Air pollution legal landmark pressures forklift users

In a new study* of forklift users by Calor some 38% of those surveyed said they were coming under increasing pressure to reduce carbon from their forklift (FLT) fleets. That pressure will now likely rise following a landmark legal ruling over the death of a nine-year old asthmatic London girl who is the first UK person, and possibly the world, to have "air pollution" listed on her death certificate as the cause of death. Such a ruling will undoubtedly galvanise insurance companies to pressure warehouse operators of diesel trucks who are already under a legal obligation to make the warehouse a safe place but what are the problems and remedies for users of all diesel and LPG forklifts, whether used inside or outside premises?

Although at 54% of those surveyed recognised that carbon reduction was a very important consideration when choosing how their FLT fleet should be fuelled, regardless they have to juggle with other operational and commercial priorities. Above carbon concerns were cost (65%), fuel efficiency (64%), machinery downtime (63%), security of supply (59%) and level of customer service from the fuel provider (57%) when it comes to FLT fuel selection. Surprisingly, only 51% of respondents rated cleanliness as a very important issue and only 8% of those surveyed in the retail, leisure and catering industries have said that their business had been very effective in lowering its carbon emissions over the last 12 months. 

The report shows that there are wide regional and industry differences over fuel choice which reflect tougher technological barriers to carbon reduction. In manufacturing and utilities, for example, they felt restrained over dumping diesel because of the energy required for their processes, the limitation of electric and battery technology and the grid's current inability to satisfy demand fully at peak times. 

Companies in manufacturing, utilities, retailing, catering and leisure need vehicles with enough torque to lift and shift heavier products which dissuades them from using electric trucks which they claim underperform in such circumstances. Users of outdoor fleets also find that electrics are not suitable for their needs as the damp conditions can case issues with wiring circuitry and electrical components. Another dissuader is that 62% of respondents felt that they don't have enough charging points for their electric forklift fleets, which have to be recharged daily and left to cool for hours before use. 

The great strides in electric chargers and batteries, however, have diminished these concerns, with claims by manufacturers of electric forklifts, particularly those powered by lithium-ion and iron-phosphate batteries, that recharging times are no longer a challenge and that they can equal the performance punch of diesel and LPG and perform well in outdoor conditions. 

There are, of course, other forklift fuels, like LPG, which though cleaner than diesel (no benzene) are still not squeaky clean at point of use, but they have made a big improvement lowering carbon emissions by offering a bio LPG fuel that cuts 20-32% of carbon compared with conventional LPG. 

Encouragingly, some 94% of respondents agree that more can be done to cut carbon emissions and this is one area where Government help can make a big difference, especially as it would be unfair to expect industry players, many struggling on wafer thin profit margins, to bear the entire cost burden of switching to electric. Government financial incentives can change end user behaviour. Cash grants could be made to companies which prove how much they have cut their carbon footprint. Financial help for UK companies has long been available through the Carbon Trust scheme. There are also operational methods companies could consider which would not only improve their efficiency but also their 'green' credentials. For example, the amount of truck distance travelled, including lifting and lowering, governs the amount of fuel consumed. Depending on one's operational set-up, there may be scope to reduce truck travel times by switching to articulated forklifts# which save up to 50% of warehouse space against conventional counterbalanced trucks and 30% compared with reach trucks. Adding RDTs to these artics could also save much time, which boosts productivity. 

*www.calor.co.uk/fltreport

#www.translift-bendi

 #www.flexi.co.uk

#www.aisle-master.com

Rethink on container ship sizes?

Economies of scale are one thing when it comes to ever-rising container ship sizes but should that outweigh the expected soaring rise in insurance costs and disruption to JIT deliveries if ship sizes continue ever upwards?

Already, 20,000 teu ship sizes are in the pipeline but container losses at sea show no signs of moderating. The latest disastrous loss is the ONE Apus, which lost 1,816 containers after hitting rough weather on November 30th, 1,600 nautical miles north-west of Hawaii on a voyage from China to Long Beach, California. The ship is a 14,000 teu vessel built only last year and operating under the Japanese flag. It looks like the worst loss in container ship history and comes only one month after another ONE Line-operated ship of 14,000 teu capacity, the ONE Aquila, also suffered collapsed containers in severe weather on a similar voyage. 

There are many reasons that contribute towards such losses at sea, namely poor internal packaging and load distribution and deliberate under declaring of cargo weights to save costs and freight duties, among others. When, for example, the MSC Napoli container ship was beached on the English Devon coast in 2007 MAIB found that one of the contributory causes for the total hull write-off was overloading of 20% of the containers, including one by as much as three tonnes. There is also the ever-present risk from rogue killer waves over 100ft high which can slice through both sides of a ship's hull and sink the largest of ships in  just a few minutes, with the loss of all hands. 

The IMO has toughened weighment rules since then to reduce such nefarious misdeclarations but there are still supply chain gaps and loopholes in weighing containers. If insurance companies don't call a halt on behemoth ships soon they will only have themselves to blame for the inevitable multi-billion pound losses ahead. Nature is a hard act to beat.

                                                  END 

Britain sees reshoring boost 

from Covid and Brexit

If global logistics teaches anything it teaches us to expect the unexpected but can the unexpected consequences be pre-empted? Those logisticians who must deal with global risks should be familiar with the fact that lean operations are structured to create vulnerability owing to JIT practices that affect most of world trade. The numerous vulnerability risks were, nevertheless, deemed acceptable because of the wide production costs gap between those in developed countries and those in the Far East, in particular. In 2000, for example, costs in China were estimated at 31% cheaper than in the West. By 2012 that gap had closed to about 16%. Add in between 5% and 10% to account for distribution costs and the gap becomes much narrower to convince western importers that the outsourced lower production costs no longer justify the vulnerability and inflexibility of global supply chains, especially in view of the paradigm shift in consumer expectations detonated by online shopping. Seemingly, it took Covid 19 and pending Brexit to ram home that lesson.

The reshoring of production away from the Far East back to the West began falteringly about 10 years ago, fired by concerns over staggering intellectual property theft, poor quality, demands for large orders which imposed higher costs on importers and long delivery times, thus negating JIT principles. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that British importers, with retailers in the van, are moving to save up to £4.5 billion a year initially as the Corona virus and Brexit prompt businesses to bring home production. This figure has been mooted by Alvarez and Marsal and research group, Retail Economics, in a report which they believe will see UK-sourced rising orders largely in food and fashion clothes, but potentially including DIY products and homewares. Signs of the trend have already emerged with online fashion site Asos which will be making its new, lower-priced brand at approved factories in Leicester, and Ted Baker announcing its Made-in-Britain range this month. 

Why EU suppliers face "interesting times"

The reasons have a familiar ring. Retail businesses are making changes after the Corona pandemic highlighted structural weaknesses in global supply chains, which can be slow to adapt to sudden increases or drops in demand caused by shock events or rapidly-changing consumer tastes. But there is a new worrying development for them ---the possibility of a no-deal Brexit which would see tariffs as high as 80% on some UK meat and dairy imports, 12% on clothing and 16% on footwear. Retailers, unsurprisingly, are now considering alternative options, something that ought to concentrate EU negotiators' minds because in the 2-way trade between the EU and the UK they have far more to lose in specific industries. 

A good example of unilateral retailer action is the multi-billion pound pub group, J D Wetherspoon, which has banned French champagne from all its taverns and hotels. It also became clear that as the biggest consumer of Swedish-made cider, the producer felt it prudent to build a production factory in Britain. What all this means is that UK retailers call the most powerful shots, for they will not risk overpriced EU imports hitting their profits.  

There is, however, more to the reshoring trend than overseas production costs. Seven in 10 of the retailers surveyed for the report said they had already started changing the way they sourced goods to meet green and ethical targets. Shipping goods half way around the world is a huge pollution concern, though the carbon neutral ships, particularly sail-powered, will diminish future pollution levels. The appalling human rights abuses in foreign countries have also heaped odium and embarrassment on UK fashion retailers, in particular. 

At the grass roots level there are many encouraging reshoring moves. Jennifer Holloway, chief executive of Fashion Enter, said business was up over one third this year, citing retailers were looking for more responsible suppliers close to home after the pandemic uncertainties highlighted the inflexibility of shipping clothes from Asia. "It's commercial suicide to back long lead times stock at the moment. Retailers are cutting closer and closer to the season. There is no way I would have opened a factory in Wales unless I was certain there was a long-term trend in coming back to the UK. It's exciting. 

Pollution is unacceptable

Meanwhile, Over Fifties fashion brand, David Nieper, is hiring 30 new dress makers and investing £4.5 million in a textile factory. The company's chief executive, Christopher Nieper, said: "Manufacturing in Britain makes business accountable and allows control over each step of the production process. Offshoring manufacturing is essentially offshoring responsibility and, indeed, pollution. Currently two thirds of emissions from UK clothing occur overseas. It's not acceptable to shift the problem overseas where it is out of sight and out of mind."

In Wales 71 former Laura Ashley sewers have returned to the clothing industry at a new factory in Powys where ethical supplier, Fashion Enter, is making clothes for Asos and has just landed a contract for online clothing specialist, N Brown, the owner of Simply Be.

The shift by retailers is only part of wider supply chain changes prompted by Covid and Brexit. Tony Haig, chief executive of PP Control and Automation, is part of the UK Manufacturing Unite Group* which offers a "dating service" for manufacturers to work together to bring production home. Started in response to the Covid ventilator challenge, the group now has 300 members. "It's not a short-term thing," he said. "It takes a lot of time and effort to move a supply chain back to the UK. You don't just do it for a few months."

*ukmfgunite.co.uk

                                                               END

                                                            

 END

UK retailer bullying of suppliers ramps up

For may years the consequences of intensifying competition among the UK's grocery retailers have been visited on their hapless, bullied suppliers through up to 60 odious ploys designed to squeeze the last drop from suppliers. Matters had seemingly improved in 2013 when the code of conduct was enforced by the Groceries Code Adjudicator but now that is all out the window following Tesco's resurgent, macho stance as it prepares a price war with the leading discounters, Aldi and Lidl.

Past apologies by Tesco's chief executive, Dave Lewis, for his company's "naked pursuit of growth" that led to an investigation into its bullying of suppliers account for nothing as Tesco delivers an ultimatum for draconian price cuts of up to 50% within a few weeks' deadline. But what is behind this move, which can only be expected to be followed by other big grocery retailers, could it have been foreseen and who are likely to be the winners?

David Sables, chief executive of Sentinel Management Consultants which trains suppliers to negotiate with supermarkets, put his finger on the pulse when he claimed that suppliers were being asked to fund deficiencies in Tesco's business model relative to the discounters, but without going into reported specifics. So what are those specifics and can and should Tesco win and if so what would be the consequences for the consumers?

Part of Tesco's problem is its refusal to cut its relatively high profit margins of 4%+ compared with the 2% the discounters are happy with so how can these upstart Continental challengers continue their remorseless rise in market share at the expense of the big four supermarkets?

Stock control is paramount

The recent paradigm shift in retailing sees value for money as the new mantra pursued by consumers which the discounters have delivered in spades, typically undercutting the big four's prices by 30% on a typical shopping basket. They have partly achieved this through a no-frills approach to shop openings which are much cheaper and quicker to commission than the big superstores but far more important has been its approach to inventory control. Warehouses put money to sleep so much so that inventory holding costs can dwarf all other logistics costs combined. A typical Tesco superstore could house about 40,000 SKUs compared with around 1,600 for the discounters, most all of which would be fast movers. Any that became slow movers would be promptly dropped and replaced with anticipated fast movers. This puts the big grocers at a serious disadvantage because most of their stock would be slow and medium movers.

The big retailers must now see their superstores as albatrosses but their online side of the business could bring relief if and when they decide to trim down their costly, giant property portfolio. But internet shopping could also be a threat if many of the big food, etc suppliers band together to build huge shared order picking warehouses for direct deliveries to consumers, thus disintermediating the traditional retailer. Amazon has shown success in this by acting as a wholesaler, but it still represents a cost layer that could be eradicated if suppliers banded together. Meanwhile, sole traders with a slick website working from home can already place orders with manufacturers for direct home deliveries to their customers. 

There is a risk that yet more attempts may be made by the grocery giants to beat the discounters through mergers, like the recent Sainsbury overture to Asda, a move that undoubtedly would have harmed consumers' best interests had it been allowed to go through. There are risks, too, that many of the smaller suppliers will fail over what has been described by one of Tesco's suppliers as a straightforward money grab. If Tesco succeeds and reverses the discounters' fortunes then the ultimate losers could also be the consumers because they would once more be in the grip of the big four who will have more leeway to raise their prices while keeping the suppliers squeezed.

Could all this have been foreseen? Nearly 40 years ago I warned of trouble ahead for the big UK grocers following my visit to Netto in Denmark, a food discount retailer with 120 shops supplied by just one national distribution centre (RDC). Their slick business model, supported by EPOS and EDI, saw all sales replaced at each store every 24 hours. This meant that the NDC, equipped with fast sortation conveyors, saw 90% of all its stock pass through it every day, partly because Netto stocked only 600 SKUs, nearly all fast movers. In my report to Materials Handling News I warned that if this business model crossed the North Sea to Britain it would give Britain's big supermarkets "nightmares." The rest, as they say, is history.
 
                                                      END

Pallet rack netting demands safety look

How safe are your pallet racking safety devices? Not safe enough, it seems. No matter how well designed, installed, regularly maintained and correctly aligned with the most appropriate MHE, accidents will always happen and one of the five key causes of warehouse accidents involves moving or falling objects.

Protecting the storage medium has long been the poor relation in terms of warehouse safety priorities but such is the risk to business survival from the worse kind of racking collapse, namely domino- style, it almost beggars belief that this aspect of racking safety attracts such relative insouciance. Next to the risk of racking collapse itself is falling objects on personnel.

For many years the only defence against pallet collapses from collisions with MHE has been the upright post protectors and various truck guidance measures but these were restricted to heights of no more than about 4 ft. Then, three years ago, RCP Ltd* patented its Rhino system that connects the upright racking posts to a ceiling structure via steel ropes. This addressed the problem of domino-style racking collapses that could be so serious as to jeopardise the future of companies, especially those geared to e-fulfilment functions when failure to make timely deliveries could see permanent loss of future business. In some domino-style collapses it is worrying how little contact there is between a forklift and a horizontal beam which causes virtually all of the racking to collapse. But what of the more confined peril from falling objects from the racking?

There have been two main measures to protect from this peril, namely racking safety netting and steel mesh containment panels. Of the two, netting creates a safer working environment and risk reduction solution when used as part of a suitably safe system of work, says Chris Hopkirk, sales director of Warehouse Partners, a trading division of Westbrook Industrial.** Available in various sizes and strengths, RackNets are strong and lightweight and easy to install (up to 2 to 3 times quicker than steel mesh). They are made to measure so there is no cutting down or edge working on site. Unlike steel mesh, RackNets will not dent or corrode and life ownership cost is much reduced. Retrieval of goods/pallets is made easier and they are designed to contain and restrain 1 tonne loads within the net envelope. Easy net removal enables beams to be adjusted and rack repairs to be carried out quickly.

The nets are normally used where there is pedestrian access to the rear of a single run of racking and is particularly important where employees are picking off the rear of the rack. The risk of pallets being inadvertently pushed through the rack are greatly increased where a support system such as timber or mesh decks are used. In-flue netting, therefore, provides increased protection from product or pallets being pushed through from one rack to another.

So why is so little netting sold in relation to steel mesh panels? Chris Hopkirk suggests the racking industry could be educating the industry more about the inherent risks of falling objects from pallet racking and that as a minimum a risk assessment and safe system of work should be carried out to ascertain their requirements. The fact is that steel mesh is designed to retain only boxes of up 50 kg and no more.

**www.warehouse-partners.co.uk
*www.rcpsystem.com




RackNet in place

Pallet racking collapses' preventative measures are inadequate

Outside of fire, the most damaging warehouse hazard is collapsing pallet racking. Such can be the grievous losses and business disruption that despite insurance it can break businesses, yet arguably the defence measures against such risks are woefully inadequate.

Pallet racking is safe. It only becomes unsafe when it combines with careless people and so any means to eliminate huge costly collapses should be encouraged but is there foot dragging on this? Sadly and evidently there is. Until three years ago the only anti-racking failure measures were a variety of rack barriers, column guards and guide rails, all with one serious limitation, namely they extend up from the ground no more than a few feet. Given that pallet racking legs reach many times higher than that they are widely exposed to that most common cause of collapse --- forklift collision. This can even occur while a truck is manoeuvring in an aisle with load at maximum lift height, causing it to topple over, crash the mast and load into the racking and create a domino collapse.

This is not to belittle the traditional means of protection but their shortcomings clearly show they need augmenting that would protect at all heights. Just such a solution is Rhino from RCP* introduced three years ago but seemingly downplayed by the leading UK trade body, Storage Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA). This unique, patented design prevents racks from collapsing by means of using wire ropes suspended from the steel structure of the building, if possible, and then attached to each racking support leg. When the building's steel structure cannot be used than a secondary steel structure is installed to form a support for the suspension ropes. With this system in place, any leg that is damaged will not be able to collapse, thus preventing any costly domino effect.  

But does the cost of Rhino make one blink? Hardly. the cost of a domino-type racking collapse could run into seven figures, not including any serious injuries, fatalities and possible, permanent business losses through disruption, and massive future hikes in insurance premiums. One of RCP's benefits, in fact, is reduced insurance costs because the system has been proved in the field. Irrespective of the number of stored pallets, the cost is calculated by the length of the racking run. As an indication, this can vary from £85 to £130 per outer leg. Inner legs are not used if the racking is back-to-back. In respect of drive-in racking, RCP would look to fit to three rack legs deep. The only form of racking that would not warrant the system would be automated crane rack systems.

As regards Rhino's maintenance, the only action needed would be an annual inspection so as to identify any unreported impacts, which in any event is a requirement with or without Rhino. The issue of rack inspection is critically important because one of the rarely mentioned risks that really catches the facility and safety managers off guard is the rack collapse caused by the pervasive, subtle damage that can be unnoticeable to the untrained eye. For example, if a rack system has multiple uprights that exceed out-of-plumb guidance of 0.15 inch per three-foot section a collapse could occur. It is very easy to walk by a 0.15 inch deviance and not even notice it, or "it's just a little damage, not worth bothering with now." The necessity for watchfulness becomes even greater in cold store environments.

So far, most of RCP's 12 installations have been retrofits, and there are five pending with  30,000- pallet stores, and there is much interest coming from seismic-prone regions. As regards overseas representation, RCP would consider licencing arrangements.

One might reasonably ask that given this major breakthrough in warehouse racking safety why does Britain's leading warehouse racking trade body, SEMA, apparently take a low-key view, even though SEMA's technical adviser has witnessed a live demonstration and reported that the system works. It has been mooted that if they recognised Rhino warmly as worthy of serious consideration then that would be questioning their members' installation design and integrity, a curious attitude if true because all racking is safe but accidents will happen.

UK racking collapses involving fatalities are rare, about less than one a month, but serious injuries are measured in their hundreds. SEMA also claims that UK rack collapses are rare, but with at least one major racking collapse occurring every week, according to one involved source, that is a curious definition of rarity.

*www.rcpsystem.com
Email: craig@rcpsystem.com                                                                

Domino style pallet racking collapses like these could break businesses

Rhino's anti pallet racking collapse suspension ropes above a new installation

New unique compactor slashes reverse logistics costs

Do retailers know the true costs of their reverse logistics? With regard to waste handling it seems not, according to the creators of the Spacemaker* card and plastic compactor devised by two directors, Simon Brown and Paul Overfield, formerly at Translift Bendi whose revolutionary articulated forklift did so much to transform warehouse economics. The result is that in Britain alone many millions of pounds are lost every year through the inefficient handling of waste card/plastic in reverse logistics.

One of Britain's four leading grocery retailers knew it had a costly problem handling its reverse logistics for waste card and plastic, made worse by the fact that recycling plants became more discriminatory over acceptance of waste card. This meant that card should not be mixed with plastic, otherwise it would be rejected and so any payments (cost recovery) made from recycling waste would be lost, which can be considerable given that clean cardboard can fetch £45 per tonne and polyethylene stretchwrap £200 per tonne.

The supermarket method of choice was to use traditional baling machines in stores but the problem with such a compaction rate was that if the bale was contaminated it did not fall apart easily and so the extra labour needed to separate the card and plastic eroded the bale's value. One innovative retailer decided to remove the conventional compactors from stores and use reverse logistics to collect the card from and take it to one of eight regional recycling plants located next to their regional distribution centres, (RDCs), where it would be sorted and baled to maximise cost recovery. The Spacemaker, however, is unique as it is designed to reduce volume by 75% and hence the cost of transport whilst showing that it is still easy to separate and sort on arrival.

What Spacemaker does is to use a compression rate of only 4 to 1 while card is still inside the roll cages because the patented design protects the cage from the effects of compression whilst inside the Spacemaker. But to see if the machine is suitable to achieve all the 'soft' and hard benefits plus the considerable environmental bonuses it is necessary to consider your current set-up.  

If you are using roll cages to decant lorry loads what type are you using and are you so short of space in the back of store that you have to replace card/plastic filled roll cages out in the yard for return to recycling centres? To save time and therefore money roll cages should be nestable with a metal front rather than use of a cling film wrap to the front to contain the load, which is time-consuming and nauseating given that operatives must walk around the cage several times. Storing card-filled roll cages out in the yard for long periods where they can get wet and attract pests is inadvisable because rain water adds weight and there is a good chance of recyclers rejecting such waste. But not putting roll cages in the yard can lead to congestion in back of store, leaving no room for arriving produce. This hugely impacts the time taken to tip a load and also delays putting stock on shop shelves.

Volume is the big issue

Does your yard space typically store many hundreds of trays and stacks of pallets along with roll cages waiting to be reversed for reuse? If so do you know how much capital is tied up in them? So the big issue is that card and plastic take up too much volume and adds cost of business. Each supermarket of this retailer, for example, typically produces one full lorry load of card and plastic (40 roll cages) in one 24 hr period. Spacemakers' directors were given a brief to reduce volumes by any amount they could by compacting it in a cage to reduce double handling and much else besides and all by using a 13 amp power supply.

Correctly integrated into the labour shifts, the Spacemaker saves time, space and transport costs. The space gained from the roll cages is the footprint of 10 instead of 40 which saves almost 30 mt2 but the empty roll cages can also now be stacked outside as they take up far less room and don't attract pests. Over a seven-day period Spacemaker can produce close to 300 packed rolled cages which gives three benefits. The first is the reduction in cage fleet size. Secondly, cage availability at peak periods is critical to get products on the shelves without delay. Spacemaker is also reducing lorry loading and unloading times by over one hour a day, and estimates show that an ambient lorry costs £50 an hour to run. Space is also freed up in the returning lorries because now only 10 card-filled roll cages are needed instead of 40, thus releasing 30 mt2 of space for pallets and trays to be returned.

But what, you may wonder, are the environmental benefits, which also translate into cash gains? Let us just take one superstore experience at a trial store. After 10 months of operation completing 19,800 cycles, potential roll cage reduction was from 11,313 to 2,829 and what would have been 257 lorry loads reduced to 64  In a full year this store expects to save 231 lorry journeys a year or 6,237 miles of HGV travel. What is more, it released 10,182 roll cages back into the network, plus 6,930 pallets and 69,300 reusable trays out of the stores. With a steady Spacemaker roll out to the stores, by the end of this year returns would be reduced by 1,078 HGV trips which so far will mean 12,936 saved trips or 342,272 HGV road miles per year. Those figures will be very much larger after all stores have Spacemaker which leaves this innovative retailer deserving some 'green' accolade of the year.

There are 14,000 potential supermarket users of roll cages in the UK alone. Worldwide the figure is far more and so shows the huge potential to cut costs and improve the environment. Relevant businesses should take a serious look at the Spacemaker.

*www.spacematedirect.co.uk     









                                                                                                                                                                                 
Spacemaker tutorial at a new installation