Not your typical "tree hugger": interview with Jason Mathers
Instead of seeing businesses as foes of the environment, Jason Mathers of the Environmental Defense Fund believes that they—and their supply chain organizations—are natural allies in the fight against climate change.
Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
It wasn't so long ago that the term "environmentalist" conjured up images of starry-eyed anti-business idealists with shaggy hair and sandals who would chain themselves to trees in protest against efforts to cut them down. Yesterday's senior executive might have called them "tree huggers."
But Jason Mathers is not your father's environmentalist. As senior manager for supply chain and logistics at the nonprofit group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Mathers is dedicated to working with—rather than against—business to solve problems related to climate change. Because he helps companies find steps that can both reduce their environmental impact and save them money, you could think of him as a pragmatic idealist.
EDF says its mission is "to protect the Earth's resources using smart economics, practical partnerships, and rigorous science." Toward that end, Mathers has been working to reduce emissions from freight movements, which some estimates say are the source of 6 percent of the human-generated pollution that contributes to global warming. As part of this work, he is cataloging current best practices and developing a framework for managing emissions generated in the supply chain.
To accomplish this, Mathers works closely with shippers, carriers, third-party logistics service providers, and others to design greenhouse gas management programs for fleets, best practices and tools for tracking and reducing emissions, and training materials for fuel-smart driving. Many of those best practices have been assembled in the organization's Green Freight Handbook, which was published last year.
More recently, Mathers and EDF, along with a consortium of 12 food and apparel companies, have been working to convince the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation to require America's heavy-duty truck fleets to cut their fuel consumption and carbon emissions by 40 percent.
DCV Editor at Large Susan Lacefield spoke with Mathers about EDF's efforts and about how supply chain managers can play a role in helping protect the environment.
Q: How you did become an environmentalist, and why do you focus on logistics and supply chain management in particular?
A: I think I have always been someone who has been mission-driven and interested in being part of a broader effort. That's what led me to join the U.S. Navy out of high school. After leaving the service and getting ready to go to college, I knew I wanted to do something else that was mission-driven. Working on environmental issues and climate change really spoke to me. Climate change has a huge impact on every aspect of our society today and will continue to have an impact on future generations.
Freight logistics accounts for about 6 percent of global pollution. Logistics, then, is a natural area to be part of the solution, to really be a leader. And in many cases, there's so much alignment between practices that [produce] cost savings and those that lead to environmental improvements.
Q: The military seems like an unusual proving ground for an environmentalist. Are you applying any of the skills you learned while in the military to your work at EDF?
A: One of the critical life skills I learned when I was in the Navy was the ability to break a challenge into smaller tasks. When you think about how to solve the problem of climate change, you start by looking at all the pieces that add up to cause it. [For example,] the impact of carbon dioxide emissions is a critical, big-effort issue. It's easy to be overwhelmed by it. It's so big, it can seem impossible to solve, but there are actually thousands of solutions, and all are necessary.
Q: Is it possible to be both pro-business and an environmentalist?
A: Absolutely. Why do I believe that? Because I see it every day—for example, when we are working with Pepsi-Cola to urge the EPA and Department of Transportation to put forth strong fuel-efficiency standards, or when Google and Amazon came out in court in support of clean power plants and called the transition to a "clean-energy economy" critical to their growth as companies. Wal-Mart is working every day to get toxic chemicals out of the products in its stores and out of the agricultural supply chain. There are thousands of examples of companies embracing sustainability.
Q: At some point, business needs are going to come into conflict with what's best for the environment. Do you have any advice for how to navigate those tradeoffs?
A: When a company is thinking about how it can improve its environmental footprint, there are a couple of key areas that it needs to focus on. First, it needs to look at what it can do today to improve its operations that also makes business sense, whether that be increasing load capacity when applicable or using intermodal transportation when possible. There are lots of opportunities to do this, and you should be spending 80 percent of your time on this near-term focus.
Then, the company needs to be asking, "How can we help build a future and shape it in a way that is good from an environmental perspective and is going to be good from an economic perspective?" Twenty percent of your time should be spent on this long-term focus. For example, I think of the work that FedEx is doing to get a long-term agreement in place to increase its procurement of aviation biofuels. Aviation is critical to its business and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Today, there's not a lot it can do to use biofuels at the scale needed to reduce those emissions. But over the long term, it can change its access to cleaner fuels and make investments to build that market. FedEx has decided that this is a critical issue that it needs to be a part of.
Q: Why should supply chain and logistics professionals be concerned about global warming?
A: Over the last few years, we have worked to get a better sense of where emissions lie in a company's operations. [We found that] the supply chain is the source of upward of 80 percent of the environmental footprint for consumer goods companies, retailers, telecommunications companies, and food and beverage companies. So supply chain has the potential to have more impact on a company's environmental footprint than any other function.
Q: What do companies risk by not looking at how they can reduce carbon emissions?
A: There are a few risks. One is falling behind. A company like General Mills that has a long-term greenhouse gas reduction goal in place is getting more efficient every day, and it's challenging itself in a unique way. Companies that are not doing this are missing out on [opportunities for] innovation.
You also risk missing out on appealing to the next generation of business leaders, who are increasingly looking at what sustainability strategy is in place when deciding which company they want to work for.
You are also missing out on real cost savings. If we do not get stronger truck efficiency standards in place, shippers will end up paying millions of dollars a year more in fuel and total trucking costs than they would with [tighter] standards in place.
So I think there are a lot of things that you miss out on, with the biggest one being the opportunity and reason to innovate. Unless you challenge yourself, you don't know what you can accomplish. For example, FedEx set a goal of improving fleet efficiency, and the company just announced that it has exceeded its goal five years early and has ended up saving a lot of money. Wal-Mart challenged itself to double the efficiency of its fleet operation in regard to how it loads and uses its trucks, and it beat that goal earlier this year. It's impressive how much cost the company is taking out of its operations.
Q: How have things changed with respect to businesses' focus on sustainability in the last five years?
A: Companies have become more systematic about sustainability, bringing it more into their overall strategy. It used to be that companies would focus on just one or two projects, like using recycled paper or using hybrid cars for their sales fleet. While those are important steps for raising awareness, they weren't really core to the business and weren't long-term and systematic. Now, you are seeing more alignment between companies' sustainability goals and their overall strategic objectives. It's more meaningful, more impactful, and more real.
Q: What's next for EDF?
A: We have had a lot of success in developing best practices in the logistics space, and we have also done some work in deforestation and helping make factories more energy-efficient. Next, we want to pull all of these things together and provide companies with a more comprehensive roadmap across their operations in those three or four areas.
To build a more sustainable future, we need to engage government and companies in a dialogue to create smart, well-designed public policy. We see business as a critical stakeholder in this. What we would want to see is business first acknowledging the urgency of having rules and regulations and incentives in place to reduce climate change-related pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Then, businesses need to be proactive in sharing with policymakers their experiences and steps that would help them reduce their environmental impact. A clear example is the work that Pepsi and other groups have done with heavy-duty truck efficiency standards. Fleet owners and equipment manufacturers need to be up front about the challenges they face and how we can structure rules to foster innovation.
Editor's note: This article originally appeared in the Quarter 2, 2016 issue of our sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.
The supply chain risk management firm Overhaul has landed $55 million in backing, saying the financing will fuel its advancements in artificial intelligence and support its strategic acquisition roadmap.
The equity funding round comes from the private equity firm Springcoast Partners, with follow-on participation from existing investors Edison Partners and Americo. As part of the investment, Springcoast’s Chris Dederick and Holger Staude will join Overhaul’s board of directors.
According to Austin, Texas-based Overhaul, the money comes as macroeconomic and global trade dynamics are driving consequential transformations in supply chains. That makes cargo visibility and proactive risk management essential tools as shippers manage new routes and suppliers.
“The supply chain technology space will see significant consolidation over the next 12 to 24 months,” Barry Conlon, CEO of Overhaul, said in a release. “Overhaul is well-positioned to establish itself as the ultimate integrated solution, delivering a comprehensive suite of tools for supply chain risk management, efficiency, and visibility under a single trusted platform.”
Artificial intelligence (AI) and data science were hot business topics in 2024 and will remain on the front burner in 2025, according to recent research published in AI in Action, a series of technology-focused columns in the MIT Sloan Management Review.
In Five Trends in AI and Data Science for 2025, researchers Tom Davenport and Randy Bean outline ways in which AI and our data-driven culture will continue to shape the business landscape in the coming year. The information comes from a range of recent AI-focused research projects, including the 2025 AI & Data Leadership Executive Benchmark Survey, an annual survey of data, analytics, and AI executives conducted by Bean’s educational firm, Data & AI Leadership Exchange.
The five trends range from the promise of agentic AI to the struggle over which C-suite role should oversee data and AI responsibilities. At a glance, they reveal that:
Leaders will grapple with both the promise and hype around agentic AI. Agentic AI—which handles tasks independently—is on the rise, in the form of generative AI bots that can perform some content-creation tasks. But the authors say it will be a while before such tools can handle major tasks—like make a travel reservation or conduct a banking transaction.
The time has come to measure results from generative AI experiments. The authors say very few companies are carefully measuring productivity gains from AI projects—particularly when it comes to figuring out what their knowledge-based workers are doing with the freed-up time those projects provide. Doing so is vital to profiting from AI investments.
The reality about data-driven culture sets in. The authors found that 92% of survey respondents feel that cultural and change management challenges are the primary barriers to becoming data- and AI-driven—indicating that the shift to AI is about much more than just the technology.
Unstructured data is important again. The ability to apply Generative AI tools to manage unstructured data—such as text, images, and video—is putting a renewed focus on getting all that data into shape, which takes a whole lot of human effort. As the authors explain “organizations need to pick the best examples of each document type, tag or graph the content, and get it loaded into the system.” And many companies simply aren’t there yet.
Who should run data and AI? Expect continued struggle. Should these roles be concentrated on the business or tech side of the organization? Opinions differ, and as the roles themselves continue to evolve, the authors say companies should expect to continue to wrestle with responsibilities and reporting structures.
Shippers today are praising an 11th-hour contract agreement that has averted the threat of a strike by dockworkers at East and Gulf coast ports that could have frozen container imports and exports as soon as January 16.
The agreement came late last night between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) representing some 45,000 workers and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) that includes the operators of port facilities up and down the coast.
Details of the new agreement on those issues have not yet been made public, but in the meantime, retailers and manufacturers are heaving sighs of relief that trade flows will continue.
“Providing certainty with a new contract and avoiding further disruptions is paramount to ensure retail goods arrive in a timely manner for consumers. The agreement will also pave the way for much-needed modernization efforts, which are essential for future growth at these ports and the overall resiliency of our nation’s supply chain,” Gold said.
The next step in the process is for both sides to ratify the tentative agreement, so negotiators have agreed to keep those details private in the meantime, according to identical statements released by the ILA and the USMX. In their joint statement, the groups called the six-year deal a “win-win,” saying: “This agreement protects current ILA jobs and establishes a framework for implementing technologies that will create more jobs while modernizing East and Gulf coasts ports – making them safer and more efficient, and creating the capacity they need to keep our supply chains strong. This is a win-win agreement that creates ILA jobs, supports American consumers and businesses, and keeps the American economy the key hub of the global marketplace.”
The breakthrough hints at broader supply chain trends, which will focus on the tension between operational efficiency and workforce job protection, not just at ports but across other sectors as well, according to a statement from Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, a freight booking and payment platform. Port automation was the major sticking point leading up to this agreement, as the USMX pushed for technologies to make ports more efficient, while the ILA opposed automation or semi-automation that could threaten jobs.
"This is a six-year détente in the tech-versus-labor tug-of-war at U.S. ports," Levine said. “Automation remains a lightning rod—and likely one we’ll see in other industries—but this deal suggests a cautious path forward."
Editor's note: This story was revised on January 9 to include additional input from the ILA, USMX, and Freightos.
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.