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.
It might be tempting to think of the racking system in your warehouse or DC as a larger version of the metal shelving in your garage. After all, how complicated could a steel rack be—especially the traditional selective rack, which doesn't even have any moving parts?
Such thinking, however, could lead to a costly—and potentially deadly—disaster. "Storage racks are a load-bearing steel structure, and because they're supporting a variety of different loads, it's important for them to be maintained," says Dave Olson, national sales and marketing manager for the manufacturer Ridg-U-Rak. Rack damage can lead to collapse, he continues, putting your equipment, people, and even financial health at risk.
While rack collapse is rare, it can be extremely dangerous. What can you do to avoid a rack disaster at your facility? Here are some quick tips for preventing rack damage and collapse. (More information can be found in two e-documents created by the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI): Considerations for the Planning and Use of Industrial Steel Storage Racks and Guidelines for the Assessment and Repair or Replacement of Damaged Racks. The documents cost $50 each.)
1. Choose your rack with care. There are many different types of racks on the market, from selective rack to high-density drive-in rack to carton flow rack, as well as many different components for each type of rack. If you select the wrong type of rack for your operation, you're more likely to experience rack damage, according to Olson. "A proper analysis and design is required to ensure the storage system provided will meet all of the requirements," he says.
As for what factors to consider, Domenick Iellimo, executive vice president of sales for the storage system manufacturer Frazier Industrial Co., says rack designs should take into account three things: product/unit, handling method, and area.
As for the first of these factors—the products being stored on the rack—it's not enough to simply look at the items' weight and dimensions and how the loads are configured and distributed on the rack, Iellimo warns. You also have to take into account how fast your product turns. For example, a produce warehouse that has a high inventory turn rate will require a heavier-weight or more durable racking system than a warehouse with a lower turn rate. That's because the added activity increases the risk of rack damage.
Similarly, the design should take into account the material handling method being used. "What sometimes happens is that companies are very focused on the unit being stored, and there is not enough focus right up front on the interface between the material handling equipment being used and the rack," Iellimo says.
When this happens, Iellimo warns, you risk designing a rack system with aisles or shelf clearances that are too tight to accommodate the facilities' forklift trucks or other vehicles.
In addition to the considerations mentioned above, it's important to make sure the rack meets the seismic requirements of the area it is located in.
2. Don't adjust racks without consulting a qualified expert. It's true that a rack is made of many different components—such as frames and beams and footplates—that are put together like a giant Erector set. But once those parts have been assembled and installed in a warehouse or DC, it is crucial that you continue to use the rack as it was originally designed. "It is so important to think of a rack as a system," says Steve Rogers, a vice president with the storage system company Hannibal Industries.
Racking systems are now considered a building element and as such, have to conform to very strict codes. That means you should give the same thought and consideration to, say, removing or altering a beam as you would to removing a wall or column in your distribution center.
"Any adjustment to the beam level affects the carrying capacity of the frame and [could potentially] lead to collapse," says Greeba Rampaul-Essue, president of Storage Equipment Safety Service, a company that conducts rack inspections and training. That is to say, if a beam is raised, lowered, or removed, the rack may no longer be capable of bearing the amount of weight it was designed to handle.
Similarly, Rampaul-Essue urges users to be careful when mixing together components from different manufacturers. "One of the key things about a rack is the safety lock that holds the beam in place; if that safety lock is not properly engaged, then your beam is not properly held in place and can be easily dislodged," she explains. "If you're mixing components, you need to make sure that the beam from one manufacturer and the frame from another manufacturer fit together."
3. Don't overload your racks. Loading more product onto a rack than it's designed to handle could damage the structure and eventually lead to failure. According to the RMI and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), all racks should display a plaque showing the rated load capacity of the pallet rack or the maximum weight it can carry.
DC managers should be particularly careful when they change the types of products stored on their racks or even the type of pallets they use, as these changes could lead to overloading, warns Rogers.
4. Train your employees in rack safety. "If you were to put in a rack system, load it up, go home, and never use it, the rack would stand forever," says Raymond Weber, Eastern regional manager at rack maker Steel King. "However, as soon as your forklift trucks start moving pallets in and out and bumping into the rack, you are creating more load in rack than the structure was initially designed for."
Rampaul-Essue recommends conducting awareness training with employees who work in the rack system to ensure they are using it properly and are mindful of the load tolerances. The training should include how to report any damage to the rack and emphasize how important such reports are.
Properly training forklift drivers is particularly important, as the majority of rack damage is caused by forklifts hitting or bumping the structure. In tandem with that training, Weber recommends making sure your incentive programs for forklift drivers are reasonable so that they're not rushing to hit their numbers, making accidents more likely.
In addition, warehouse supervisors and/or safety staff should be trained on how to conduct a proper rack inspection, says Rampaul-Essue.
5. Conduct periodic rack inspections. MHI and other industry bodies recommend having an external party inspect a distribution center's racking at least annually. This external party could be the rack manufacturer or someone from a third-party inspection company.
Rampaul-Essue takes it a step further. In addition to the external inspections, she suggests that facilities conduct internal inspections for rack misuse or damage on a monthly or even weekly basis.
Inspectors should look not only for damage but also for misuse such as overloading.
6. Install "protective guarding" devices. There are many types of safety equipment that can be installed to protect the rack. Guarding and post protectors can keep forklifts from directly hitting the rack. You can also reinforce the rack by putting in double columns at the base.
Be careful when installing protective barriers, however, as some of them can reduce aisle widths, says Rampaul-Essue. Make sure that your forklift trucks will still have room to maneuver when the barriers are in place.
7. When a rack is damaged, have it checked out by a rack expert immediately. The RMI says that all damaged racks must be repaired or replaced. "Once a rack is damaged, it may continue to stand, but that doesn't mean that it's safe," warns Weber.
Rampaul-Essue agrees, noting that rack may stand for years before one slight bump sends the whole thing tumbling down. Many manufacturers will allow you to send them photos of the damage and will then recommend the best course of action or come out to repair or replace the rack.
But rack owners shouldn't be surprised if repair isn't one of the options offered. Some manufacturers are wary of repair kits, unsure of how they will perform in concert with their racking system. According to Weber of Steel King, there are currently no industry-specified guidelines or policies for rack repair beyond the suggestion by RMI that all repairs be overseen by a rack expert or professional engineer. "Because of that, Steel King takes the stance that any rack that is damaged must be replaced," he says.
GET PROFESSIONAL HELP
No matter what type of rack alteration you're contemplating—repairing, replacing, moving, or simply adjusting a rack—experts agree that it is crucial to consult with a rack expert. But who should that be? Some advise always using a professional engineer. Others say simply hiring a professional engineer isn't enough—what you need is a specialist, someone who is an expert in the type of racking you use.
"It's similar to how you think about doctors," says Rogers. "If you're dealing with a 10-foot selective rack, there are a lot of people out there who can help you. But if you have a 36-foot-tall dynamic storage system in a high seismic zone, then you are going to need the equivalent of a brain surgeon."
Is it safe to buy used rack?
Interest in used racking is on the rise, according to Jason MonteMayer, project manager with enVista, a consulting company that provides a liquidation service for used rack. The trend is driven less by a desire to save money than by pressure to get facilities up and running quickly, he says. Typically, used rack can be purchased and installed faster than new.
What should a buyer look for in a used rack system? Factors to consider include the manufacturer, the age of the system, its condition, what it was previously used for, and whether it includes components from different manufacturers (this could compromise the integrity of the system). MonteMayer urges potential buyers to take particular care when it comes to assessing the equipment's condition. "Companies can do a good job covering up damage, so you want to have someone do an in-person inspection or at least have good-quality pictures of the equipment," he says. "The best option is to have a licensed professional engineer review the equipment and the design to make sure the equipment meets all of your design criteria."
If you're purchasing the rack from a used-equipment dealer, MonteMayer recommends checking on how the equipment has been stored. "One concern is whether the equipment has been sitting outside in the weather and if rust is occurring."
Not surprisingly, most rack manufacturers advise against purchasing used rack. Domenick Iellimo from Frazier says that even if you know who manufactured the rack and how it was used, the equipment still might not be a good fit for your operation. Iellimo tells of a customer that contacted him because he was interested in purchasing a used Frazier rack system. Because Frazier keeps complete records for every rack it manufactures, Iellimo was able to pull the original engineering file for that particular system. The record revealed that the rack would not meet the seismic requirements for the new location.
In addition, building codes governing racks have changed greatly over the years. While existing rack is grandfathered in, once the rack is moved to a new location, it must comply with the new standards. As a result, even a rack designed for exactly the same type of operation as your own might no longer be up to code.
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."