade leader in the Middle East. 

______________________________________________________________________

About Organizer: © Qatar Trade Summit | Allan Martin | Email: info@qatartradesummit.com | allan@qatartradesummit.com | UK Tel: +44 20 3807 8492 | India Mobile: +91 96061 70760 Qatar Contact: Saf | Tel: +974 33834548 | +974 66947607 | saf@apexqatar.com LinkedIn: Qatar Trade Summit | twitter: @tradeqatar 

compliance freight
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

11 Common Misconceptions: Compliance & Denied Party Screening

Leave a comment

With the growth of eCommerce, business integration, and global connectivity showing no sign of abating, compliance and denied party screening (DPS) have been thrust into the spotlight. The era of the mega fine has emerged, with fluid international sanctions policies impacting unsuspecting companies in unwelcome ways. In addition to the potential for reputational damage, penalties for non-compliance can include substantial fines—multimillions of dollars in some instances—, revocation of export privileges, and criminal charges, including prison time. 

The solution? Screening for restricted and denied parties, and due diligence to ensure that goods, technologies, and services are not destined for a sanctioned or embargoed country—not to mention screening every financial transaction—should be an integral component of every organization’s governance, risk, and compliance strategy. 

WHO NEEDS TO SCREEN?

While homeland security-sensitive industries (e.g., aerospace, defense, telecommunications, IT, energy, research, financial institutions) have a high bar when it comes to complying with U.S. and international export, trade, and financial laws, ordinary businesses from across all industries have an obligation to adhere to compliance requirements as well—and the penalties for non-compliance can be severe.

The reality is that companies found in violation of international trade regulations come from a wide spectrum of industries, not just the usual suspects. In fact, many organizations that have received financial, or even criminal, penalties fall outside the realm of the higher-risk industries. 

Unfortunately, many companies hold the erroneous belief that compliance and DPS do not apply to them. By increasing awareness surrounding the following misconceptions about compliance and restricted party screening, organizations can take a proactive and vigilant approach to mitigating risk and avoiding costly penalties.

DPS MYTHS: DON’T LET THEM HAPPEN TO YOU 

Screening doesn’t apply to our business, industry, or country.

All businesses, not just those operating within homeland security-sensitive industries, have an obligation to screen. Companies both in the U.S. and those outside of the country that engage with the United States in any capacity—including selling products or services in the U.S., or even using American banks and financial services for transactions—are subject to U.S. export and financial compliance laws.

We don’t need to screen because we supply services, not products.

Every time money changes hands, there is an obligation to ensure that the good or service is not destined for an individual or entity on a government watch list; services (e.g., travel agencies) are not exempt. 

We rely on a third party (e.g., freight forwarder) to screen for us.

Many companies make the mistake of thinking that the burden of compliance rests with the shipping or freight forwarding company but this is not always the case. The U.S. government can designate the owner or seller of the merchandise being exported (or imported) as the Exporter of Record, shifting the onus of compliance to both organizations. 

Our company operates domestically so screening is not required.

A significant number of individuals found on watch lists are U.S. nationals or citizens located in the United States who have been found guilty of violating export laws. Consequently, organizations are obligated to screen regardless of shipment destination.

Export laws don’t apply to us because we’re located outside the U.S. 

Regardless of where an organization’s headquarters or subsidiaries are based, it is highly likely that some, if not all, transactions flow through the U.S. financial system at one point in the purchasing or supply chain process. As such, these transactions fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

We don’t export to countries under sanctions or embargoes.

Virtually every nation, on every continent, has debarred individuals and entities inside their borders—even Antarctica! Given the dynamic nature of international sanction policies, especially in the current political climate, organizations are at risk of engaging with a denied or restricted person or organization regardless of where they export. 

Our goods are EAR99 so we don’t need to screen.

Although an organization’s goods might be EAR99 (under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Commerce and not listed on the Commerce Control List), selling them to a denied party is still subject to penalty. For reference, the 2017 edition of the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Don’t Let This Happen to You is replete with examples of EAR99 export violations.

We already screened our customers and contacts once.

Denied and restricted party lists change frequently, in many cases daily. To ensure compliance, organizations would be best served by screening all transactions at multiple points throughout the business workflow.

The project we needed to screen for is complete so we’re in the clear.

While exports are commonly associated with the shipment of goods, export controls also encompass the transfer of technology, software, or technical data, even when the transfer occurs in the United States. Case in point: although a project may have concluded, the release of controlled technologies (a.k.a. deemed exports) to foreign nationals is subject to U.S. export laws.

We only need to screen the person to whom we’re shipping.

One of the most misunderstood areas of export compliance is the requirements surrounding end-use. End-use compliance involves requesting documentation from the purchaser to confirm they are the ultimate destination of the goods and that they will use the product as intended. While obtaining an end-user statement doesn’t guarantee the veracity of the purchaser’s claim, this process demonstrates that a company has taken additional measures to ensure adherence to export and trade compliance laws and will stand them in good stead if issues arise. 

We’ll just pay the fine.

Fines incurred as a result of an export of OFAC violation should not be treated as a business expense. In fact, criminal penalties can include jail time and organizations can have their export privileges revoked. Moreover, negative media attention is an increasing concern for risk-adverse organizations attempting to protect their reputation by avoiding conducting business with non-law-abiding people or companies. 

FINAL THOUGHTS

Penalties from any export, trade, or OFAC compliance violation can negatively impact an organization’s bottom line, or ultimately cripple a company’s trade. Implementing a comprehensive screening program that encompasses restricted and denied parties and sanctioned and embargoed countries, coupled with cultivating a culture of compliance within the organization, will help keep goods flowing while minimizing the risk of penalties. 

_______________________________________________________________________

Marc Roy is Vice President & General Manager, Compliance Solutions at Descartes Systems Group, the global leader in providing on-demand, software-as-a-service solutions focused on improving the productivity, performance, and security of logistics-intensive businesses. 

sanitary paper
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

U.S. Sanitary Paper Product Market – Chinese Imports Rose 15% to $677M in 2018, Despite a Trade War

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Sanitary Paper Product Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2018, the revenue of the sanitary paper product market in the U.S. amounted to $12B. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Overall, sanitary paper product consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when the market value increased by 2.3% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the sanitary paper product market attained its maximum level at $12.2B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Sanitary Paper  Production in the U.S.

In value terms, sanitary paper production (disposable diapers and similar disposable products, and sanitary tissue) totaled $11.1B in 2018.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of sanitary paper product exported from the U.S. amounted to 128K tonnes, going up by 5.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, sanitary paper product exports, however, continue to indicate a mild reduction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 8.7% against the previous year. In that year, sanitary paper product exports reached their peak of 153K tonnes. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of sanitary paper product exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, sanitary paper product exports amounted to $373M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, sanitary paper product exports, however, continue to indicate a measured decrease. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 8.4% year-to-year. Exports peaked at $443M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

Japan (17K tonnes), Belgium (16K tonnes) and the Dominican Republic (10K tonnes) were the main destinations of sanitary paper product exports from the U.S., with a combined 34% share of total exports.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by Belgium (+77.9% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($50M), Belgium ($38M) and the Dominican Republic ($29M) appeared to be the largest markets for sanitary paper product exported from the U.S. worldwide, with a combined 31% share of total exports.

Belgium recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, among the main countries of destination over the last five years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average sanitary paper product export price amounted to $2,904 per tonne, going up by 2.7% against the previous year. Overall, the sanitary paper product export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when the average export price increased by 2.7% year-to-year. The export price peaked at $2,943 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was South Korea ($3,747 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Belgium ($2,352 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Guatemala, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the sanitary paper product imports into the U.S. stood at 451K tonnes, going up by 10% against the previous year. In general, the total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +10.6% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, sanitary paper product imports increased by +65.6% against 2013 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 15% y-o-y. Over the period under review, sanitary paper product imports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, sanitary paper product imports amounted to $920M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +10.0% from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when imports increased by 18% against the previous year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

In 2018, China (367K tonnes) constituted the largest sanitary paper product supplier to the U.S., with a 82% share of total imports. Moreover, sanitary paper product imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Indonesia (17K tonnes), more than tenfold.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from China amounted to +10.3%.

In value terms, China ($677M) constituted the largest supplier of sanitary paper product to the U.S., comprising 74% of total sanitary paper product imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Indonesia ($25M), with a 2.7% share of total imports.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from China stood at +11.3%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average sanitary paper product import price amounted to $2,041 per tonne, surging by 4.7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the sanitary paper product import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 an increase of 4.7% y-o-y. The import price peaked at $2,171 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($1,842 per tonne), while the price for Indonesia totaled $1,454 per tonne.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Johnson & Johnson, Georgia-Pacific, Marcal Manufacturing, Hoffmaster Group, Professional Disposables, Cascades Tissue Group – North Carolina, Attends Healthcare Products, Principle Business Enterprises, Royal Paper Converting, First Quality Baby Products, Orchids Paper Products Company, U.S. Alliance Paper, Associated Hygienic Products, Allied West Paper Corp., Cascades Tissue Group – Pennsylvania, Playtex Products, Leaf River Cellulose, Rose’s Southwest Papers, Playtex Manufacturing, Tambrands Sales Corp., The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company, The Tranzonic Companies, Tz Acquisition Corp., First Quality Products, Marcal Paper Mills, Soundview Paper Mills, Soundview Paper Holdings, Omganics

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Warehousing

Every Loading Dock Should Have a Vehicle Restraint. Here’s Why.

Leave a comment

In 2017, there were 270,000 injuries reported in the transportation and warehousing industry. The same industry also saw 819 deaths, a number only surpassed by the construction industry. The number of preventable fatal work injuries in transportation and warehousing grew 5.3% from 2016 to 2017 (1). 

What do these statistics have to do with loading docks? More than 25% of all industrial accidents happen at the loading dock, and for every accident, there are about 600 near misses (2). If your job has anything to do with loading docks, these figures are meant to help you understand how important loading dock safety really is. 

Forklift Fall-Through

One of the most dangerous types of accidents that occur at the loading dock is forklift fall-through. This type of accident happens as a trailer is being loaded or unloaded. Sometimes, the momentum of the forklift transfers to the trailer, causing it to move forward until it separates from the dock leveler. Other times, the truck driver thinks loading or unloading is complete and pulls away from the dock prematurely. When the forklift leaves the trailer, it falls into the gap. The forklift driver often falls out or tries to escape, and the forklift falls on him or her. The average forklift weighs as much as three cars. 

“Forklift fall-through doesn’t happen every day, but when it does, it’s one of the worst types of accidents that happen in a warehouse or distribution center,” says Jeff Schulze, Vice President at loading dock equipment manufacturer Systems, LLC. “Fortunately, when used correctly, vehicle restraints help minimize the chances of a forklift fall-through accident.” 

When a trailer backs up to a loading dock, the most common types of vehicle restraints capture or block the trailer’s Rear Impact Guard (RIG), sometimes called an ICC bar, securing the trailer to the loading dock until the restraint is disengaged.

Wheel Chocks Are Not the Answer

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) states that companies with warehouses and distribution centers are responsible for the safety of their employees, which obviously includes dock personnel, and requires that all vehicles are, at minimum, restrained by wheel chocks prior to and during loading and unloading. 

If someone believes wheel chocks are an acceptable substitute for vehicle restraints, he or she must ensure that every trailer is properly chocked, which is rare. In one facility, every dock position might have an immaculate set of wheel chocks that are always stored in their cradle, but they’re only immaculate because they aren’t used very often. Dock personnel at another facility might believe truck drivers should chock their own trailers, but all they’re legally required to do is set their brakes. At another facility, perhaps wheel chocks are not even available. They were there at some point in time, but on a frigid winter day they weren’t returned to their cradle and the snowplow picked them up and ripped them off the wall. At yet another facility, some of the chocks have simply broken down from years of use and were never replaced. In each case, the company is not only risking OSHA fines, but also the safety of its dock personnel.

Wheel chocks also must be applied firmly against the closest set of wheels to the dock, or they may not prevent trailer creep. This requires more than just casually tossing the chock near the trailer wheels. A gravelly drive or wet or icy conditions also reduce the effectiveness of wheel chocks. To top it all off, in most cases, trucks can simply pull trailers right over wheel chocks, so they’re generally not very good at preventing early pull-away. 

Communication is Key

Securing a trailer to the loading dock is only part of the reason vehicle restraints are preferred over wheel chocks. Communication between dock personnel and truck drivers is essential for maintaining safety in the loading dock, and wheel chocks do nothing in this area. Vehicle restraints often include light communication systems that know when the trailer is restrained and use interior and exterior lights to communicate this to the truck driver and dock personnel so loading or unloading can safely begin. 

Safety is an Investment

Anyone who thinks vehicle restraints are too expensive should consider that loading dock accidents cost companies an estimated $675 million every year,(3) and the average cost of a worker injury accident is about $189,000 (4). A better way to spend $189,000 is to install automatic vehicle restraints and greatly reduce the chances of a forklift fall-through accident in the first place. 

There is also a possibility that installing restraints at your loading docks may lower your insurance rates. “When you install restraints, you’re acting to not only reduce the chances of employee injury accidents, but also damage to equipment, vehicles, and cargo from accidents,” says Schulze. “It’s definitely worth a call to your insurance provider.”

A Chance Not Worth Taking

It’s been said that forklift fall-through accidents are a one-in-a-million incident. That might not be far from the truth. If a facility has 20 dock positions and each sees 10 trailers per day, and each of those trailers sees 40 forklift entries and exits during loading or unloading, it only takes 25 weeks for this facility to have a million opportunities for a forklift fall-through. Suddenly one-in-a-million feels much too close for comfort.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late

The time to put on your seat belt is not after you’ve been in a car accident. It’s a bit late to install smoke detectors after your home has burned to the ground. If you drive a forklift to load or unload trailers and wheel chocks are all you’ve got, ask your supervisor about vehicle restraints. If you’re a warehouse manager or safety officer, don’t wait until someone gets hurt to put vehicle restraints in the budget. When you install vehicle restraints in your loading docks, rest easy knowing you’ve done the best thing you can do to help minimize the risk of forklift fall-through accidents. 

 

Jeremy Artz is the Product Manager for loading dock equipment manufacturer Systems, LLC. He has 20 years of marketing and product management experience in various industries from manufacturing to financial. Jeremy specializes in connecting people and products by focusing on how those products can benefit businesses and improve lives.

 

___________________________________________________________________________

1 National Safety Council Injury Facts https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/work-overview/work-safety-introduction/ 

2 Industrial Safety & Hygiene News https://www.ishn.com/articles/107356-slow-down-watch-out-know-the-facts-about-loading-dock-hazards 

3 Material Handling & Logistics https://www.mhlnews.com/warehousing/safety-and-security-loading-dock-know-your-risks-and-take-control 

4 National Safety Council: $39,000 medical cost https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/costs/work-injury-costs + estimated $150,000 property damage ($75,000 forklift + $75,000 building repair cost)

diaper
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

U.S. Textile Bag And Canvas Market – China’s Imports Bounces Back after Two Years of Decline

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Textile Bag And Canvas Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the textile bag and canvas market in the U.S. amounted to $7B in 2018, increasing by 7.8% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +6.4% over the period from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 with an increase of 18% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the textile bag and canvas market attained its maximum level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Production of Textile Bags And Canvases in the U.S.

In value terms, textile bag and canvas production amounted to $4B in 2018. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +8.3% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when production volume increased by 20% against the previous year. Textile bag and canvas production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of textile bags and canvases exported from the U.S. stood at 6.5K tonnes, growing by 51% against the previous year. Over the period under review, textile bag and canvas exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 with an increase of 51% y-o-y. Over the period under review, textile bag and canvas exports reached their peak figure at 7K tonnes in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, textile bag and canvas exports totaled $47M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, textile bag and canvas exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when exports increased by 36% against the previous year. Exports peaked at $59M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

Exports by Country

Thailand (578 tonnes), Australia (567 tonnes) and Trinidad and Tobago (464 tonnes) were the main destinations of textile bag and canvas exports from the U.S., with a combined 25% share of total exports. These countries were followed by Viet Nam, Poland, China, India, Russia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica, which together accounted for a further 46%.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by Viet Nam (+1,030.1% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest markets for textile bag and canvas exported from the U.S. were Poland ($7.6M), Australia ($6.7M) and the Dominican Republic ($4.4M), with a combined 40% share of total exports. Costa Rica, China, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Thailand, Malaysia and Russia lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 18%.

In terms of the main countries of destination, Viet Nam (+393.6% per year) recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, over the last five years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average textile bag and canvas export price stood at $7,219 per tonne in 2018, waning by -45.8% against the previous year. Overall, the export price indicated a slight increase from 2013 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% over the last five years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when the average export price increased by 52% against the previous year. In that year, the average export prices for textile bags and canvases reached their peak level of $13,329 per tonne, and then declined slightly in the following year.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Poland ($17,736 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Russia ($272 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to the Dominican Republic (+55.6% per year), while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the textile bag and canvas imports into the U.S. totaled 351K tonnes, rising by 8% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the period from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 with an increase of 8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, textile bag and canvas imports attained their maximum at 360K tonnes in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, textile bag and canvas imports totaled $1.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, textile bag and canvas imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 8.9% against the previous year. Imports peaked at $1.6B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, imports failed to regain their momentum.

Imports by Country

In 2018, China (197K tonnes) constituted the largest supplier of textile bag and canvas to the U.S., with a 56% share of total imports. Moreover, textile bag and canvas imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, India (83K tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Bangladesh (25K tonnes), with a 7.1% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from China amounted to -2.2%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: India (+13.0% per year) and Bangladesh (+7.4% per year).

In value terms, China ($905M) constituted the largest supplier of textile bag and canvas to the U.S., comprising 62% of total textile bag and canvas imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($218M), with a 15% share of total imports. It was followed by Bangladesh, with a 8.4% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value from China stood at -3.0%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: India (+11.5% per year) and Bangladesh (+5.9% per year).

After two years of decline, Chinese imports of textile bag and canvas into the U.S. rebounded in 2018, with an increase of 8.5% y-o-y.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average textile bag and canvas import price amounted to $4,139 per tonne, standing approx. at the previous year. In general, the textile bag and canvas import price, however, continues to indicate a temperate descent. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 an increase of 0.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for textile bags and canvases attained their maximum at $4,572 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Bangladesh ($4,877 per tonne), while the price for India ($2,627 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Indonesia, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced a decline.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Dhs Systems, Rainier Industries, Covercraft Industries, Duluth Trading Company, North Sails Group, J & M Industries, Anchor Industries, Thomas Sign and Awning Company, Holland Awning, Outdoor Research, Hdt Expeditionary Systems, Veada Industries, C. R. Daniels, Bestop, Starr Aircraft Products, ADM Corporation, Kenneth Fox Supply Company, Polytex Fibers, Adco Products, Marine Accessories Corporation, Gleason Corporation, Webasto-Edscha Cabrio USA, Outdoor Venture Corporation, Magna Car Top Systems of America, Mpc Group, Ajr Enterprises, Targus Group International, Bluewater Defense, Mondi Bags Usa

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

CarrierGo
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Stories

Blume CarrierGo Provides Motor Carriers with All-Encompassing Business Solutions

Leave a comment

This year’s Intermodal Expo in Long Beach, California featured some of the latest solution offerings disrupting the transportation sector. Among leading industry experts including logistics and supply chain solutions provider, Blume Global unveiling their latest product offering, Blume CarrierGo. Blume Global boasts over 25 years of transportation solution offerings in the cloud enabling international multimodal operations including shipment planning, execution, visibility, invoicing, invoice processing & settlement.

“Blume CarrierGo is a product we created that offers our global network of 7,000-plus carriers more than just execution, adding more value for both the carriers and the drivers,” explains Glenn Jones, GVP Product Strategy at Blume Global. “CarrierGo is localized in 22 languages and utilized by customers around the globe, so it’s not limited to the United States. This solution enables carriers to increase turns per day while reducing empty miles and maximizing efficiencies.” 

The days of manual processes are becoming a thing of the past, particularly in transportation and carrier services as automation continues setting a new and more improved standard of streamlining operations. Blume CarrierGo solution identifies processes such as appointment scheduling for carriers lacking levels of automation needed for optimization. Another example is opportunities with street turns found within the Blume import and export-heavy freight forwarding customers.

“We have insight into what independent freight forwarders might not be able to see, such as import and export maps leading to an opportunity for a street turn recommendation or automatic allocation. Dwell times also provide an opportunity for automation. We may have 20, 30, or even 50 carriers trying to pick up containers out of the same terminal. By leveraging our visibility across multiple freight forwarders we can either make recommendations or we can delay making appointments through the insight we have into marine terminals with delays,” Jones adds. 

And how about invoicing? Blume covers all bases for carriers in terms of accessorials and eliminating the element of surprise when it comes to unpredictable charges backing up processing times. The Blume solutions process requires carriers to gain approval for accessorials before they even happen. 

“If a carrier needs to get to a port and they’re unable to, there might be a demurrage charge or there might be a carrier in a dwell time charge situation unexpectedly. They can gain approval from the buyer for that accessorial and when it appears on the invoice days – or hours later, there’s no surprise and the invoice will be processed faster,” Jones adds. “This is particularly useful for carriers in 3rd world countries, where the carriers tend to be much smaller and require payments quicker than what the freight terms offer,” Jones adds. 

Processes like these are found within the CarrierGo solution, providing maximized efficiencies and reducing costly and time-consuming overhead freight audits and manual payment processes. Carriers are not only paid on time, but have increased opportunity for invoice factoring discussions in international markets. This is a major differentiator found within the Blume solutions structure impacting global scale capabilities across the supply chain, creating seamless flows between all players and competitors in the multimodal sector. 

For more information about how Blume CarrierGo can improve your cargo needs, please visit booth 512 at Intermodal Expo or visit Blume Global on the web. 

__________________________________________________________

Glenn Jones, GVP Product Strategy, Blume Global

 Glenn has a proven track record of growing businesses by building and leading product management/marketing and R&D organizations to define, develop, position, and sell highly innovative and high value enterprise solutions delivered in the cloud. He was formerly the COO of Sweetbridge and the CTO of Steelwedge Software. He also held leadership positions at several other companies, including Elementum and E2Open.

Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

Deconstruction of the Value Chain

Leave a comment

Why Large Shipping Lines Should Think About Asset-Sharing

In the past, companies have tried to optimize and unearth efficiency gains through value chain integration. Reason was that it is easier to communicate and optimize within a company than with external partners. Examples from container logistics include Maersk Line acquiring Damco as part of the P&O Nedlloyd acquisition and Amazon aiming to consolidate the entire value chain from factory to last mile delivery. 

In the literature, the explanations focus on lower transaction costs when communicating within an organization compared to the outside and the risk of “hold-ups” is better manageable if you can observe the entire value chain compared to just a small fraction. 

Extrapolation: You can argue that these factors and risks are the only reason why we have companies at all, those are basically just a way for humans to work together and communicate efficiently. In a sense, a company is just a collection of specialists who work together on a “platform” called a company. 

Technology Reduces Those Underlying Costs and Risks

Today, technology and digital platforms reduce transaction costs and remove risks. This makes the traditional “company borders” obsolete. We see that in the “gig” economy where specialists (from highly paid professionals such as lawyers and consultant to poorly paid uneducated “hands”) chose not to get a job in a company but instead offer their workforce on platforms – think of Uber, Fiverr and even Deliveroo. Interestingly, this does not quite fit into the B2B vs B2C vs C2C logic of the past but is rather P2B (“Platform-to-B”) or P2C: As a company or as a consumer I only need to join a platform to get access to a wide range of services without further need to search, compare or contract. 

“Traditional” B2B Markets Follow the Trend

We see the same happening in B2B! M&A activity will not remain the only logical way to increase efficiency along the value chain and to achieve economies of scale. Instead, platforms and digital technologies allow companies (no matter how small or specialised) to work together across company borders. On successful platforms, this is powered not only by efficient online processes, but supported by platform activities that increase trust such as peer reviews, performance information or payment handling. 

An industry perspective: “a simulated large, consolidated company” which operates equipment in an efficient, market-driven pool. Other examples that come to mind are platforms focused on the optimization of hinterland intermodal moves—improving communication between container carriers, freight forwarders, and trucker. 

Future: We Expect This Along the Entire Transportation Value Chain

Thinking about the future of shipping industry, we will see further deconstruction happening. Multiple “neutral” platforms will link together specialized actors along the value chain. Actors on the value chain will be much more specialized than today and instead of  seeing mega carriers covering the transport chain end-to-end, we’ll have actors such as equipment owner, vessel owner, vessel operator, slot marketer, agents in POL and POD, equipment tracking technology, ports, terminal, truckers, depots… 

An example: from an economic viewpoint (and when removing transaction costs / communication barriers and “holdup risks”) it makes only very little sense have “vessel operation” and “equipment ownership” done by the same party. In the case of equipment: Managing a pool allows you to balance out company-specific imbalances and reduce empty container moves! Container Leasing companies are a prime example where this already happens. 

Of course, this does not need to be fragmented down to the individual micro-service at all stages. Thinking back to our example before, that would mean that we don’t even have companies here anymore but just individual freelancers. Such companies can then also contribute 2, 3, 4 steps but we think the underlying logic is important: Deconsolidation makes sense! 

Additionally, there will be some clients who prefer buying from a consolidated entity instead of plugging-and-playing services on a platform. Consider a large shipper who wants to have a reliable long-term contract with stable rates and a single-point of contact -> this role will still exist and also create value (as they cater to a specific demand). Here you’ll also find strong “consumer” / “client” facing brand names such as Maersk. However, the way this “consolidator” then provides the service will change completely from an inhouse solution to an “on demand platform solution”. 

What we see in shipping is that fully integrated liners act like a “one-stop-shop” and try to offer everything even though their core business is ocean freight. Why shouldn’t forwarders or shippers bring their own containers and only book the vessel slot? When shippers bring their own boxes, containers are so-called shippers owned containers, SOC container in short. Such containers increase flexibility and create a win-win for shippers and carriers: Forwarders save demurrage charges, while carriers avoid time-consuming planning and can focus on what they’re good at: moving goods between continents and the sale of vessel slots! 

More and more shipping companies increase their SOC activities because online platforms provide them with access to global capacity and streamline processes of booking containers separately to the vessel slot. 

Container xChange is an example of how companies can work together on a neutral platform and share capabilities/ assets. It is not necessary anymore to take over your competitor to leverage a shared equipment pool of containers. More than 300 companies use this chance to access to world market and to have eyes and ears across the entire globe. It is also possible to add further services from 3rd parties to a transaction such as container insurance or surveying to further driving down transaction costs. Apart from efficient processes, transaction costs are further reduced through secure payment handling, partner reviews, performance, and issue resolution by the always on support. 

No Need to Run the Race for Integration 

You can stop the “race to be the largest and most integrated actor”, in the future of shipping you’ll need to be super specialized and able to play multiple platforms instead. In a corporate finance viewpoint there will be no more “conglomerate cover-up”, every activity needs to be performed at par with or better than the best. Because markets will be so efficient, that customers are not willing to pay for sub-par parts of products anymore. 

How Do You Prepare for The Future of Shipping?

What does this all mean for you? Firms should ensure they are preparing for an eco-system future—or what “eco-systematisation” will mean for them. Specifically, they need to dedicate resources to understanding which services are available, as the landscape is evolving quickly. More and more platforms are evolving that might evolve into an eco- system services—just think of Alibaba and WeChat. They need to decide what they are really distinctive at and exit or source marginal activities. While this has always been a good idea and strategic exercise, it is becoming more important than ever (examples could be COSCOs divestment of its shipbuilding/shipyard arm).

And finally, they need to create plug and play architectures, not just in a technical sense, but also in how they contract (e.g., shorter duration). And in some cases, they may need to organize themselves into a set of discrete internal services to allow inter-operability with the external market. Zapier is a really good example for pushing plug and play architectures, it basically is an online service that “connects” distinct services to provide additional user value. Easyjet is a good example for an “unbundling” of services into micro-services: You can book everything, but you don’t have to—that aligns very well with the market and is profitable in itself!