ASICS America's single distribution center couldn't keep up with surging demand for its athletic shoes and apparel. Changing its distribution pattern and adding another warehouse helped the company manage both current sales and future growth.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
Back in 2008, ASICS America was having trouble keeping ahead of demand for its athletic shoes and apparel. Sales for the North American branch of the Japanese manufacturer were growing by 21 percent annually, which turned out to be both a blessing and a curse. While the gains in revenue and market share were welcome indeed, the strong sales performance had also caused ASICS' single U.S. distribution center to hit capacity. That resulted in service slowdowns and raised concerns about the company's ability to handle future growth.
"We realized a year ago that with the growth we were having as a company, our current distribution model was not going to support the business in the next couple of years," says Gary Jordan, chief supply chain officer for ASICS America.
Clearly, the manufacturer needed more distribution capacity, and soon. Before it could act, however, Jordan and his colleagues needed to answer two questions: How could the company quickly get a handle on current growth? And what would be the most cost-effective way to develop capacity to support future expansion? To answer those questions, ASICS America conducted an analysis of its distribution system. The results led the manufacturer to reroute some of its shipments to bypass the DC, expand its use of a third-party logistics service provider (3PL), and build a second distribution center. Here's a look at what ASICS America has accomplished to date and its plans for the future.
Stretched to the limit
ASICS was founded in 1949 in Kobe, Japan, as a manufacturer of basketball shoes. Its name is an acronym for the Latin phrase anima sana in corpore sano, which translates to "a sound mind in a sound body." Today, the company makes athletic footwear, apparel, and accessories for a broad spectrum of sports, and its worldwide sales total around $2.4 billion. ASICS America, which serves the United States, Canada, and Mexico, is based in Irvine, Calif.
ASICS America's shoes and clothing are made by contract manufacturers in China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Those items are shipped in ocean containers to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. On average, the company imports 2,200 40-foot-equivalent containers each year into the United States.
Back in 2008, the company's U.S. distribution system was fairly straightforward. The logistics service provider APL Logistics (APLL) unloaded ASICS' ocean containers at its Torrance, Calif., facility. It then reloaded most of the merchandise into 53-foot trailers for over-the-road shipment to ASICS' 350,000-square-foot distribution center in Southaven, Miss. That facility, located near Memphis, Tenn., handled orders for most of ASICS America's 3,000 retail customers in the United States. At that time, Southaven carried about 23,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) and typically held about $100 million in inventory.
APLL also handled about 6 percent of the imported goods as "DC bypass shipments," which skipped Southaven and went directly to a customer. These generally were full container loads of product destined for customers on the West Coast, Jordan says.
ASICS had anticipated and prepared for rapid growth, spending millions of dollars in 2005 and 2006 to retrofit the Southaven facility and boost throughput to 50,000 units per day. Even so, the 21-percent sales growth in 2008 was taxing the company's distribution capacity. That year, Southaven was shipping 70,000 or more units daily and had seen volumes as high as 110,000 units per day. "We had reached a point where we were not going to get any more out of [that distribution center]," Jordan says.
At the same time, ASICS America was coming under another sort of pressure. Retail customers had begun requesting value-added services, such as garment-on-hanger shipments, which the Southaven facility could not accommodate. Furthermore, bricks-and-mortar retailers that were also selling merchandise online were asking the manufacturer to ship individual orders to customers—another service the operation wasn't set up to provide. In short, capacity constraints were not only slowing down order fulfillment, but also preventing ASICS America from serving new customers and markets. "We couldn't handle that type of business out of our current distribution network," says Jordan, "and it was limiting our sales opportunity."
A two-part plan
When it became clear that the current distribution strategy was no longer adequate, an in-house team at ASICS America began an analysis of the company's distribution network, poring over data for sales, shipments, order types, frequency of orders, and SKUs. The team recommended shifting some distribution operations to the West Coast to relieve the pressure on the Mississippi DC. But it also determined that ASICS couldn't handle that task on its own, largely because it didn't have the ability to provide the kind of service customers on the West Coast needed for their particular order types, Jordan says.
At that point, Jordan brought in the supply chain consulting firm Fortna Inc. of Reading, Pa., to get a second opinion on how best to solve the capacity problem. Fortna had worked with ASICS America in the past, assisting it with the upgrade of its Southaven facility a few years earlier. After reviewing the data collected by the project team, Fortna requested some additional information for analysis, including customer types and ordering profiles, inbound container and transfer costs, the 3PL's capabilities, and information system capabilities. The consulting firm also studied the cost of handling different order types at the Southaven facility versus handling them in California.
In 2009, Fortna made two recommendations: handle more cargo at the West Coast instead of shipping it to Southaven, and construct a second distribution center close to the Southaven site.
Fortna's analysis indicated that establishing a West Coast operation to break down imported containers and build mixed loads for shipment to customers in the Western United States could save ASICS America millions of dollars. The manufacturer decided to move quickly on that recommendation, setting a target of diverting 20 percent of its incoming merchandise directly to customers.
The task of handling those shipments would be contracted out to a third-party service provider, which would be more economical and efficient than setting up and running a facility on its own. ASICS America opted to retain its current 3PL for the new assignment after Fortna determined that APLL's prices for the required services were in line with the market. The fact that time was of the essence also encouraged the footwear and apparel maker to expand the existing relationship. "We realized that our sales-growth projections did not allow us the time to do a full [request for quotation from other 3PLs] on this," says Jordan. "That played into our decision to leave the business with APL Logistics."
To accommodate the new plan, APL Logistics shifted its work for ASICS to a multi-tenant facility located in City of Industry, a municipality in California. There, the 3PL breaks down some of the inbound containers to create mixed loads and runs a pick-pack operation that serves retailers in the Western United States. APLL recently began price ticketing and labeling products for those customers as well.
To help ASICS reduce its inbound transportation costs, APLL has started to ship some containers by intermodal rail service from City of Industry to the Southaven DC. Jordan's group decides on the routing before containers arrive at Los Angeles or Long Beach. "During the in-transit period, when the shipment is on the water, the determination is made whether the container stays in the City of Industry facility, goes over the road, or goes intermodal," Jordan explains. He expects to eventually move about half of the Mississippi-bound containers by rail.
Diverting shipments at the West Coast does not save money on outbound freight because ASICS America's retail customers generally pick up their shipments at the City of Industry facility. The primary benefit of that system is that it has helped the company manage rising freight volumes. So far, ASICS has reduced the volume of merchandise moving through Southaven by 14 percent, keeping throughput there manageable. It has also reduced overall handling costs because more shipments are going directly to customers as full container loads. In addition, the cargo diversion improves customer satisfaction because more of its customers get their orders shortly after the ocean vessel arrives rather than having to wait for them to be processed in Southaven.
Prepared for the future
Now that the West Coast operation is up and running, ASICS America has moved on to the next phase of its network redesign: building a new, larger DC near its original facility. In April 2010, it broke ground for construction of a 520,000-square-foot DC in Byhalia, Miss., about 20 miles from the current distribution center. Fortna will oversee design, procurement, and installation of the material handling systems for the new building.
The Byhalia facility, slated for completion in April 2011, will have the capacity to handle 140,000 units per day in a single-shift operation. It will focus on shipping footwear, while the Southaven location will distribute apparel and accessories and store additional footwear during peak periods.
ASICS America will also have enough land on the 38-acre Byhalia site to accommodate future expansion. That expansion may happen sooner rather than later, judging from the way sales have been going. Last year, sales grew by nearly 10 percent—a strong showing in a recession. This year, the footwear company expects sales growth in the range of 13 to 14 percent.
As Jordan well knows, revamping a distribution network requires more than simply building and staffing facilities. Although the need to change ASICS America's distribution network was obvious, he notes, it wasn't easy to get everyone to support the project. That's because ASICS America had previously operated two DCs before consolidating operations into the Southaven facility in the early 1990s; many members of the distribution staff had painful memories of the difficulties managing multiple facilities and balancing inventory. By promising support during the transition, Fortna was able to convince them that the project's goals were achievable, Jordan says.
Based on his experience, Jordan has some advice for other supply chain executives who are considering a distribution network redesign: engage someone outside the company to evaluate the options and to make recommendations. "You need a fresh set of eyes," he says, "because you don't want to allow tribal knowledge to limit your vision or thinking."
This story first appeared in the Quarter 2/2010 edition of CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly, a journal of thought leadership for the supply chain management profession and a sister publication to AGiLE Business Media's DC Velocity. Readers can obtain a subscription by joining the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (whose membership dues include the **ital{Quarterly's} subscription fee). Subscriptions are also available to non-members for $89 a year. For more information, visit www.SupplyChainQuarterly.com.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."