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.
In today's high-velocity distribution centers, there's no room for guesswork. That's particularly true when it comes to the size and weight of products stored and handled at the site. Having accurate weight and dimensional data can help you calculate outbound shipping costs correctly, determine your exact storage and material handling system needs, and catch mispicked orders before they go out the door.
But where and when should you gather cube and weight data? Most people would say it should be done at an outbound packing station just prior to shipment. While there's much to be said for that approach, it's not the only answer. There are good arguments for cubing and weighing at other times and places in the DC. Here are four recommendations from those in the know:
1. During a one-time inventory audit. Data on the exact size and weight of every product you handle can be helpful in optimizing your material handling and storage systems and for choosing the best picking mechanism for those products. But not all companies have that information at their fingertips, says Bob Babel of the systems integrator Forte.
"In particular, small and medium-sized companies usually don't have good, accurate sizing information of products that move through their material handling system," Babel says.
If that's the case in your operation, a size and weight audit of active inventory might be in order. Babel notes that this could be as simple as renting or buying a static dimensioning system and setting it up near receiving. As items arrive, they can be placed on the dimensioning system, which will automatically capture their height, length, width, and weight.
Another option would be to take a static dimensioning system and place it on a cart with a battery, says Jerry Stoll, service market manager for Mettler-Toledo Inc., a manufacturer of cubing and weighing products. Workers can then can simply wheel the cart around to the various storage and picking locations to capture the relevant data.
2. At receiving. A one-time inventory audit probably won't be sufficient for DCs whose product mix—or product packaging—changes frequently. These operations will likely need to make cubing and weighing a routine part of their operations.
But where's the best place to carry out these activities? Clark Skeen, president of Quantronix, the maker of the Cubiscan line of cubing and weighing equipment, has some ideas on the subject. He strongly urges DCs to consider making it part of the receiving process. "The ideal time and place to collect cubing and weighing data is at the point of receipt," he says.
If you only gather cube and weight data at an outbound shipping station, you'll miss out on at least 50 percent of the benefits that the data can provide, Skeen says. That's because a product's cube and weight can and should influence decisions about slotting, storage location for putaway and picking, and repacking and containerization for shipping. "If you collect that data at the point of receipt, then it's available for each and every one of those decision points," he says.
Indeed, some facilities may choose to collect cube and weight data only at receipt, Stoll says. Those that do typically are simply storing and distributing product and are not repackaging or altering it in any way, so they know the dimensional data will not change, he explains.
To gather this information during receiving, many companies use automated dimensioning systems. For instance, high-volume operations that use conveyors to unload trucks might use an in-motion dimensioner attached to the conveyor. This approach has the advantage of allowing companies to check 100 percent of the products moving off the truck and obtain up-to-the-minute data on them, says Dan Hanrahan, president of the Numina Group, which supplies inline-scan weight dimensioning solutions. "That way, the warehouse management system and transportation system are always working from real-time data, so the information is being audited [during] the upfront process, and you can make changes to your system in real time," he explains.
3. After putaway or picking. Collecting dimensional data at receiving might not always be practical. For example, on a big receiving day, you may not have the time or floor space to perform cubing and weighing activities. In that case, an alternative might be to weigh and measure items after putaway (which can be accomplished by means of a mobile cart) or as they move from picking to shipping.
There are a number of potential benefits to this approach, experts say. For one thing, dimensioning systems can help with quality control after picking, according to Hanrahan. If a picker selects the wrong item or quantity, the order's weight will likely vary from the expected weight. And a damaged carton's dimensions may not conform with those of an undamaged box. An inline system located on a conveyor belt between picking and shipping will detect these deviations immediately and divert the order to an inspection station, says Hanrahan.
An alternative to a conveyor belt system is to use lift trucks with scales incorporated into their forks, says Stoll. He notes that this approach is popular with operations that place a premium on speed. "That [alternative] is mostly used by companies that have multiple forklifts that are moving a lot of freight fast, so they're worried about time constraints," he says.
4. Right before shipping. Perhaps the most common application of cubing and weighing systems is to collect data on parcels immediately prior to shipping. After all, that information is essential to determining the correct shipping costs.
To get the most accurate reading for this purpose, it's best to measure the dimensional weight of the box after it's been sealed and labeled. This is particularly important when shipping via parcel carriers that charge based on dimensional weight. By gathering precise dimensional data on their packages, shippers can ensure they're rating their parcels correctly and avoid chargebacks or overcharges by carriers. It is also important for less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments because carriers often "ballpark" weights to determine shipping costs, says Derek Jones, senior marketing product manager for Lantech, which recently began offering a scale option for its stretch wrappers.
Even companies with private fleets that don't have to calculate parcel shipping rates can benefit from cubing and weighing at the time outbound shipments are prepared, Stoll says. Accurate weight and dimensional information can help them make optimal use of the available truck space.
Substantial payback
To be sure, it's possible to get dimensional weight information without using a cubing and weighing system. For example, companies can get the data straight from the supplier, or they can manually measure and weigh the products. They also have the option of using cube calculation or "cartonization" logic based on the dimensional data in a WMS. But those results are not guaranteed to be accurate. According to Hanrahan, 5 to 10 percent of the time, packers use a smaller or larger box than expected.
In the end, what matters is not so much how or where you collect cubing and weight data, but that you do it, says Skeen of Quantronix. The information you collect will have great value, he says. And the more you use it, the more that value grows. Accurate, up-to-date cubing and weighing data offers a substantial payback for a relatively small investment, he says. "The information it provides is absolutely essential if you want to be a world-class distribution center."
Looking for a cubing or weighing solution? Here are just a few of the many companies that provide these systems and the types of products they offer:
Bizerba USA Inc.: Checkweighers, industrial scales, and software
Cascade Corp.: Lift truck forks that incorporate a scale
Cornerstone Automation Systems (CASI): In-motion and inline scales, inline checkweighers and conveyor scales, and in-motion cubing systems for cartons and pallets
Cubiscan by Quantronix: Static and in-motion dimensioning systems, plus accessories and software
Loadsense Technologies: Portable weigh scales for pallets and a portable weighing kit that places sensors under tables, pallets, and boards to create an industrial-capacity scale
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."