According to calculations by the Australian Department of Transport, if Australia were to abandon its 1165×1165mm pallet standard and adopt the 1200×1000mm international standard, it would generate a net benefit of US$2.5 billion in present value. However, it would also incur an economic loss of US$1.6 billion over the next 10 years. This demonstrates the immense economic value of pallet standards, which is why a country generally does not easily change its own pallet size standards.
In 1988, to prevent confusion in the global logistics system caused by the increase in pallet sizes, the International Organization for Standardization Pallet Committee (ISO/TC51) consolidated the three sizes recommended in 1961 (ISO/R198) (1200 series: 1200×800mm, 1200×1000mm, 1000×800mm), the two sizes added in 1963 (ISO/R329) (1200 series: 1200×1600mm, 1200×1800mm), and the three sizes added in 1971 (1100 series: 1100×800mm, 1100×900mm, and 1100×1100mm) into four sizes (1200×800mm, 1200×1000mm, 1219×1016mm, and 1140×1140mm).
To promote standardization in China, Chinese experts revised the pallet size standard for the first time in 1996, adopting the four sizes recommended by the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) in 1988. However, after nearly 10 years of practice, it was found that although many pallet sizes were still in use, most were concentrated on the 1200×1000mm and 1100×1100mm sizes. Moreover, in 2003, facing difficulties in coordinating the interests of logistics standards among countries, the ISO added two more sizes (1100×1100mm and 1067×1067mm) while maintaining the original four, forcing China to reconsider the adaptability of its pallet standards.
