Tag Archives: Panalpina

Product mix of quoted logistics businesses

Journalists tend to lump logistics businesses together but these show a wide range of product mixes.  This note analyses the service offering mix of selected players by revenue from their latest interim statements.

We talk and write about logistics businesses in general but of course when we generalise we run the risk of obscuring details that distinguish between competitors.  One important trend over the last fifteen years or so has been consolidation of the industry (although it is still very fragmented) and the combination of what were separate contract logistics and freight forwarding businesses into conglomerates aiming to become soup-to-nuts supply chain service providers.  The structural models of the big players probably doesn’t help to bring these services together, but let’s look at that some other time.

In the chart below I compare the proportions of our chosen sample of companies’ turnover which are reported in certain segments.  A clear problem is that although international and national accounting standards require segmental information, interpretation is often up to the boards of the companies and they are inconsistent.  For example:

  • Kuehne + Nagel shows Air-freight, Sea-freight, Overland and Contract Logistics.
  • DP-DHL naturally enough shows Mail (or as it is now called Post-eCommerce-Parcel) and Express, with Global Forwarding, Freight as a division plus Supply Chain.  They are good enough to disclose Freight (European road transportation) separately.  Similarly Williams-Lea is in Supply Chain but disclosed.
  • Expeditors shows customs brokerage, which no other of our sample does.  I have included that revenue in forwarding.
  • Panalpina discloses Air-freight, Sea-freight and Logistics.
  • Wincanton distinguishes between contract logistics and specialist businesses.

So ensuring comparability isn’t straightforward but I have done my best.  The major adjustment I have made is to exclude Mail and Express from the DP-DHL numbers.  These constituted 50% of the group’s turnover and masked the story in which I am most interested: the balance between contract logistics and freight forwarding.

For all companies other than Wincanton I have used the first-half 2014 published results.  For Wincanton the full year results to 31st March 2014 were the latest available.  I have also, where possible, excluded non-margin earning revenue such as duties.

Turnover analysis by product or service for major logistics companies that disclose such information
Turnover analysis by product or service for major logistics companies that disclose such information

You can draw your own conclusions from this, but what it tells me is:

  • Expeditors is still essentially a pure forwarder; Panalpina isn’t far behind.
  • K+N’s contract logistics business is still quite small, although combine it with Overland and they represent some 39% of revenue.
  • Ceva and DP-DHL have a close to 50:50 split (for the latter, excluding Mail and Express and grouping Freight (road transportation) with forwarding).
  • Norbert Dentressangle has come from a transportation background but has built up its contract logistics business so that it is now of equivalent size; the forwarding business is minimal.
  • Wincanton is 85% contract logistics, 15% specialist business.

None of that will come as much of a surprise, but it does confirm that really only Ceva and DHL have built businesses of comparable size in forwarding and contract logistics.  The others all have a particular strength (forwarding or contract logistics) which dominates.

 

Women at the Top in logistics

Women are successful and valuable contributors to senior management in a wide range of industries but the logistics industry has a reputation of being led by men.  What is the level of participation to the leading teams in the industry?

More years ago than I care to remember (well ten to fifteen years ago) I was unlucky enough to get press-ganged into attending a couple of conferences on board ocean-going liners.  The first time was on the SS Canberra, the second the newly-commissioned MV Oriana.  They were strange times; three days on a comfortable (Oriana) or somewhat less comfortable (Canberra – some ten years earlier it had been in the Falklands) with days chock-full of 30-minute meetings with what were ostensibly prospective customers but in practice were mostly freeloaders who agreed to meet because they got  a free cruise.

But what I remember most are the formal dinners and what followed.  The dinners, bizarrely, were black-tie affairs.  The diners (there were hundreds of us) were predominantly (and by predominantly I mean over 95%) men.  I’ll ignore the ethnic or religious background of the participants (that’s another can of worms for a later date) but the gender mix of the participants reflected that of the industry at the time.  A medium-sized UK haulier was run by a woman.  ‘Bees round a honey pot’ sprang to mind to describe the attention she got after dinner.

The world has thankfully moved on a lot since those days, and that made me wonder whether things had changed much.  It’s clear to anyone that works in it that the industry is still male-dominated and it’s difficult to get meaningful data, but an unscientific review of the most readily available information – the published 2013 statements of quoted logistics companies – does give a certain flavour.

These statements are largely focused on financial information, naturally enough.  They might have some corporate jargon about their equal opportunities policies but there is little concrete measurement disclosed.  The one tangible piece of information on gender balance comes from the composition of their boards.  I have complemented the published information with that gleaned from company web sites

Most of my sample have similar structures; in the Anglo-Saxon world non-Executive directors (in continental terms a Supervisory Board) with the Management or Executive Board or team.  Ceva, perhaps unsurprisingly now the holding company is incorporated in the Marshall Islands, was the most opaque.  The first mention of the management team comes in note 7 to the statements on page 39, with a further mention of the management team in note 28 on page.  I have used the Ceva web site to get an up-to-date picture.  Deutsche Post DHL was probably the clearest and most accessible.

Representation of women on select boards and senior management teams
Representation of women on select boards and senior management teams

So the most impressive participation is in DP-DHL, where some 22% of the participants are women.  Before we get too carried away, mind, the bulk of these are employee representatives on the Supervisory Board, which rather confirms the stereotype of left-/right-wing attitudes to equality.  DP-DHL also deserves credit for having a woman executive, although I must confess to slight disappointment that she works in a stereotypical role – HR.

Expeditors had one woman on the board and two executive officers.  Pleasure at the presence of two women on the Norbert Dentressangle Supervisory Board is slightly muted by the surname of one of them – Dentressangle.  As for the rest, the table tells its own story.

Overall some 11% of these directors or management are women.  But take out DP-DHL and the proportion is a measly 6%.  I’m no demographer but I recall that the proportion of women in the general population is about 50%.  That’s one hell of a gap.  As an industry we should be ashamed of this.

Letter to shareholders

As I wandered through the 2013 annual statements of our leading logistics companies in search of financial insight, my curiosity turned for some reason to the letter to shareholders that often seems to kick such documents off.

Having spent my fair share of time drafting mission statements, vision statements and chairman’s statements explaining why the last year really wasn’t as bad as the numbers suggest, I was interested to see how industry leaders set the scene for the dry facts that follow.

Often, quoted companies seem constrained by the regulatory restrictions imposed on them; others limit themselves by choice.  Ceva‘s report dives straight into the meat, explaining that on 2 May 2013 CEVA completed a major financial recapitalisation. CEVA Holdings LLC (a company incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, of all places) became the new parent company of CEVA Group Plc and its subsidiaries.  In the circumstances I suppose one has to respect their fact-based approach.

Of the others I looked at the principal common theme was the essentially bland and frankly meaningless, sometimes almost cut-and-paste management-speak that too often pervades such documents – challenges, focus, efficiency and the like.  Here’s the earth-shattering contribution from the CEO of the industry’s leader, Deutsche Post DHL:

In today’s age, tailored logistics services are a key to success for companies in many industries. We are proficient in this business and are determined to offer every customer precisely the service they need to be successful. Doing this means facing a wide range of challenges,

I have no idea how many man-hours went into this prose but do they think anyone actually reads something like that?

K+N‘s chairman used an interview format to lead with:

With net earnings of CHF 607 million, Kuehne + Nagel’s result for 2013 marks a new milestone. It shows that our company has returned to its former strength. Our measures to enhance efficiency have proved effective, and I am particularly pleased that we have achieved such a positive result in a year that was challenging and characterised by uncertainty both from a macroeconomic viewpoint and from the internal perspective of the company.

I need to dig a little more into that ‘uncertainty… from the internal perspective of the company‘.

Panalpina took a very matter-of-fact approach:

In 2013, we were able to improve our result by CHF 80 million.  Whilst this is a positive improvement over last year, we still have much to do to reach the targets we have set ourselves. We are therefore focusing our organization into converting more of our considerable gross profit into net profit, in which our shareholders participate.

Good to see the acknowledgement that shareholders participate in net profit.  Of course, improving the result by CHF 80 million isn’t the same as making CHF 80 million.

But my personal award goes to Expeditors for their refreshing and very human statement:

2013 was a decent year, but not a great one.

Well done them!