Tag Archives: transportation

Quote

Maersk invest in ZigZag Returns

It’s clear that Maersk is making bets as a venture capitalist on young firms with unique value propositions. They have made an investment, via Maersk Growth, in ZigZag, a London-based firm.

I had never heard of ZigZag before.  They offer a SaaS (Software as a service) that allows manufacturers and retailers to manage returns in a one-stop manner.  Their services include hard logistics assets like access to warehouses and sortation centers and access to carriers, as well as just the software.

The story indicates some of what they do.  We all know that returns are a unique type of operation, whose nature differs with the type of industry.  HP has been doing it for many years in the printer division.  But I was interested to find out that there is a lot of interest among clothing manufacturers or retailers.

Apparently people buy clothes, use them for a while, and then return them, even for no refund.  There is also a temptation for retailers to get rid of stale inventory by simply throwing it in a landfill, a sustainability issue.  Easy returns offers an opportunity for a firm that can handle these problems efficiently and in a sustainable manner. (I presume there might be an incentive to cheat; but certainly a specialist could do a better job because it’s their core business).

I doubt that ZigZag will be merged with Maersk.  However, the bet makes sense when you understand that a lot of what Maersk carries is clothing manufactures from the Far East.  If ZigZag can help these clients it could make a difference in the clients’ bottom line, and Maersk would be able to say they helped with the supply chain problems.

Reach ZigZag here: https://www.zigzag.global/

screenshot-Zigzag 2019-11-06

via Maersk invest in ZigZag Returns – Press Release

Quote

IMO 2020 makes box lines speed up?

Mike King wrote a piece about the risk that the IMO2020 fuel regulations will induce ocean carriers to speed up, thus burning more fuel and causing more emissions.

Most carriers are equipping ships with scrubbers, which will let them continue to burn high sulfur (3.5%) fuel, rather than shift to the lower 0.5% fuel grade.  The scrubbers take out the sulfur and other unwanted chemicals, either discharging them into the sea (open-loop systems) or retaining them for disposal in port (closed loop systems).  Some ports and countries have banned the use of open-loop scrubbers near their shores.  China and Singapore are two.

Exceptions to the rules are in certain zones called Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), where the maximum sulfur content is 0.1%, very low.  ECAs are set up by countries or trading unions like the EU with a mileage limit near their shores.  While steaming in those zones, the ultra low sulfur fuel must be used.

I recently refereed a study [1] that indicated that the ECAs actually induced carriers to avoid them for longer, burning the high-sulfur fuel longer, and also in some cases going faster.  It’s an economic decision problem with fairly straightforward calculations to optimize the route taken, based on the price differential of the grades of fuel and the exact time on each part of the route. Lower emissions and lower cost come about in opposition.  The calculations are especially relevant for short sea shipping routes, such as along the East Asian and Chinese coastline.  Ships can go offshore far enough and, using their scrubbers, burn the highest sulfur fuel which might be a lot cheaper, then dart directly in when they get near the port, into the ECA region.

On long sea routes a lot of time can be spent steaming with the 0.5% fuel, and speeding up might be a way of reducing the time and improving customer service by shortening the voyage.  Delays in ocean shipping happen very frequently and are a source of much discontent among shippers; they also produce a lot of lost business for carriers.

The interesting part of the article to me is the clear indication that speeding up using a scrubber could be a viable strategy for improving service. We might then get greater CO2 emissions than we did with slower steaming.

Sustainability is always tightly coupled with economics.  We have to watch for unintended consequences whenever rules are imposed, and be prepared to adjust them. Hopefully, we’ll keep trying to improve the emissions control measures.

as-twitter-card-default-image3   via Could IMO 2020 prompt box lines to speed up? – FreightWaves

[1] Zhao, Yuzhe; Fan, Yujun; Zhou, JingmiaoKuang, Haibo. Bi-Objective Optimization of Vessel Speed and Route for Sustainable Coastal Shipping under Regulations of Emission Control Areas, Sustainability, under review(2019).

Quote

Flexport – moving beyond freight forwarding?

This article looking at Flexport now appeared recently under Cathy Morrow Roberson’s byline in The Loadstar.  We enjoy hearing about what Flexport is doing now.  But the idea that they are changing direction to become more like a 4PL is not the point. That’s where they were always going!!  The press and financial folks may have perceived them as a technology play.  But all along Ryan Petersen has intended to create a firm that actually helps customers manage their supply chains, by giving them visibility, a certain amount of in-depth analysis, and good service assistance in dealing among supply chain partners, temporary or permanent.  I don’t think the vision has changed; just the world’s view of it.

  via The Morrow-Roberson road test: Flexport – moving beyond freight forwarding  – The Loadstar