This Week in SCDigest:
Worrisome Trend in Retail Label Requirements
Supply Chain Graphic of the Week, plus more Supply Chain News Bites
SCDigest On Target e-Magazine
Expert Insight - Daily Jab: Consultative Selling Works for Vendors and Customers in the Software Industry
Carton Labeling Requirements Video
This Week on "Distribution Digest"
Your Supply Chain Questions Answered! This Week's NEW Question - How Can We Calculate the Potential Throughput of our Distribution Center?
Trivia, Supply Chain Stock Index
Reader Feedback
Can't View this E-mail?  
Become a sponsor
June 4, 2009 - Supply Chain Digest Newsletter



Worrisome Trend in Retail Label Requirements

If you are a retailer, a consumer goods manufacturer, a logistics consultant, software provider, or materials handling vendor – or anyone connected to those areas – this is an important column.


About a year ago, we first noted in a small piece some changes to carton labeling requirements for goods going to retail that could cause some real problems for manufacturers, and we would argue, ultimately, retailers and consumers.


More recently, Materials Handling Editor Cliff Holste was contacted by a reader at one consumer goods company that had similar concerns. That put some wheels in motion at Supply Chain Digest and Distribution Digest, and we have spent a lot of the last two weeks looking into this issue in-depth.


We are not going to wade into the whole compliance/chargeback debate, of which much could be said. I actually think if done smartly, compliance requirements and chargebacks can be good for both sides, and have even thought more manufacturers, in addition to retailers, should consider smart chargeback programs to speed supplier on-boarding and compliance with real supply chain needs.

Gilmore Says:  

"We are working on a major report on automated case picking, and we suddenly realized this labeling issue alone could become a huge barrier to these exciting new technologies.

What do you say?

Send us your Feedback here


This is instead related to specific, generally recent changes that some retailers – mostly in the soft goods area – are making to their compliance guides with regard to carton labeling. We have talked to a couple of manufacturers in detail, reviewed printed compliance guides at consumer goods vendors, and reviewed a number of such documents on-line. We have also spoken with a few consultants, and with Joe Andraski, CEO of VICS, which along with the GS1 organization develops related standards or “guidelines” for bar code labeling.


Problem 1: Several retailers, which include we believe Macy’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and a few others, are starting to prohibit any other bar code other than that found on the GS1-128 (formerly UCC-128) shipping label that they require. The GS1-128 is a serialized shipping container bar code that uniquely identifies each carton, and is widely used in retail for cross docking. A chargeback is leveled if any other bar code that is capable of being read by a scanner is on the box. While Macy’s gives the option of “defacing” the other bar codes by marking vertical lines in the white spaces, in practice, you need to cover it up (say with a blank label), or have no bar code to begin with. (See our video on this topic: Retail Carton Labeling Cause for Concern?)


This is a huge problem. First, Wal-Mart, Sears, Kmart, and others require a “case code” bar code, or ITF-14, which basically is the product UPC number plus a case pack identifier, on each carton. As a trip to most grocery stores or mass merchants will show you, that case code is often preprinted on cartons. If you happen to be a manufacturer selling to both Wal-Mart and Macy’s, you cannot have the bar required by the former when shipping to the latter, as just one example. The cost in terms of carrying multiple SKUs (one with the case code, one without) or special handling/processes would, of course, be significant for vendors faced with this scenario.


Even worse, the requirement to not have any other bar code on a case basically says the manufacturer cannot track the cartons internally before the GS1-128 is placed on the box during picking or further downstream in packing/shipping. Whether it is a ITF-14 or other internal SKU identifier, many manufacturers use such bar codes in manufacturing itself, as part of the DC receiving process, for pick confirmations, to trigger look-ups for automated print-and-apply of GS1-128 labels and much more. Many large scale, automated systems are based on such case identifiers.


Problem 2: A small, but increasing, number of retailers are moving away from the original “guidelines” for GS1-128 label placement, which used to be (and still is for most) on the right-hand side of the long dimension of the box, roughly an inch up from the bottom and three inches in from the carton edge. Some, such as SteinMart and a growing number of others, now want the GS1-128 in the lower left-hand side, or in the middle of the side (e.g., Bed, Bath and Beyond). Others now want the GS1-128 on the top of the box, or in the case of Rite Aid, it appears it wants a shipping label (not necessarily GS1-128) on the front (short side) of the box.


For years, many manufacturers sourced empty cartons with GS1-128 label “frames” in the bottom right to guide operators for label placement. By far, the majority of retailers still want the shipping label applied there.


But as other retailers move away from this standard, it can and will cause havoc in consumer goods DCs. First, even in a pick-by-label operation, operators would somehow have to know, perhaps by instructions on the label, where each individual GS1-128 needed to be placed for each customer. That would be very damaging to productivity, and fraught with operator error. Second, it will make the opportunity to use automated print-and-apply of these labels almost impossible, due to the cost and/or complexity of building a system with perhaps multiple applicators to handle different label placement for different retail customers.


Our columnist David Schneider, himself a former director of logistics for auto parts retailer Pep Boys and someone who implemented a sensible compliance program, told us he was recently working with a 3PL that caters to soft goods manufacturers, and which was looking at auto print-and-apply for GS1-128s. The company abandoned the initiative after seeing the trend towards variable label placement.


“We are moving from planet reasonableness to planet ridiculous-ness,” he told me, relative to these changing label requirements.


Sports retailers Hibbet (which runs a very good supply chain, as an aside) has it right. While it would prefer the GS1-128 on top, that requirement is waved if it would “DIVERT Hibbett shipments in the vendor warehouse, DELAY Hibbett shipments in the vendor warehouse, or REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HANDLING to our company.” (As noted in its compliance guide.)


The points Hibbett makes are key, and why not only manufacturers and retailers, but also technology vendors and consultants of all sorts need to pay attention: As the volume of these variable carton labeling requirements (no other bar codes, special placement) grows, even to as little as 20% of a manufacturer’s shipment volume, it may simply preclude the ability for manufacturers to automate a distribution center simply because the automated system cannot handle these varying label requirements.


Who, for example, could really batch pick if there could be no existing bar code for the scanners to read before the shipping label was applied? Even if you did batch pick by label, how could a picker efficiently and accurately put the label in one place for the first 5 cartons in the SKU batch, another place for the next 7, yet another for the next 3, etc.?  Can’t be done.


As many of you know, we are working on a major report on automated case picking, and we suddenly realized this labeling issue alone could become a huge barrier to these exciting new technologies.


Here is what one VP of logistics said to Holste: “All of this puts a higher level of risk in investing in automation, because you don’t know what tomorrow could bring to unravel it, all over labeling issues. Because DC managers can no longer bank on UCC [GS1] standards for carton labeling, you have to really consider the risks. You might pick up a new retail customer or have an existing one change their requirements that could make your existing system impractical or very costly.”


Here is my theory as to what has happened. In the 1990s, as the UCC-128 was rising, there was a strong emphasis on the “guidelines,” and pretty much everyone fell in line (even if all the formats were a bit different – that was manageable). GS1, VICS and others, including me, sort of assumed this was problem solved and moved on to other things. In the meantime, a new generation of industrial engineers and logistics managers joined the industry and developed retail conveyor and scanning systems, either unaware of the guidelines and history, or without really understanding the impact on vendors from going down a new path.


What are we doing here? (1) Calling attention to an incipient problem that could mushroom into something much worse for the industry, and hoping it spurs some action; (2) Recommending that GS1/VICS re-energize in this area and make sure retail members understand the guidelines and why they are needed, and the total supply chain cost of deviation; (3) Hoping that logistics executives between vendors and manufacturers can get together and come up with reasonable requirements – which would include the simple step, for example, of reconfiguring scanners to ignore other bar codes, at little cost, versus burdening suppliers with high costs for handling cartons and maybe even turning off/avoiding DC automation.


We have fact checked this at multiple levels, and feel very confident in what we present here, though note the requirements are very dynamic. I have sent a list of many examples to VICS. I believe they and/or GS1 will provide some response back to us on this. I also believe many vendors are feeling these pressures, but sort of in isolation, not knowing lots of others see the same creeping problem that we are trying to shed a little sunlight on.


Let’s consider the full impact of these developments and use some common sense so that costs are not raised for manufacturers, retailers and consumers. If we are missing some key point here, would love to hear it. And yes, maybe RFID solves it all eventually.


Are you seeing the same sort of changes in retail carton labeling standards? How big an issue is this? Are there good reasons for these newer retail changes? What is the best path to make a workable solution for both manufacturers and retailers? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.


Let us know your thoughts.

Web Page/Printable Version of Column

***Upcoming Videocast***


Labor Management Strategies for Emerging Economic and Political Realities

Increase labor productivity,
avoid pitfalls, evaluate vendors,
and review how others have
received ROI using an LMS

June 9, 2009

***On-Demand Videocasts***

Collaborative Flowcasting:
Creating Truly Demand
Driven Supply Chains


Integrated Supply Chain Planning and Execution

Part 2: Achieving the Vision

Part 1: Reviewing the Data

Quickly Reduce Manufacturing and Logistics Costs with Dynamic Safety Stock Optimization

This Week's Supply Chain News Bites Only from SCDigest

Supply Chain Graphic of the Week: Where US Manufacturing Employment is Heaviest

This Week's Supply Chain by the Numbers - UPC Birthday, Oil Price Prediction, Baltic Dry Index, Intelligrated Purchase


The shortened Memorial Day week had investors remembering better times as all major averages finished out the week with favorable results.  Our Supply Chain and Logistics stock index saw improvement across the board - 22 out of 22.

 In the software group, Descartes climbed 12.9% and is now actually up 1.8% over the same time last year.  In the hardware group, both Intermec and Zebra were up (7% and 2.6%, respectively).  In the transportation and logistics group, J.B. Hunt took the prize with a gain of 16.4%, followed by CSX – up 12.8%, and Prologis – up 10.1%.

See full stock report.

Each Week:

-Global Supply Chain
-Distribution/Material Handling
-Trends and Issues

Weekly On-Target Newsletter
June 2, 2009 Edition

Daily Jab
by Dan Gilmore, Editor, SCDigest

Consultative Selling Works for Vendors and Customers in the Software Industry

RedPrairie Finds Success in Approach that was Somewhat Lost in Supply Chain Software Industry

Worrisome Trend in
Retail Label Requirements?

THIS WEEK ON Distribution Digest


Holste's Blog:
Distribution Technology Providers, Consultants, need to be aware of Potential Impact of Compliance Labeling Changes


Top Story: Substantial Improvements for New Generation of Wearable Data Collection Terminals for Distribution Center Applications

>> Top Story: Holste on the Merger of Intelligrated and FKI Logistex

In pondering GM's bankruptcy this week, what was meant by General Motor's "ladder of success" many decades ago?

A. Click to find the answer below

Have supply chain or logistics-related questions you need answered?
Ask our panel of experts.
Share your insight!

Featured Question and Answer:

How Can We Calculate the Potential Throughput of our Distribution Center?


Follow us now at

Do you use an RSS reader? Do you have a MyYahoo! or personalized Google page? For these and more you can have SCDigest delivered right to your personal pages, all week long.
You can subscribe to our RSS feeds in two ways:
  1. Copy our RSS link into your RSS reader - it's easy!
  2. Click on a button below to quickly add it to your favorite readers.

We received about two dozen letters on our piece on Unionization and the Supply Chain – most of the very short and sweet variety, on all sides of the issue.


We print a few of these below, including our Feedback of the Week from Marcos Casiraghi of Argentina, who offers some perspective on the experience he has seen there with powerful labor unions.


That letter and a variety of others are below, including one who says SCDigest editor Dan Gilmore needs to get his facts together before he can be a “credible art critic.”

Feedback of the Week – On Unions and the Supply Chain:


I am writing you from Argentina, where most of the manufacturing and logistics jobs are unionized. After many years of silence, Unions are now experiencing a momentum of power, partly thanks to the excellent relationship that Union representatives have established with the Argentinean government, who in exchange for political support has granted many concessions to unionized workers.


In Argentina, a non-unionized supervisor may earn less than a unionized worker under his supervision. Unions are so powerful that companies find it very hard to lay off personnel, even for justified causes (like for example showing up drunk to work, committing burglary, carrying weapons in the truck cabin, etc.). And forget about introducing technological innovations to existing processes that would increase productivity and require fewer workers. You could only justify it if it allows you to produce more output with the same workforce.


I don't think the US will ever end up facing a similar situation, but I just wanted to share our experience here in the South.


Marcos Casiraghi

More On Unions and the Supply Chain:



Personal opinion: I agree that this is not the time to push this bill through. A union doesn't carry the weight nor strength it did when the auto industry was at its zenith.  Look at what has happened with unionized companies - especially the inability to negotiate with unions.  Whenever a strike ends, the union dues increase - yet they supposedly never have any money! Why should I pay a union to do what I can do without them?


Let's have the members of Congress try to operate in both a union and non-union environment and see what happens - I bet they won't be too quick at passing this bill!


Carol W.

The highest paying longshoreman jobs that I am familiar with go to crane operators - not unskilled workers.  Would you turn such an expensive piece of equipment over to someone making low wages?  Would you entrust the volume moving through your port to low-paid workers? 


High pay means that the smart employer can get high performance. That's why American workers were more productive than the Japanese even in the days when we were mimicking their corporate models and admiring their after-hours work ethic.


You need to look at the whole picture before you can be a credible art critic.


J. Walker

My thoughts are that the rich, the wealthy, and the powerful have brought this upon us all. If board members and executives and politicians hadn't been so greedy with raises and bonuses while sticking it to the middle class, then we wouldn't have this problem.


Wayne Rosala

Although I agree with the premise, I want to point out that all companies need to recognize they have a responsibility to the employees as well as the stock holders. Not that long ago, companies recognized the value of a good and loyal employee and the employee recognized a good employer, both showed this appreciation with loyalty to one another. The company expected a good job and the employee expected a good pay and benefit package that they could use to take care of their families. This created a good working relationship. Employees did not feel like they were disposable. Somewhere, some place, someone decided that they would make a little extra money on the bottom line, by making the employees disposable, thus insecure. The inability to justify a good salary for an employee has to create a conundrum, when you try to justify the salaries of top management. With companies paying huge salaries and bonuses to top management, there is no way to justify not giving employees decent wages and benefits.


I agree the Union needs to learn how to be reasonable and not hamstring any company in today's global and competitive market; however, at the same time, it is not unreasonable for employees to expect reasonable treatment, as well as pay and benefits package. Consumers/Employees make up about 70% of the economy and are an integral part of any company’s success. Giving them the knowledge that they are important and vital to the company’s success can only improve the loyalty and quality of the work they perform. The company's pay and security offered to families is the way a employee knows they are appreciated. I hope that some day they find that balance, because I believe it would be good for the companies as well employees.


Paul Hamilton



Q. In pondering GM's bankruptcy this week, what was meant by General Motor's "ladder of success" many decades ago?

A. The term referred to GM's strategy of having multiple brands, in increasing order of "luxury," that consumers could move to as their own financial success improved. The ladder went like this: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, allowing customers to stay in the GM family as they become more affluent over time.

Copyrights © SupplyChainDigestTM 2003-2009. All Rights Reserved.
To Unsubscribe: Click Here
PO Box 714
Springboro, Ohio 45066