Answering a “hirer” calling: interview with Charlie Saffro
To kick off our three-part series of interviews focusing on today’s labor challenges, we talked to Charlie Saffro of CS Recruiting about hiring and retention—specifically, what works and what’s a waste of time and money. Here’s what she told us.
Diane Rand is Associate Editor and has several years of magazine editing and production experience. She previously worked as a production editor for Logistics Management and Supply Chain Management Review. She joined the editorial staff in 2015. She is responsible for managing digital, editorial, and production projects for DC Velocity and its sister magazine, Supply Chain Quarterly.
Finding and maintaining adequate staffing is arguably the biggest challenge supply chains face today. Warehouse managers struggle to find enough workers to keep their facilities running. Trucking companies are chronically short of drivers. And technology companies and service providers can’t find the talent they need to move their operations forward.
As the labor crisis worsens, DC Velocity is offering three perspectives on finding and retaining a first-class workforce. The interviews in this series, which will continuein our March and April issues, were conducted for “Supply Chain in the Fast Lane,” the podcast coproduced by our sister publication, Supply Chain Quarterly, and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
In this first installment, Supply Chain Quarterly Managing Editor Diane Rand speaks with Charlie Saffro, president and founder of CS Recruiting. Saffro has more than 14 years of direct recruiting experience within the logistics, transportation, and supply chain industries.
Q: Your firm specializes in supply chain and logistics recruiting. What positions are companies having the most trouble filling, and what skills are most in demand?
A: It is probably one of the most unique markets I’ve seen since I began recruiting in this space. Sales talent across the board is very much in demand right now. We generally see a need for sales talent all 12 months of the year, but a lot of companies build up their operational teams in Q1 and Q2, and then are ready to bring in the [recruiters] to sell for the second half of the year.
Beyond that, I would say that we’re seeing some really unique niche positions, particularly on the shipper side of the business. These positions could be within manufacturing, procurement, distribution, or the transportation function, but they are generally specific to either a mode or a commodity where employers want to invest in a game-changing hire that can come in and help them build out their area of expertise. We are seeing roles like that at all levels, though I would say manager and up is what’s trending right now.
Q: You presented a session at last fall’s CSCMP Edge Conference with the intriguing title “You can’t recruit if you can’t retain.” Can you explain what you mean by that?
A: Yes. We see ourselves as different types of recruiters in the sense that we really focus on matching the right person with the right company, and we are very focused on the human as part of the process.
I truly believe that in order to recruit well, you have to start with a solid retention strategy. Assuming a business is established, it already has at least one employee, and that is where the recruiting process begins. Having a culture and a certain vibe in the way a company treats its employees internally is what it’s all about right now. Employers need to start by looking internally and figuring out what they offer to their current team members. Where do they fall short? Because at the end of the day, that all translates right back into their recruiting strategy and tactics.
Not only are you creating “culture champions” and word-of-mouth referrals, but you are also fostering a positive perception of your talent brand when you can retain well. Then, as you transition into that recruiting step, you are able to sell an exciting opportunity to candidates. You can use examples of team members who have had successes and examples of how your culture works and how your employees feel because those are really what candidates are looking for right now. I truly believe that it starts with retention, and then you leverage that culture and that retention piece that you’ve built to recruit new talent for your team.
Q: On the other side of the coin, what are the most common reasons that supply chain managers leave a company? Is it all about the money or is it something else?
A: It is not all about the money anymore. Definitely money is a factor—I can’t deny that everybody works to support themselves and achieve financial security. I put money into the same bucket as benefits and maybe some additional incentives.
However, since the onset of Covid, I think the mentality in the candidate market has changed dramatically. Maybe money was the number-one reason people looked elsewhere before the pandemic, but now it is probably the fourth or fifth reason.
When it comes to why people leave a company, I’d say the number-one reason is workplace toxicity—companies that have toxic environments. That is really what we hear most often from candidates that are either actively or passivelylooking for a new opportunity. A toxic environment can stem from a number of things. It can be poor leadership, poor management, lack of recognition, or burning people out by not recognizing or understanding their capacity limits.
There is also a [whole population] out there that feels they are approaching the ceiling in their company, meaning that they won’t be going anywhere unless their boss goes somewhere, and their boss won’t be going anywhere unless their boss goes somewhere.
Candidates want to feel challenged. They want responsibility, and they want to do more. So when they hit that ceiling—that is, they feel they’re ready for the next step but the company isn’t there to support them—they’ll go out and look externally to grow their career vertically.
Those are really the two things that are coming up before money right now in terms of why people are leaving. What I call “culture” is the first reason, and opportunity is the second.
Q: What are some retention practices you’ve seen that truly work?
A: I can speak from experience here. When I started my firm, I was a one-woman show for the first year, and then I slowly built a team. Today, we have 40 employees, so I really try to practice what I preach. I use my team as an opportunity to beta-test and experiment—to take ideas and see how our team responds to them. What I’ve found is that it comes down to employees wanting to be seen and heard.
There are a number of tactics and policies that companies can implement in this regard, but it starts on day one with the interview process. Candidates want companies that communicate with them, that are transparent with them, and that want to get to know who they are beyond their résumé.
Then once that candidate has joined the company, employers really need to pay attention to the onboarding and development process to ensure the new-hire feels connected to the team from day one. Introduce them to various team members, and maybe let them shadow [their new colleagues] and get to know the people they’re going to be working with.
Then as they start to notch up some wins, you need to have a really solid recognition and appreciation program in place. Recognition and appreciation don’t always have to cost money. They certainly can, but it can also be public and private shout-outs, handwritten notes, or announcing internal promotions on a public platform like LinkedIn. What all of these retention tactics come down to is one-on-one attention from leadership. Employees want to be seen and heard.
Q: What are some retention practices you’ve seen that are not effective?
A: We joke about it now, but putting in a pingpong table or hosting a happy hour at five o’clock every Thursday doesn’t work anymore. I personally worked at a really great company in my second job out of college. It was in marketing, and the company’s “retention tactics” included some amazing perks. We had an in-house chef who would make us three meals a day. We had an in-house masseuse, and believe it or not, we were required to get a massage once a week.
While it was great and it really appealed to me at that point in my career, now I look back and I kind of chuckle because those were just strategies to keep me at the office and keep me working. And, yes, it made my job a pleasure, and I enjoyed it more because of those perks. But that is the stuff that is just not working anymore. You have to think beyond providing a keg or a foosball table.
What is working is flexibility. When employees have flexibility, they feel trusted, and when employees feel trusted, they are happy and they’re going to be more productive and more passionate about the work they’re doing.
Q: Those remind me of the perks universities used to offer to attract new students. It is not really important anymore, right?
A: Exactly. We are not in first grade, and we’re not going to be incentivized by a pizza party or pajama day anymore. It is going to have to go beyond that. Whether your employees come to the office or work remotely, there are different ways to keep them excited about the job and the company. Again, it really comes down to treating them like humans. That’s the easiest way to summarize it.
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."