Hard physical labor, numbingly boring tasks, continuous deadlines warehouse workers face down stress every day. The challenge is figuring out how to keep stress from flaring up into burnout.
For the average distribution center worker, it's another day, another hefty dose of job stress. You walk in the door and your brain shifts right into overload—trailers have arrived early and the unloading's already behind schedule. Or you're assailed by a supervisor reminding you that pick times will be closely monitored today because of an unusually tight schedule. Or the trucks are late and there's nothing to do but wait for the inevitable crunch. Or you're ordered to cover for someone who's out with the flu but can't get anyone to tell you precisely what you're supposed to do.
And even if you did know exactly what you were supposed to be doing, all too often you can't count on getting the tools and help you need. Two of the four lift trucks are out of commission. Cramped aisles make it impossible to move inventory and equipment around. Vacancies and absenteeism have left the facility pitifully understaffed. You're feeling the strain—both physical and emotional—and nobody seems to care.
No wonder between 20 and 75 percent of all warehouse workers leave their jobs within one year of their hire date. Though some learn to tolerate the stress, huge numbers succumb to the work fatigue. Those burned-out employees eventually respond in one of two ways: they try to wrest more control over the situation or they leave (think fight or flight).
Filling the vacancies can be both difficult and expensive—the cost of replacing a single employee is estimated to be in the thousands of dollars. Alarmed by the high turn over, distribution center managers from Klickitat to Kittery are looking for ways to fight stress and hold on to their workers.
But to fight stress, you have to understand what causes it and who's most affected. For that, we went right to the source, surveying 667 workers in seven distribution centers (see sidebar for a look at the respondent pool). Specifically, we wanted to know the following: How bad is the stress and burnout? Do stress and burnout levels vary based upon employee job tenure, overall job experience in the industry, work shift (early/day/late), or job status (full-time, part-time or temporary)? And most important of all, what can be done about it?
As bad as it gets?
To get an idea of how much stress DC workers are under, we asked survey participants seven questions related to pressures of the workplace— how often they had "been upset because of something that happened at work," for example, or how often they "found that they could not cope with all of the things they had to do." Stress levels were measured on a scale of 1 to 7—1 = never and 7 = every day. Researchers then averaged the numeric scores for each employee's answers to compute an overall stress score for that individual.
We conducted the "burnout" survey in much the same way. Participating employees were asked nine questions such as how often they "felt used up at the end of the workday," "failed to make an effective contribution to the organization," and "felt emotionally drained from [their] work." Responses were again scaled from 1 to 7, with 1 = never and 7 = every day. The respondents' answers to the nine questions were summed to create an overall burnout score for each employee.
Overall, respondents reported feeling a moderate level of stress— 3.53 on a scale of 1 to 7, indicating that they typically experienced stress a few times per month.Most of the stress appeared to derive from what we termed demand related factors—inability to control their immediate work environment or to manage unexpected events. Workers seemed to take problems caused by a lack of resources much more in stride.
The overall burnout score didn't lag too far behind. Workers reported experiencing burnout symptoms on a regular basis (3.43 overall on a scale of 1 to 7), as well. Burnout among distribution center employees most often takes the form of emotional exhaustion—the statement "I'm emotionally drained by my work" resonated loudest among workers. Survey respondents also reported that they felt inadequate or detached on a pretty regular basis.
Feeling the burn(out)
But not every stressed worker falls victim to burnout. Some segments of the workforce continue to function normally even as their colleagues succumb to the stress. What accounts for the differences? Does job tenure, for example, affect a worker's susceptibility? How about work experience, work shift (daytime or nighttime) or job status (full time, part time or temporary)? In hopes of identifying factors that increase the risk,the research team conducted four separate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. What follows is a summary of the sometimes surprising results:
Job tenure. Researchers divided the respondents into three groups based on tenure in the current job—less than two years, two to five years, and more than five years. Though you might ex pect the trend line to move steadily in one direction (say, up), the results actually showed that job stress decreased significantly after two years of employment—from 4.44 for those who had been on the job less than two years to 2.78 for those with two to five years' tenure. However, as DC employees pass their five-year anniversary with the same employer, job stress levels climb again.
By contrast, burnout steadily decreased overtime. Workers with less than two years' tenure reported significantly higher levels of burnout symptoms (4.64) than those with two to five years on the job (3.66) or those with more than five years (2.21).
Why does the pattern change so abruptly at the five-year mark, with burnout levels continuing to drop while stress re-escalates? Stress may rise at that point because of added responsibility or deteriorating relationships with co-workers. As for declining burnout levels, it may be that employees develop coping mechanisms over time—they learn to handle stress or they simply decide to live with it. It's also possible that as time passes, these employees begin to feel "institutionalized"—that is, they begin to feel that they're an integral part of the organization (or the work group) and spend less time worrying about being fired, reprimanded or demoted. But it's more likely that the burnout drops over time simply because many quit. The problem (stress) is still there, but burnout is lower because some of the employees have gone.
Work experience. Does overall distribution center work experience (all experience—not just time on the current job) influence job stress and/or burnout? To find out, researchers divided respondents into three groups based on their total years of distribution center experience: workers with less than five years' experience, with five to 10 years of experience, and with over 10 years' experience, and compared their total stress and burnout scores.
What they found was that up to the 10-year mark, job stress and burnout levels remained relatively static. However, after the 10th year of experience, burnout levels declined significantly (to 3.05 from 3.78), while job stress levels rose significantly (to 4.02 from 3.33). The increase in stress later in the career may be caused by physical strain related to aging, increased stress related to increased responsibility or the inability to cope with changes in the work environment. The decline in burnout later in the career may indicate increased ability to manage job stress or simply that some burned-out employees leave.
Work shift. Are some job shifts more stressful than others? It looks that way. Though workers assigned to the early shift (basically the traditional 8-to-5 workday) and the overnight shift (any shift that begins after 5 p.m. and lasts until after midnight) reported moderate levels of both job stress and burnout, employees working the mid-shift (any shift that begins in the afternoon and lasts late into the evening) reported significantly higher levels of job stress and burnout.
There are a number of possible reasons. Traditional shift workers can usually count on their work day following a ro utine—when they arrive in the morning, they know what tasks they can expect —picking, packing, loading or unloading. Stress arising from unexpected events tends to be minimal. Early-shift workers can also expect to work under the guidance of a full supervisory staff and with a full complement of co-workers for help. Overnight shift workers also reported relatively low stress levels—albeit for very different reasons. DCs often hire these workers to create work teams that come in very late or very early to perform a specialized task. The uniqueness of the task, smaller workforce and unusual hours can create camaraderie among workers that helps to reduce stress.
Mid-shift workers, by contrast, often come in while the early-shift workers are still around but stay long after they've left. Fewer managerial personnel are available for guidance. This crew often experiences volatility in workrelated demand—they may be assigned to complete whatever tasks were not finished by the early shift in addition to their regular responsibilities. There generally are fewer midshift workers than early-shift workers. As a result, they're much more likely to be randomly assigned to unfamiliar tasks or given responsibilities that they consider someone else's jo b. These factors, in addition to the added st ress o f working hours that are generally reserved for life outside the workplace,may explain the peaks in both job stress and burnout relative to early and overnight shifts.
Employment status. Is it more stressful to be a full-time worker than a part-time employee? Or a temporary/summer worker than either of the others? Though we found only minor differences in job stress and burnout between the full-time and part-time distribution center workers, temporary/summer workers reported much higher stress levels than the other two groups. Temps are often given a variety of unrelated short-term assign m ents to cover immediate demand or replace workers who are on leave. The wide variety of tasks performed and/or the uncertainty of expectations related to daily tasks may create stress.
Though stressed, temporary/summer workers are much less likely to experience burnout than regular full- or parttime employees. That's not surprising. They're aware that their positions, and therefore their stresses, aren't permanent. They may be miserable, but they know there's an end in sight.
Redress for stress
Understanding the reasons behind workplace stress is one thing; doing something about it is another. Generally the solutions involve some combination of psychological rewards, training, raising self esteem and more sensitive management.
What can managers do? Our study didn't address this question, but based upon the current research and our professional work experience, we believe workplace stress can be greatly reduced if managers provide the following:
More training. Improved skills can lead to a greater sense of accomplishment. Plus, the right type of training will better prepare workers to handle unexpected events.
More control over the work environment. Delegating responsibility to workers cuts down on their stress. Empower workers to develop best practices and/or change their job designs.
Clear and precise definitions of job responsibilities. Identify the scope of the job and the expectations. Specify exactly what performance measures will be used.
Relief from boredom. You can ease the tedium by instituting cross-training, varying their tasks and responsibilities or instituting periodic job rotations.
Recognition of individual accomplishments. Don't stint on feedback and praise. And let your stars shine: Post weekly performance measures in the break room, including employee names, goals and achieved performance.
A sense of place. Workers want to know how their efforts contribute to the larger goals. Emphasize that work is a team effort. Encourage team meetings and mentoring.
R&R. Organize recreational activities outside of work—a softball team or a bowling league. Not everybody's an athlete, of course. But then again, laughter can be a great stress reliever.
study group
The survey data, of course, don't reveal how the largely male respondents felt about filling out a multipart questionnaire that focused on their feelings. Nonetheless, a total of 667 employees participated in the study, which was conducted in seven distribution centers in Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas. In exchange for their participation, employees, who completed their questionnaires during their coffee breaks or lunch periods, had a chance to enter a cash lottery drawing.
The respondent pool's demographic profile is fairly typical for the warehousing industry. About three-quarters of the respondents (74 percent) were male. Ages ranged from 18 to 65, with most (78 percent) participants falling between 25 and 44. The respondents were a racially diverse group—43 percent white, 19 percent black, 13 percent Hispanic, 11 percent Asian—and fairly well educated: Four out of five participants had at least a high school diploma, and nearly one-third (29 percent) had attended at least some college.
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."