Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
If you've been wondering whatever happened to RFID, here's the answer: It's still alive, but it isn't exactly kicking.
Some companies that had planned to implement RFID have backed away. One prominent example is Albertsons, the Western U.S. supermarket chain. In 2004, Albertsons launched an RFID initiative that would require major suppliers to tag cases and pallets for delivery to the grocer's distribution centers. But retail giant Supervalu Inc., which bought Albertsons in 2006, was not sold on the value of RFID, and the program was discontinued.
That doesn't mean Supervalu has written off RFID altogether. Although it has backed off for now, the retailer may revisit RFID in the future, Matt Smith, Supervalu's vice president of supply chain, told DC VELOCITY. "We currently do not view RFID as a cost-effective solution for our grocery distribution operation and have allocated our investments toward other technologies that help us become more efficient and provide the best service to our customers. That said, we continue to follow the advancements in RFID technology and remain open to the possibility of incorporating it into our distribution environment at a later time," Smith said.
Concerns about the cost/benefit ratio have led to some foot-dragging among suppliers. Most of Wal-Mart's suppliers are only tagging 10 to 15 stock-keeping units (SKUs), said Sean Campbell, a partner in IBM's Global Business Systems unit, at a recent meeting of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals' New England Roundtable. But others are picking their battles, using RFID to address a specific problem rather than adopting it across the board, he said. Some of the successful applications he's seen include asset location and tracking, triggering events in manufacturing environments, and improving the accuracy of retail floor data. RFID has also been helpful in preventing out-of-stocks and reducing the incidence of "phantom inventory"—inventory that software says is in a retail store but is actually elsewhere in the distribution system.
Co-presenter Donald Biggs, director of customer logistics at Welch Foods Inc., said that Wal-Mart's RFID mandate has cost his company money, and he doesn't expect a clear ROI on Welch's investment in tags, hardware, and software. Now, Welch Foods is gearing up for compliance with a similar mandate from Sam's Club, which required pallet-level tagging as of January with case-level tags by October and some itemlevel tagging next year. Biggs joked that although Sam's Club—Welch's third-largest customer—buys only seven SKUs, tagging will be so costly that paying the retailer's $2 perunit fine for "non-participation" might be cheaper than compliance. (Sam's Club has since reduced the fine to 12 cents.)
Welch Foods is getting some benefits from RFID, though. Combining RFID data with software analysis, for example, has helped the company reduce out-of-stocks and boost sales of its juices, jams, and jellies at some Wal-Mart stores.
The Sam's Club mandate, like its parent company's fiat, undoubtedly will spur more investment in RFID. And Campbell said nobody should consider RFID to be down for the count. The development of standards, collective industry action, technological improvements, and open sharing of information will boost adoption, just as it did for bar coding, he predicted. "When coupled with process change, RFID is going to be an enabling technology," he said.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain” report.
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Freight transportation sector analysts with US Bank say they expect change on the horizon in that market for 2025, due to possible tariffs imposed by a new White House administration, the return of East and Gulf coast port strikes, and expanding freight fraud.
“All three of these merit scrutiny, and that is our promise as we roll into the new year,” the company said in a statement today.
First, US Bank said a new administration will occupy the White House and will control the House and Senate for the first time since 2016. With an announced mandate on tariffs, taxes and trade from his electoral victory, President-Elect Trump’s anticipated actions are almost certain to impact the supply chain, the bank said.
Second, a strike by longshoreman at East Coast and Gulf ports was suspended in October, but the can was only kicked until mid-January. Shipper alarm bells are already ringing, and with peak season in full swing, the West coast ports are roaring, having absorbed containers bound for the East. However, that status may not be sustainable in the event of a prolonged strike in January, US Bank said.
And third, analyst are tracking the proliferation of freight fraud, and its reverberations across the supply chain. No longer the realm of petty criminals, freight fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated, and the financial toll of their activities in the loss of goods, and data, is expected to be in the billions, the bank estimates.
The move delivers on its August announcement of a fleet renewal plan that will allow the company to proceed on its path to decarbonization, according to a statement from Anda Cristescu, Head of Chartering & Newbuilding at Maersk.
The first vessels will be delivered in 2028, and the last delivery will take place in 2030, enabling a total capacity to haul 300,000 twenty foot equivalent units (TEU) using lower emissions fuel. The new vessels will be built in sizes from 9,000 to 17,000 TEU each, allowing them to fill various roles and functions within the company’s future network.
In the meantime, the company will also proceed with its plan to charter a range of methanol and liquified gas dual-fuel vessels totaling 500,000 TEU capacity, replacing existing capacity. Maersk has now finalized these charter contracts across several tonnage providers, the company said.
The shipyards now contracted to build the vessels are: Yangzijiang Shipbuilding and New Times Shipbuilding—both in China—and Hanwha Ocean in South Korea.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”