Trending Now

Shippers Frustrated as Spot rates Rise With Demand

New Articles

Deconstruction of the Value Chain

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! 

tariffs
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

TARIFFS: NAVIGATING THE LATEST TARIFFS ON CHINESE GOODS

Leave a comment

Despite recent plans to revive moribund negotiations, the prospects for a near term solution to the U.S.- China trade conflict are very much in doubt. The United States has expanded the tariffs already in place to cover nearly all imports from China, and in response China has hit back with tariffs of its own where it may hurt U.S. exports the most, mainly in swing-state industries such as farming and automobile production. 

The stock markets and economic growth in each country have increasingly shown signs of strain from the trade war and a cease-fire could provide a welcome respite. Although the Trump administration has agreed to renew trade negotiations in early October, it would be irresponsible to expect these talks to arrive at a meaningful resolution based on how entrenched each side has become. Leaving fate in the hands of the negotiators is risky business since prior negotiations have stalled or led to further escalations. So what can companies do to protect their interests and to mitigate the impact of the tariffs? 

Many companies find they cannot quickly change their supply chains or stop doing business with China. This is because U.S. importers and producers are dependent on Chinese parts makers. Some of these parts may not be available in the United States or third countries. Moving production to the United States could itself take years. But in the short term, companies can take certain steps to mitigate the impact of the tariffs. 

First, companies should consider seeking official exclusions from the tariffs with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Since importers are responsible for paying the tariff amounts, it is crucial that they are well informed about the exclusion process and consider filing requests as soon as possible since deadlines are looming. 

Tariffs on imports from China have been divided into four separate Lists; goods on Lists 1 and 2 encompass roughly $50 billion of imports from China and their exclusion process has closed. Lists 3 and 4 cover the remaining $500 billion of imports and are entering their final phase. 

List 3 goods have been subject to a 25 percent tariff since May 2019, but the rate is set to increase to 30 percent on October 15, 2019 (originally the increase was set for October 1, but President Trump has extended it by two weeks as a gesture of “good will” towards China). The deadline for requesting List 3 exclusions is September 30. 

List 4 goods, or all goods not presently covered by Lists 1-3, are subject to a 15 percent tariff effective September 1 (List 4A), or December 15 (List 4B). The exclusion process for List 4 has yet to be announced, but is likely to resemble that which applied to the previous Lists. 

What makes an exclusion request successful? This has been like reading tea leaves, although certain patterns have emerged. Namely, successful applications are extremely detailed and provide adequate information for USTR staff on which to base their opinion. Products not manufactured in the United States, products for which the manufacturer has a U.S. or foreign patent, or products which are difficult to manufacture in the United States due to high costs or environmental concerns are examples of those for which the USTR has approved exclusions. 

Other factors which have shown to affect exclusions include: potential U.S. jobs lost; financial impact on an industry sector; store of facility closings; customer demographics; ability of the customers to accept some of the tariff costs; geographic location; whether the products are included in the “Made in China 2025” policies; capacity of U.S. manufacturers to produce the quantities and quality required for the product; impact on swing states in the next presidential election; or effective public relations. 

However, an exclusion request can take time to submit, and often much longer for the USTR to reach a determination. Exclusions have also been rare. 

For those looking for another option, a change in the product’s customs classification may provide a viable option. U.S. Customs and Border Protection can only levy tariffs on the condition of goods as imported. When goods are imported, they are assigned a specific classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading. Each subheading for Chinese imports is assigned a specific tariff rate depending on where it falls on Lists 1-4. U.S. companies can work with their Chinese suppliers to determine whether certain products could be shipped in separate parts, finished or unfinished, or in embellished forms so that they legally fall under an HTS subheading assigned to a lower tariff rate. 

For some U.S. companies, passing on of the tariff cost to their consumers may be preferable. But for many, this is not a competitive solution. Some customers simply will not tolerate the increased pricing and demand for the products would correspondingly decline. 

While it is not always a quick solution, U.S. companies concerned about the duration of the current trade war may also consider diversifying their sourcing away from China altogether by shifting some or all manufacturing to the United States, or to a third country. A product with a non-China country of origin would not be subject to the current tariffs. However, country of origin rules are not harmonized internationally and different rules may apply under free trade agreements, or the substantial transformation test. Therefore, it is important for importers to understand the applicable rules and carefully verify the country of origin when considering this option. 

Finally, another approach would be to lower the dutiable value of the product upon importation to the United States through the so-called “first sale” valuation. In this scenario, U.S. importers pay duty on the price that a trading company pays the manufacturer instead of the higher price the importer pays the trading company. While the tariffs would still apply in this case, their impact would be less severe because the dutiable value would be significantly lower. 

_____________________________________________________________________

Mark Ludwikowski is the leader and Courtney Taylor is an Associate of the International Trade practice of Clark Hill, PLC. They are resident in the firm’s Washington D.C. office and can be reached at 202-772-0909; mludwikowski@ClarkHill.com and cgtaylor@ClarkHill.com

Globe Tracker
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Globe Tracker & SeaCube for One Network Express IoT Gensets

Leave a comment

One Network Express (ONE) confirmed an IoT-focused partnership with SeaCube Containers and Globe Tracker to develop a genset solution through utilizing Global Tracker’s layered technology capabilities. This along with other market solutions continue the reported increase in maritime logistics IoT demand overall.

“The growing demand for greater tracking, transparency, security, diagnostics and asset fleet management using smart technology will continue to be a key driver for leased solutions. By partnering with Globe Tracker, we will continue to enhance our leading-edge technology solutions and expand our commitment to the intermodal industry by providing smart asset technology leased products,” said Greg Tuthill, Chief Commercial Officer at SeaCube.
At the center of the development of the solution remains increasing visibility with smarter tracking abilities, specifically impacting reefer fleets. The anticipated kickoff of full operations is currently scheduled for mid-September through the end of 2019.
“We are extremely pleased to be working with SeaCube in providing this best-in-class genset solution to ONE. In genset telematics, we are the only provider integrated into the micro-controller of 2 out of the 3 leading brands in North America. This provides ONE with the most robust amount of data and assists in setting maintenance intervals, reducing maintenance costs, extending asset life, monitoring fuel consumption and having full operational visibility of their genset assets,” notes John Harnett, Senior Director Marine and Intermodal at Globe Tracker.
milk
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Global Whole Fresh Milk Market 2019 – Output is Driven by Increasing Demand in India, Turkey, the EU, and the U.S.

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Whole Fresh Milk – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The global whole fresh milk market is estimated at $798.4B in 2018, an increase of 1.7% from 2017. 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 +2.5% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 8.8% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the global whole fresh milk market attained its maximum level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of whole fresh milk consumption in 2018 were India (185M tonnes), the U.S. (99M tonnes) and Pakistan (46M tonnes), with a combined 39% share of global consumption. These countries were followed by Brazil, China, Germany, Russia, France, New Zealand, Turkey, the Netherlands and the UK, which together accounted for a further 28%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of whole fresh milk consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Turkey, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest whole fresh milk markets worldwide were India ($140.3B), the U.S. ($87.4B) and Brazil ($67.7B), together accounting for 37% of the global market. These countries were followed by Pakistan, New Zealand, China, Russia, Germany, Turkey, France, the Netherlands and the UK, which together accounted for a further 27%.

In 2018, the highest levels of whole fresh milk per capita consumption was registered in New Zealand (4,626 kg per person), followed by the Netherlands (877 kg per person), Germany (417 kg per person) and France (384 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of whole fresh milk was estimated at 110 kg per person.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of the whole fresh milk per capita consumption in New Zealand totaled +2.1%. The remaining consuming countries recorded the following average annual rates of per capita consumption growth: the Netherlands (+2.4% per year) and Germany (+1.8% per year).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for whole fresh milk worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven years. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.6% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 946M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 846M tonnes of whole fresh milk were produced worldwide; increasing by 2.2% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 3.4% y-o-y. The global whole fresh milk production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future. The general positive trend in terms of whole fresh milk output was largely conditioned by a modest increase of the number of producing animals and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

In value terms, whole fresh milk production amounted to $780.5B in 2018 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +2.5% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of whole fresh milk production in 2018 were India (185M tonnes), the U.S. (99M tonnes) and Pakistan (46M tonnes), with a combined 39% share of global production. Brazil, China, Germany, Russia, France, New Zealand, Turkey, the UK and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 27%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of whole fresh milk production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Turkey, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Producing Animals 2007-2018

In 2018, the global number of animals for whole fresh milk output amounted to 821M heads, rising by 1.7% against the previous year. This number increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2009 when the number of producing animals increased by 3.3% y-o-y. The global number of animals for whole fresh milk production peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Yield 2007-2018

In 2018, the global average yield for whole fresh milk output stood at 1 tonne per head, remaining stable against the previous year. In general, the whole fresh milk yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 2.7% y-o-y. The global whole fresh milk yield peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports amounted to 10M tonnes in 2018, reducing by -11.5% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 when exports increased by 13% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global whole fresh milk exports reached their maximum at 11M tonnes in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

In value terms, whole fresh milk exports stood at $6.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +2.0% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when exports increased by 26% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global whole fresh milk exports attained their peak figure at $8.6B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Germany (1.4M tonnes), followed by the Czech Republic (855K tonnes), the UK (822K tonnes), Belgium (746K tonnes), the Netherlands (741K tonnes), France (698K tonnes), Poland (606K tonnes) and Austria (582K tonnes) were the major exporters of whole fresh milk, together achieving 65% of total exports. The following exporters – Latvia (340K tonnes), Hungary (316K tonnes), Slovenia (284K tonnes) and Luxembourg (253K tonnes) – each recorded a 12% share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by Poland, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest whole fresh milk markets worldwide were Germany ($976M), the Netherlands ($715M) and Belgium ($664M), together comprising 34% of global exports. These countries were followed by France, Poland, the UK, the Czech Republic, Austria, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia, which together accounted for a further 37%.

Among the main exporting countries, Poland recorded the highest growth rate of exports, over the last eleven-year period, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average whole fresh milk export price stood at $696 per tonne in 2018, approximately reflecting the previous year. In general, the whole fresh milk export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2013 an increase of 14% year-to-year. In that year, the average export prices for whole fresh milk reached their peak level of $811 per tonne. From 2014 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average export prices for whole fresh milk remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($965 per tonne), while Latvia ($377 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 11M tonnes of whole fresh milk were imported worldwide; falling by -5.3% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.5% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 with an increase of 14% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global whole fresh milk imports attained their peak figure at 12M tonnes in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

In value terms, whole fresh milk imports stood at $8.2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.5% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 27% year-to-year. The global imports peaked at $8.6B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Germany (2.5M tonnes), distantly followed by Italy (1.2M tonnes), Belgium (914K tonnes), the Netherlands (803K tonnes), Ireland (764K tonnes) and China (580K tonnes) were the largest importers of whole fresh milk, together making up 61% of total imports. Lithuania (480K tonnes), France (363K tonnes), Russia (238K tonnes), Croatia (206K tonnes), Poland (187K tonnes) and Romania (184K tonnes) occupied a minor share of total imports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to whole fresh milk imports into Germany stood at +5.7%. At the same time, China (+57.8%), Croatia (+21.9%), Poland (+13.7%), Romania (+13.1%), Lithuania (+11.4%), Ireland (+10.6%), Russia (+6.5%), the Netherlands (+6.1%) and Belgium (+1.9%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, China emerged as the fastest-growing importer in the world, with a CAGR of +57.8% from 2007-2018.

By contrast, France (-1.5%) and Italy (-3.1%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2018, the share of Germany, China, Ireland, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Croatia and Belgium increased by +10%, +5.2%, +4.6%, +3.5%, +3%, +1.6% and +1.5% percentage points, while Italy (-4.4 p.p.) saw their share reduced. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Germany ($1.5B), China ($747M) and Italy ($733M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together comprising 36% of global imports.

In terms of the main importing countries, China (+54.0% per year) recorded the highest growth rate of imports, over the last eleven years, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average whole fresh milk import price amounted to $735 per tonne, picking up by 4.7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the whole fresh milk import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 when the average import price increased by 16% year-to-year. The global import price peaked at $802 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 importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($1,584 per tonne), while Lithuania ($383 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by France, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Charlotte
Archives, Commentary, Global Trade Daily

How Small Steps Can Drive Big Results For Your Business

Leave a comment

In business, it’s the major leaps that people notice and remember.

Apple introduced the iPhone and the methods in which we communicate and gather information were changed forever. LEGO took some audacious steps over the last couple of decades and expanded its toy franchise into video games, TV and movies.

Big steps. Big results.

But not every move you make with your business or in your personal life needs to be of earth-shattering significance, says Shawn Burcham (www.shawnburcham.com), founder and CEO of PFSbrands and author of Keeping Score with GRITT: Straight Talk Strategies for Success.

Sometimes, it’s the small steps that eventually lead to big rewards.

“One example with my own company is that there was a time when I didn’t believe in meetings,” Burcham says. “I thought they were a waste of time, probably because most of the meetings I had been in had indeed been a waste.”

But as his business grew, Burcham realized meetings are a necessity for communicating within a large organization. So, PFSbrands took the “small step” of instituting regularly scheduled meetings, which he says have been critical to accomplishing personal, departmental, and company-wide goals.

Burcham offers a few more examples of small steps that can pay big dividends for you and your business:

Make a habit of setting goals. “It may seem like a basic thing, but setting goals is crucial to success both personally and professionally,” Burcham says. “Everyone in your company should be setting goals, and regularly reviewing those goals and checking their progress.” Sounds easy enough, but this is one small step that many people don’t take. “That’s why just the act of setting goals already gives you a competitive advantage,” he says.

Write down those goals. Setting goals is a good first step, but don’t just memorize them, Burcham says. Write them down because studies have shown that people who do that are more likely to achieve what they are after than people without written goals.

Build an accountability system. One of the best ways to make sure you follow through on your goals is to create a network of people who will hold you accountable, Burcham says. If no one knows you set a goal, it’s easy to let it slide. But if there are people who know about your goal, and better yet are depending on you to accomplish it, then you are more likely to follow through. In a business, it’s good for everyone to know everyone else’s goals and every department’s goals. That way, Burcham says, you can all hold each other accountable.

Stop trying to do everything. Burcham suggests asking yourself what duties you can pass on to others because those activities are not a productive use of time and energy for you or for the company. “I’ve often made the mistake of hanging onto responsibilities far longer than necessary; everything from accounting, to email management, to sales management,” he says.  As a company grows, Burcham says, that small step of finding things you can stop doing will be crucial to success.

“While each of these individually may be a small step, they are all important for personal growth and your business’ success,” Burcham says. “If you don’t set goals, write them down, and work to improve, you’ll likely be the exact same person 12 months from now. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. Being who you are is okay, but the question is: Are you content with being the same? Or do you want to be better?”

_______________________________________________________________

Shawn Burcham (www.shawnburcham.com), author of Keeping Score with GRITT: Straight Talk Strategies for Success, is the founder & CEO of PFSbrands, which he and his wife, Julie, started out of their home in 1998. The company has over 1,500 branded foodservice locations across 40 states and is best known for their Champs Chicken franchise brand which was started in 1999. Prior to starting PFSbrands, Burcham spent five years with a Fortune 100 company, Mid-America Dairymen (now Dairy Farmers of America). He also worked for three years as a Regional Sales Manager for a midwest Chester’s Fried chicken distributor.

fabric
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

U.S. Coated Fabric Market Amounted to $4.5B in 2018, with Accelerating Expansion of Imports

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the coated fabric market in the U.S. amounted to $4.5B in 2018, picking up by 4.6% 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 +5.5% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 9.8% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the coated fabric market reached its peak figure level in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Coated Fabric Production in the U.S.

In value terms, coated fabric production stood at $2.6B in 2018. Overall, coated fabric production, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when production volume increased by 4.4% year-to-year. In that year, coated fabric production attained its peak level of $2.7B. From 2015 to 2018, coated fabric production growth remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports from the U.S.

Coated fabric exports from the U.S. amounted to 13K tonnes in 2018, dropping by -3% against the previous year. Overall, coated fabric exports continue to indicate a noticeable descent. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when exports increased by 4.4% against the previous year. Exports peaked at 15K tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, coated fabric exports amounted to $151M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 when exports increased by 11% against the previous year. Exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

The Dominican Republic (1.9K tonnes), Germany (1.8K tonnes) and the UK (1.7K tonnes) were the main destinations of coated fabric exports from the U.S., together comprising 43% of total exports. These countries were followed by Mexico, China, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, China, Hong Kong SAR, Brazil, Taiwan, Chinese and India, which together accounted for a further 32%.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by the Philippines (+69.7% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest markets for coated fabric exported from the U.S. were the UK ($22M), the Dominican Republic ($22M) and Germany ($17M), together accounting for 41% of total exports. These countries were followed by Japan, China, the Philippines, China, Hong Kong SAR, Australia, Mexico, India, Brazil and Taiwan, Chinese, which together accounted for a further 34%.

Among the main countries of destination, Taiwan, Chinese (+59.2% per year) experienced 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 coated fabric export price stood at $12 per kg in 2018, picking up by 7.4% against the previous year. Over the period from 2013 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +7.7%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 an increase of 13% year-to-year. The export price peaked in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($26 per kg), while the average price for exports to Mexico ($5.6 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of coated fabrics imported into the U.S. amounted to 215K tonnes, growing by 9.5% against the previous year. Overall, the total imports indicated a buoyant increase from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +12.0% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, coated fabric imports increased by +76.1% against 2013 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 17% year-to-year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, coated fabric imports stood at $1.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +6.9% over the period from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 when imports increased by 12% against the previous year. Over the period under review, coated fabric imports attained their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Imports by Country

In 2018, China (101K tonnes) constituted the largest coated fabric supplier to the U.S., with a 47% share of total imports. Moreover, coated fabric imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, India (38K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by South Korea (16K tonnes), with a 7.3% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume from China stood at +11.1%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: India (+55.9% per year) and South Korea (+2.2% per year).

In value terms, China ($393M) constituted the largest supplier of coated fabric to the U.S., comprising 36% of total coated fabric imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($97M), with a 9% share of total imports. It was followed by India, with a 8.6% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from China totaled +9.6%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Japan (+2.7% per year) and India (+48.2% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average coated fabric import price amounted to $5,009 per tonne, leveling off at the previous year. Overall, the coated fabric import price continues to indicate an abrupt deduction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 a decrease of -0.1% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average import prices for coated fabrics reached their maximum at $6,306 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Japan ($18,533 per tonne), while the price for India ($2,460 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Thailand, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced mixed trend patterns.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Tonoga, The Haartz Corporation, Aoc, Schneller, Beaver Manufacturing Company, Sika Sarnafil, Duro-Last, Shawmut Corporation, Engineered Polymer Solutions, Aberdeen Road Company, Clear Edge Filtration, Holliston, Atlas Resin Proppants, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Precision Custom Coatings, Adell Plastics, Uniroyal Engineered Products, Dyna-Mix, UIC Maintenance & Manufacturing, Cooley Incorporated, Fiberite, Westlake Pvc Corporation, Dti Leather Solutions, Bondcote Holdings, The Adell Corporation

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

cotton fabric
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Asia’s Cotton Fabric Market – China Still Dominates Exports, Despite a Raging Trade War

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Asia – Woven Fabrics Of Cotton – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the cotton fabric market in Asia amounted to $43.9B in 2018, increasing by 2% 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). Overall, cotton fabric consumption continues to indicate a measured drop. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when the market value increased by 6.4% against the previous year. The level of cotton fabric consumption peaked at $57.9B in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption By Country in Asia

China (1.9B square meters) remains the largest cotton fabric consuming country in Asia, accounting for 32% of total consumption. Moreover, cotton fabric consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest consumer, Bangladesh (869M square meters), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Turkey (819M square meters), with a 13% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China totaled -1.6%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Bangladesh (+15.7% per year) and Turkey (-0.4% per year).

In value terms, the largest cotton fabric markets in Asia were China ($13B), India ($9.7B) and Bangladesh ($4.9B), with a combined 63% share of the total market.

The countries with the highest levels of cotton fabric per capita consumption in 2018 were Turkey (9,988 square meters per 1000 persons), Bangladesh (5,219 square meters per 1000 persons) and Viet Nam (2,483 square meters per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of cotton fabric per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Bangladesh, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the per capita consumption figures.

Production in Asia

In 2018, the production of woven fabrics of cotton in Asia totaled 6.2B square meters, going down by -4.2% against the previous year. Overall, cotton fabric production continues to indicate a measured deduction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when production volume increased by 10% against the previous year. The volume of cotton fabric production peaked at 8.2B square meters in 2010; however, from 2011 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, cotton fabric production stood at $46.9B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Over the period under review, cotton fabric production continues to indicate a mild decrease. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 5.9% year-to-year. Over the period under review, cotton fabric production attained its peak figure level at $59.6B in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Production By Country in Asia

China (3.1B square meters) remains the largest cotton fabric producing country in Asia, accounting for 50% of total production. Moreover, cotton fabric production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest producer, Turkey (833M square meters), fourfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by India (792M square meters), with a 13% share.

In China, cotton fabric production remained relatively stable over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Turkey (+0.1% per year) and India (-5.8% per year).

Exports in Asia

In 2018, the exports of woven fabrics of cotton in Asia totaled 2.2B square meters, leveling off at the previous year. Overall, cotton fabric exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 44% against the previous year. Over the period under review, cotton fabric exports attained their maximum at 2.8B square meters in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, cotton fabric exports stood at $15.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, cotton fabric exports continue to indicate a slight reduction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when exports increased by 23% y-o-y. The level of exports peaked at $22.8B in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

In 2018, China (1.2B square meters) was the major exporter of woven fabrics of cotton, making up 56% of total exports. It was distantly followed by Pakistan (422M square meters), India (118M square meters) and Turkey (109M square meters), together generating a 29% share of total exports. China, Hong Kong SAR (97M square meters) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Exports from China increased at an average annual rate of +2.9% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Pakistan emerged as the fastest-growing exporter in Asia, with a CAGR of +5.9% from 2007-2018. India and Turkey experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, China, Hong Kong SAR (-13.6%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2018, the share of China and Pakistan increased by +15% and +8.9% percentage points, while China, Hong Kong SAR (-17.7 p.p.) saw their share reduced. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, China ($7.9B) remains the largest cotton fabric supplier in Asia, comprising 51% of total cotton fabric exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Pakistan ($2.2B), with a 14% share of total exports. It was followed by India, with a 12% share.

In China, cotton fabric exports remained relatively stable over the period from 2007-2018. The remaining exporting countries recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Pakistan (+1.1% per year) and India (+6.2% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The cotton fabric export price in Asia stood at $7,047 per thousand square meters in 2018, going up by 9.8% against the previous year. Overall, the cotton fabric export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when the export price increased by 12% against the previous year. The level of export price peaked at $8,452 per thousand square meters in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was India ($15,533 per thousand square meters), while Pakistan ($5,150 per thousand square meters) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by India, while the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports in Asia

In 2018, approx. 2.1B square meters of woven fabrics of cotton were imported in Asia; increasing by 4.9% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 when imports increased by 42% year-to-year. Over the period under review, cotton fabric imports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

In value terms, cotton fabric imports stood at $11.8B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when imports increased by 36% against the previous year. The level of imports peaked at $13.8B in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

Bangladesh represented the major importer of woven fabrics of cotton in Asia, with the volume of imports reaching 873M square meters, which was near 42% of total imports in 2018. Viet Nam (257M square meters) held a 12% share (based on tonnes) of total imports, which put it in second place, followed by China, Hong Kong SAR (5.1%), Indonesia (5%), Cambodia (5%) and Turkey (4.5%). China (94M square meters), Sri Lanka (72M square meters), South Korea (65M square meters), Thailand (43M square meters), the United Arab Emirates (37M square meters) and Japan (36M square meters) took a little share of total imports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to cotton fabric imports into Bangladesh stood at +15.3%. Cambodia (+20.8%), Viet Nam (+13.7%), Indonesia (+9.6%) and the United Arab Emirates (+3.2%) also displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Cambodia emerged as the fastest-growing importer in Asia, with a CAGR of +20.8% from 2007-2018. Sri Lanka experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Thailand (-1.4%), South Korea (-2.2%), Turkey (-3.9%), Japan (-4.2%), China (-8.9%) and China, Hong Kong SAR (-12.4%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. Bangladesh (+33 p.p.), Viet Nam (+9.3 p.p.), Cambodia (+4.4 p.p.) and Indonesia (+3.2 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the total imports, while Turkey, China and China, Hong Kong SAR saw its share reduced by -2.5%, -8% and -16.8% from 2007 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the largest cotton fabric importing markets in Asia were Bangladesh ($3.4B), Viet Nam ($2B) and Indonesia ($855M), with a combined 54% share of total imports. China, China, Hong Kong SAR, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 35%.

Cambodia experienced the highest growth rate of imports, in terms of the main importing countries over the last eleven-year period, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the cotton fabric import price in Asia amounted to $5,633 per thousand square meters, reducing by -3.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the cotton fabric import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the import price increased by 23% y-o-y. The level of import price peaked at $9,532 per thousand square meters in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was China ($8,692 per thousand square meters), while the United Arab Emirates ($3,143 per thousand square meters) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Indonesia, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

dangerous goods
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

Compliance Gaps Revealed in Global Dangerous Goods Confidence Outlook

Leave a comment

Dangerous Goods industry players reveal surprising outlooks when it comes down to achieving transport compliance, according to statistics reported in the fourth annual 2019 Global Dangerous Goods Confidence Outlook survey. The results were shared this week during the Dangerous Goods Symposium 2019 event in Chicago and prove that although many are actively a part of the dangerous goods sector, not all are convinced their supply chains are enough to maintain a competitive advantage.

“The growth of ecommerce and the evolution of supply chain has made moving dangerous goods in a safe and compliant manner more important than ever,” said Robert Finn, vice president, Labelmaster. “Unfortunately, several key gaps exist within organizations’ processes and infrastructure that make maintaining a compliant and reliable hazmat supply chain challenging.”

Some of the most telling numbers revealed in the survey point to several factors from infrastructure gaps and leadership risk awareness to technology, budget factors, and communications with supply chain partners. Among the responses, a reported 55 percent confirmed a manual process is still in place for dangerous goods shipping, while a whopping 71 percent expressed the desire for partners matching compliance efforts.

“Companies view DG management and compliance differently, which directly impacts their level of investment and, ultimately, their ability to ensure compliance across their entire organization and adapt to changing operational needs,” Finn said. “As a result, many organizations lack the resources needed to meet their current supply chain needs, and few have the budget and infrastructure necessary to support future requirements.”

Another 42 percent of responses turned attention to the problems in business spurred from the “careless” manner in which some carriers handle dangerous goods while 55 percent struggle with obtaining accurate data from supply chain partners.

Additional results reveal that 67 percent agree their reverse logistics are enough to address current needs with only 20 percent expressing confidence in supporting future dangerous goods operations.

“In order to successfully navigate an increasingly complex and dynamic hazmat supply chain landscape, organizations need to think of compliance beyond simply a mandate and the threat of a fine, and recognize how it can be a competitive advantage that drives revenue, improves supply chain performance, reduces risk and enables better customer service,” Finn concluded.

To read the full report sponsored by Labelmaster, International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, please visit: labelmaster.com

top states
Archives, Global Trade Daily, State Spotlight

TOP 10 STATES FOR MANUFACTURING 2019

Leave a comment

It’s safe to say that most of the products we use daily were manufactured somewhere. From the clothes we wear to the cars we drive, a long line of wheels must be set in motion before the things we own end up in our hands. That’s why manufacturing and the people who manufacture are so important. 

Whether you have a product that needs manufacturing or need a manufacturer to make that product, finding the best team for the job is paramount to your product’s success and your businesses survival. These 10 states have an edge over the rest when it comes to manufacturing. From incentives to low tax rates to education programs that encourage students to consider manufacturing careers, these states are leading the country in manufacturing. Here’s why.

OHIO

With manufacturers in Ohio accounting for 12.56 percent of the state workforce, this Rust Belt state remains a manufacturing powerhouse despite recent shifts in the manufacturing landscape. Though smaller in size than many other states, Ohio is still the third largest in American when it comes to manufacturing, with a total output of $107.95 billion in 2017, and $50.40 billion in exports in 2018. To date, Ohio is home to more than 12,000 manufacturing firms, with 89 percent of those exporters being small businesses. 

MICHIGAN

Boasting total manufacturing output of $96.22 billion in 2017, Michigan has seen a significant resurgence in manufacturing in the past decade. Still king in the motor vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing marketplace, the Wolverine State has also begun to earn a reputation for manufacturing quality machine parts, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. A small business friendly state, nearly 90 percent of all exporters in Michigan in 2018 were from that sector. Manufactured goods exports in 2018 alone totaled $55.35 billion.

CALIFORNIA

Consistently ranked among the top 10 states for manufacturing in the U.S., the Golden State workforce has nearly 8 percent of its employees working in that sector. California’s total manufacturing output was more than $300 billion in 2017, and 2018 saw nearly $155 billion in exported manufactured goods. With over 25,000 manufacturing firms (of which 93 percent are considered small to medium-sized businesses), California boasts a skilled workforce that is in it for the long haul, with many workers considering manufacturing a career, not just another job. California manufacturing jobs pay an average of over $100,000 in salary and benefits, compared to the U.S. average of $54,329.


TEXAS

Home to its own power grid and no personal or corporate income taxes, Texas is about as business friendly as you can get among the states. With $247.46 billion in manufactured goods exported from the Lone Star State in 2018, manufacturing accounts for 13.33 percent of the total Texas output while employing 7.04 percent of the state’s workforce. They say everything’s bigger in Texas, and the incentive programs in the state are no exception. Between the ample Texas Enterprise Fund, which has invested more than half a billion dollars since 2004, and major cuts to the state’s franchise tax, Texas is poised to remain one of the top manufacturing states in the nation.

NORTH CAROLINA

The second-largest food and beverage manufacturing state and the overall fifth-largest manufacturing state in America, North Carolina is home to the largest manufacturing workforce in the Southeast. The manufacturing industry employs 460,000 skilled workers in North Carolina–nearly 11 percent of the state’s workforce. North Carolina manufacturing makes up about 20 percent of the state’s gross state product, to the tune of $102.48 billion in 2017 and $31.06 billion in exports in 2018. North Carolina has experienced tremendous growth in manufacturing goods in recent years, with a nearly 35 percent increase in exports from 2010 to 2018. North Carolina’s pro-business climate and expert workforce make it an ideal state for manufacturers.

INDIANA

Manufacturing accounts for nearly 30 percent of the output in Indiana, where $102.59 billion was generated in 2017. Manufacturing accounts for almost 20 percent of the state’s workforce, with 516,900 workers employed in the sector statewide–an estimated one in five workers. In fact, Indiana has the highest concentration of manufacturing jobs in America. With more than 8,500 manufacturing firms already in the state, Indiana is the second-largest automobile manufacturing state in the nation. Along major truck routes and freight lines, goods manufactured in Indiana can reach 75 percent of the U.S. and Canada’s populations within a day’s drive.

FLORIDA

With more than 12,000 manufacturing firms in Florida, the state has made a big push in recent years to encourage more manufacturing. With the fifth-lowest corporate income tax in the country, the Sunshine State employs more than 331,000 workers in the manufacturing sector. Your manufactured goods can get to their destination with ease, because Florida’s multi-modal transportation system offers everything from air and rail to deep-water shipping and highways, all at a low cost of living and a low cost of doing business.

GEORGIA

Another  Southeast state that’s blazing trails in the manufacturing industry, Georgia boasts more 480,000 manufacturing jobs, ensuring that the future remains bright for the industry. That’s why the Peach State developed the Quick Start program and partnered with many in-state universities to teach rising students the skills they need for careers in manufacturing. Industry employs nearly nine percent of Georgia’s workforce across 6,600 firms. In 2018, manufacturers in the state generated $36.81 billion in exports, with a total manufacturing output of $61.06 billion in 2017.

TENNESSEE

According to the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, the state’s growth in advanced manufacturing is higher than anywhere else in the nation; in fact, it’s 42 percent higher than the U.S. average. Manufacturing accounts for 16.13 percent of the state’s total output, which was $55.70 billion in 2017. Tennessee has numerous initiatives to help train its manufacturing workforce, including the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which provides small to medium-sized manufacturers with training and consulting, all with the goal of helping Tennessee-based manufacturers increase competitiveness in the marketplace via workplace initiatives to increase productivity and lower costs.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Over the past decade, South Carolina has seen manufacturing growth of 18 percent, the second largest jump in the Southeast. Manufacturers in the Palmetto State account for a total of nearly 17 percent of the state’s total output and 11.55 percent of South Carolina workers are employed in the manufacturing industry. In 2018, South Carolina’s exported goods totaled $33.89 billion. In 2018, South Carolina earned an A grade in the Manufacturing and Logistics Report Card by Ball State University’s Center for Business and Economic Research and Conexus Indiana. The report rated each state on criteria such as how desirable it is to site selectors, and the share of Income earned by manufacturing workers within the state.

lean supply chain
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

LEAN OR AGILE? FOR A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN, THE ANSWER IS BOTH

Leave a comment

Maintaining competitive advantage in the global logistics playing field is no easy task. There are hundreds of companies striving to earn the loyalty and business of global and domestic clients and the competition is becoming more intense with each passing day. Thanks to technology, companies are now able to take a step back and truly evaluate what structures make the most sense to meet customer demands in unpredictable markets.

Technology offering features such as predictive analytics are enabling logistics leaders to employ proactive measures for even the most complex of disruptions. However, readily available technology does not prove successful without careful consideration of the right platform and what supply chain management structure will meet the needs for specific company goals and customer demands. Company A might require a lean approach, while company B requires characteristics of both lean and agile supply chain structures. Before diving into which one benefits the most, it’s important to understand the differences between the two. 

An agile supply chain structure focuses heavily on layered benefits including visibility, predictability, and speed in terms of reaction times. Lean supply chain focuses on the most cost-effective options, ultimately reducing costs and recovering what’s been spent. Both are extremely important and attainable, but the trick is finding the right balance between the two while recruiting the best partners fit to support meeting the needs of customers. This element is critical in maintaining competitive advantage and ultimately makes or breaks customer relationships. 

“Everyone is striving to find that balance between having an agile supply chain and a lean supply chain because logistics and transportation costs fall to the bottom line,” explains Matt Castle, vice president, Global Forwarding Products and Services at C.H. Robinson. “These costs need to be recovered at some point in time, regardless of what business you’re in. There’s always going to be a focus on ensuring a lean supply chain in terms of cost and the economy, as well as how to find that balance of also maintaining flexibility based on the needs of the business. Having that agility can be a major differentiator in delivering on customer expectations.”

Castle adds: “Another question to think about is how to approach diversification in your supplier base. There can obviously be restraints based on a particular importer or exporter in terms of where they’re sourcing or buying product and availability, but I recommend ensuring you have an outlet from a secondary supplier. It’s worth the front-end legwork from a planning perspective to ensure you have a multitude of choices.”

The advantages of agile supply chain go far beyond mastering efficiencies or recovering costs and requires taking a holistic look at all the moving parts of your business. Implementing this type of approach relies heavily on planning and thinking differently in approaching the management of customer expectations while ensuring your business can offer a level of flexibility your competitors can’t offer. 

“When I think about an agile supply chain, I think about having flexibility—the ability to adapt at a quick pace, speed and the ability to recover from a certain level of uncertainty,” Castle says. “I believe it’s important to collaborate with a company that has a diverse portfolio of services. This is so businesses are able to adjust quickly from an ocean service to an air service, from an intermodal to a truckload, or even breaking down at a warehouse facility, LTL or small parcel.

“Having a provider that can seamlessly move from one product to the next is extremely important. It’s also important to ensure you’re engaging with a provider that has a global footprint. There are different scenarios playing out in different countries, so your ability to have a presence that can engage a global environment is critical.”

Any business implementing an agile supply chain approach must ensure supporting providers and partners are a good fit. Choosing the right third-party logistics provider can determine just how quickly your business can recover from an unpredictable situation and continue operations. Uncertainties cannot be completely eliminated, but they can be managed in a way that your business and customer relations do not suffer with the right partner. Without this, an agile supply chain structure is limited. 

“When thinking about uncertainty in the supply chain, having a third-party logistics provider that’s multimodal or that offers a variety of products allows you to seamlessly move from one product to the next,” Castle advises. “That is one of the best defenses against being able to navigate any level of uncertainty–from speeding up or slowing down products. It comes back to having some level of a global presence, as it’s something a lot of importers and exporters are trying to navigate today.”

Technology is equally important when aligning operations with an agile approach. This also requires careful consideration of what works in terms of what kind of products and the regions associated with operations. The technology needs to provide a level of visibility that enables your business to react to a variety of disruptors–from weather to policy, disruptions can come in different forms and require proactive, quick solutions to mitigate additional risks. 

“Put simply, it’s a matter of having product available–whatever your business may be, to either sell or have within the production cycle so that you’re not ending up with a plant shutdown,” Castle says. “An agile supply chain creates an opportunity to deliver product on the shelf that a competitor isn’t able to.”

“For C.H. Robinson, Navisphere is our technology platform. Managing any kind of supply chain is about how you bring visibility to what’s happening with the movement of your goods. What’s changing in terms of expectations around technology is how do you start to weave different factors in so that it starts to align with more predictive elements.”

____________________________________________________________________

Matt Castle is vice president of Air Freight Products and Services at C.H. Robinson. He joined C.H. Robinson in 1996 and has 25+ years of experience in the transportation industry. Castle is responsible for driving growth through global airfreight product. He received his degree in Aviation Administration and Management from the University of North Dakota.