Ben Ames has spent 20 years as a journalist since starting out as a daily newspaper reporter in Pennsylvania in 1995. From 1999 forward, he has focused on business and technology reporting for a number of trade journals, beginning when he joined Design News and Modern Materials Handling magazines. Ames is author of the trail guide "Hiking Massachusetts" and is a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism.
Editor’s note: With the retirement of Mitch Mac Donald, “Outbound” will now be written by a rotating lineup of DCV editors. First up: Senior News Editor Ben Ames.
One of the many ways the pandemic has changed our lives is in the relationship between retail brands and loyal shoppers.
Before waves of infection forced most states to slap occupancy limits on shops and restaurants or even shutter them entirely, consumers thought nothing of rubbing elbows with fellow shoppers. We would cram into electronics stores to buy the latest smartphone model or cluster outside malls for Black Friday “doorbuster” sales.
We now know those events were the perfect petri dishes for any viruses or bacteria that happened to be hitching a ride on our bodies that day. And most of the time, that was a price we were glad to pay: suffering the occasional head cold or mild case of influenza in exchange for the chance to score a good deal or maybe even run into a friend.
Covid changed all that, of course; this disease is far more infectious and deadly than its pathogenic cousins. So even if one brave shopper is willing to mask up and run the personal risk of catching the bug, they face the larger moral conundrum of possibly passing it on to countless others, harming innocent bystanders.
But the common sight of empty stores has changed another dynamic as well—shops have lost a prime chance to connect with those hordes of eager consumers. In normal times, stores would employ “retail associates” to mingle with shoppers, reward them with discounts, steer them to additional purchases, or offer to ship merchandise to their home address if an item was out of stock.
However, a new trend has arisen in recent months as stores have searched for new ways to stay in touch with remote shoppers. Clever marketers have turned to a previously overlooked piece of the sales chain—the humble packaging that we all handle when we open the e-commerce orders that land on our doorsteps.
As with many retail trends,amazon.com was one of the first companies to enter the space, although the e-commerce giant came in for some ribbing when it suggested that homebound shoppers reuse its cardboard shipping cartons as toy cars or kids’ forts … obvious activities that crafty parents have been doing for decades to amuse their children.
Other stores soon followed, though. Florida-based online pet-food vendor Chewy now encourages its customers to upload photos of their pets sitting in Chewy-branded cardboard boxes to the company’s Facebook page, in exchange for a chance to win a prize. “You never know, the one that make us giggle or go ‘awwww’ might get a special treat,” the retailer says.
And the Australian online paper-goods retailer Who Gives a Crap has taken it a step further, encouraging customers to use lavish amounts of its products in support of its stated charitable mission: donating 50% of its profits to build toilets for those in need. “Throw stuff on the floor,” a recent box from the company reads. “Seriously, go crazy. The more paper towels you need, the more money we can donate to help build toilets.” The business also resorts to goofy humor to keep customers coming back. That same package listed a collection of ways to reuse the box: “Gerbil mansion. Mail box. Coin holder (that’s a lot of coins!). Uncomfortable chaise lounge. Pen holder (that’s a lot of pens!).” And it even gives a shoutout to the last-mile carrier, saying “Hey, delivery person! Thanks for lugging around 48 rolls of TP for us. You’re the best!”
A tough business climate calls for clever solutions, and some flexible enterprises are rising to the challenge.
As the old adage goes, everything old is new again. For evidence of that, you need look no farther than cargo ships, which are looking to a 5,000-year-old technology as an eco-friendly source of propulsion—the sail.
But today’s sails bear little resemblance to the papyrus or animal-skin sails used in ancient times or the billowing cotton or linen sails of 19th-century clipper ships. These are thoroughly modern, high-tech devices designed to reduce ship operators’ reliance on costly marine fuels and help curb greenhouse gas emissions—and they’re sprouting up on freight vessels around the world.
One example is the “rotor sail,” a cylindrical unit that’s mounted inside a flagpole-shaped device. When installed on a cargo ship’s deck, the sail can reduce the vessel’s fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by 6% to 12%, users say. Last month, the Japanese marine freight carrier NS United Kaiun Kaisha Ltd.announced plans to install five rotor sails manufactured by Anemoi Marine Technologies Ltd. on the 1,184-foot-long iron ore carrier ship NSU Tubarao over the next year.
But the story doesn’t end with rotor sails. Companies are experimenting with other types of high-tech sails as well. For instance, the Dutch heavy-lift cargo ship Jumbo Jubileehas been outfitted with two mechanical sails known as wind-assisted ship propulsion (WASP) units in a bid to boost fuel efficiency and cut carbon. And the Dutch maritime gas carrier Anthony Vederhas deployed two “VentoFoil” sails made by Econowind on its ethylene carrier Coral Patula, with plans to add two similar sails to its sister ship Coral Pearl later this year.
Global forklift sales have slumped in 2024, falling short of initial forecasts as a result of the struggling economy in Europe and the slow release of project funding in the U.S., a report from market analyst firm Interact Analysis says.
In response, the London-based firm has reduced its shipment forecast for the year to rise just 0.3%, although it still predicts consistent growth of around 4-5% out to 2034.
The “bleak” figures come as the European economy has stagnated during the second half of 2024, with two of the leading industry sectors for forklifts - automotive and logistics – struggling. In addition, order backlogs from the pandemic have now been absorbed, so order volumes for the global forklift market will be slightly lower than shipment volumes over the next few years, Interact Analysis said.
On a more positive note, 3 million forklifts are forecast to be shipped per year by 2031 as enterprises are forced to reduce their dependence on manual labor. Interact Analysis has observed that major forklift OEMs are continuing with their long-term expansion plans, while other manufacturers that are affected by demand fluctuations are much more cautious with spending on automation projects.
At the same time, the forklift market is seeing a fundamental shift in power sources, with demand for Li-ion battery-powered forklifts showing a growth rate of over 10% while internal combustion engine (ICE) demand shrank by 1% and lead-acid battery-powered forklift fell 7%.
And according to Interact Analysis, those trends will continue, with the report predicting that ICE annual market demand will shrink over 20% from 670,000 units in 2024 to a projected 500,000 units by 2034. And by 2034, Interact Analysis predicts 81% of fully electric forklifts will be powered by li-ion batteries.
The reasons driving that shift include a move in Europe to cleaner alternatives to comply with environmental policies, and a swing in the primary customer base for forklifts from manufacturing to logistics and warehousing, due to the rise of e-commerce. Electric forklift demand is also growing in emerging markets, but for different reasons—labor costs are creating a growing need for automation in factories, especially in China, India, and Eastern Europe. And since lithium-ion battery production is primarily based in Asia, the average cost of equipping forklifts with li-ion batteries is much lower than the rest of the world.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Many AI deployments are getting stuck in the planning stages due to a lack of AI skills, governance issues, and insufficient resources, leading 61% of global businesses to scale back their AI investments, according to a study from the analytics and AI provider Qlik.
Philadelphia-based Qlik found a disconnect in the market where 88% of senior decision makers say they feel AI is absolutely essential or very important to achieving success. Despite that support, multiple factors are slowing down or totally blocking those AI projects: a lack of skills to develop AI [23%] or to roll out AI once it’s developed [22%], data governance challenges [23%], budget constraints [21%], and a lack of trusted data for AI to work with [21%].
The numbers come from a survey of 4,200 C-Suite executives and AI decision makers, revealing what is hindering AI progress globally and how to overcome these barriers.
Respondents also said that many stakeholders lack trust in AI technology generally, which holds those projects back. Over a third [37%] of AI decision makers say their senior managers lack trust in AI, 42% feel less senior employees don’t trust the technology., and a fifth [21%] believe their customers don’t trust AI either.
“Business leaders know the value of AI, but they face a multitude of barriers that prevent them from moving from proof of concept to value creating deployment of the technology,” James Fisher, Chief Strategy Officer at Qlik, said in a release. “The first step to creating an AI strategy is to identify a clear use case, with defined goals and measures of success, and use this to identify the skills, resources and data needed to support it at scale. In doing so you start to build trust and win management buy-in to help you succeed.”
Many chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) are focused on reorganizing their supply chains in today’s business climate—but as they do so, they should be careful to avoid common pitfalls that can derail their efforts.
That’s according to recent research from Gartner that identifies critical organizational design mistakes that will prevent supply chain leaders from delivering on business goals.
“Supply chain reorganization is high up on CSCOs’ agendas, yet many are unclear about how organization design outcomes link to business goals,” according to Alan O'Keeffe, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice.
The research revealed that the most successful projects radically redesign supply chain structure based on distinct organizational needs “while prioritizing balance, strength, and speed as key business objectives.”
“Our findings reveal that the leaders who achieved success took a more radical approach to redesigning their supply chain organizations, resulting in the ability to deliver on new and transformational operating models,” O’Keefe said in a statement announcing the findings.
The research was based on a series of interviews with supply chain leaders as well as data gathered from Gartner clients. It revealed that successful organizations assigned responsibilities to reporting lines in radically diverse ways, and that they focused on the unique characteristics of their business to design supply chain organizations that were tailored to meet their needs.
“The commonality between successful organizations is that their leaders intentionally prioritized the organizational goals of balance, strength and speed into their design process,” said O’Keeffe. “In doing so, they sidestepped the most common pitfalls in supply chain reorganization design.”
The three most common errors, according to Gartner, are:
Mistake 1: The “either/or” approach
Unbalanced organizational structures result in delays, gaps in performance, and confusion about responsibility. This often stems from a binary choice between centralized and decentralized models. Such an approach limits design possibilities and can lead to organizational power struggles, with teams feeling overwhelmed and misaligned.
Successful CSCOs recognize balance as a critical outcome. They employ both integration (combining activities under one team structure) and differentiation (empowering multiple units to conduct activities in unique ways). This granular approach ensures that decisions, expertise, and resources are allocated optimally to serve diverse customer needs while maintaining internally coherent operating models.
Mistake 2: Debilitating headcount reduction
Reducing headcount as a primary goal of reorganization can undermine long-term organizational capability. This approach often leads to a focus on short-term cost savings at the expense of losing critical talent and expertise, which are essential for driving future success.
Instead, CSCOs should focus on understanding what capabilities will make the organization strong in the short, medium, and long term. They should also prioritize the development and leveraging of people capabilities, social networks, and autonomy. This approach not only enhances organizational effectiveness but also ensures that the organization is ready to meet future challenges.
Mistake 3: The copy/paste approach
Copying organizational designs from other companies without considering enterprise-specific variations can slow decision-making and hinder organizational effectiveness. Each organization has unique characteristics that must be factored into its design.
CSCOs who successfully redesign their organizations make speed an explicit outcome by assigning and clarifying authority and expertise to remove elements that slow decision-making speed. This involves:
Designing structures that enable rapid response to customer needs;
Streamlining internal decision-making processes;
And differentiating between operational execution and transformation efforts.
The research for the report was based in part on qualitative interviews conducted between February and June 2024 with supply chain leaders from organizations that had undergone organizational redesign, according to Gartner. Insights were drawn from those who had successfully completed a radical reorganization, defined as a shift that enabled organizations to deliver on new activities and operating models that better met the needs of the business. The researchers also drew on more than 1,200 inquiries with clients conducted between July 2022 and June 2024 for the report.