Where damage to freight has occurred, and the compatibility of the freight comes into question, it often happens that a further question arises. Should the freight have been uplifted by the freight vehicle driver in the first place, if the freight had not been adequately prepared for road freight?
“Your driver should not have accepted the freight”
In South Africa’s complex logistics industry, what actually must be considered is, who holds the authority to determine whether freight has been adequately prepared to be consigned.
This is not just a procedural matter—it is entwined with historical biases, systemic inequalities, and the legacy of apartheid-era labour structures. While drivers of freight vehicles are crucial to the supply chain, consignees cannot rely on them to make critical decisions regarding the consignment of goods.
The primary responsibility of freight drivers is the safe and timely delivery of cargo, not the assessment of freight suitability for consignment. This responsibility typically falls to warehouse managers, dispatchers, or consignees who have direct oversight of inventory, regulatory compliance, and contractual obligations. Expecting drivers to make such determinations places an undue burden on them and disrupts the structured roles within the logistics industry.
Under apartheid, South Africa’s labour force was strictly segregated, with decision-making roles predominantly reserved for white individuals, while Black and Coloured workers were largely relegated to menial or physically demanding jobs. This systemic exclusion from authoritative positions created a precedent where people of colour were rarely entrusted with critical decision-making responsibilities in commercial enterprises.
Even post-apartheid, remnants of this bias persist in subtle ways. Many freight drivers, are still seen as labourers rather than professionals capable of strategic decision-making. This perception affects not only their career progression but also the willingness of businesses to entrust them with responsibilities beyond driving. By expecting drivers to make consignment decisions, companies may inadvertently reinforce the same prejudices that historically denied them access to managerial roles in that they are paid a lower wage but expected to make managerial decisions.
Key decisions—such as whether the freight meets safety and regulatory standards, whether it is properly documented, or whether it complies with packaging requirements—should be handled by trained logistics personnel. Placing this responsibility on drivers risks regulatory non-compliance, legal liabilities, and operational inefficiencies.
Furthermore, freight consignment decisions often require specialised knowledge of the goods being transported, including weight distribution, handling requirements, and insurance implications. Drivers, focused on transportation rather than inventory assessment, will not have access to all the necessary information to make informed decisions. The responsibility of confirming the adequacy of the preparation of consignments for road transportation should remain with the designated consignee, warehouse personnel, or supply chain managers who have the appropriate oversight.
Conclusion
Consignees in South Africa must acknowledge both the operational and historical reasons why freight drivers cannot and should not be relied upon to determine whether cargo can be consigned. The logistics industry must continue evolving to ensure that decision-making roles are assigned based on expertise rather than outdated racial biases. As the old adage states “Responsibility rests with those who have the power to decide”
You cannot ask a driver to make such responsible decisions when he is not empowered to do so. Which leaves only two options, either give them managerial discretion and an increased salary to make decisions, or don’t allow them to make decisions on whether or not freight should be accepted.