Connect with us

Non classé

Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach

Published

on

Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach

December 4, 2025

Blog

Forwarders and BCOs rely heavily on tendered contracts in order to plan pricing for global ocean freight movements. But what if large swaths of the tendered contracts are simply completely irrelevant? Banking on joint research with the MIT Center for Transportation, this article challenges the basic assumption of tenders, makes a case for more strategic use of the spot market, and forces a hard, data-backed look at actual performance.

There have been plenty of examples of volatility and disruption in freight markets over the last few years, from the pandemic and port strikes to the Red Sea crisis and trade wars.

These events have triggered demand swings, impacted operations and lead times, and often sent freight rates climbing or plunging – all of which affect shipper and forwarder decisions on how to allocate freight volumes between contracts and the spot market.

Across modes, having a freight contract in place does not always mean shipments will get moved. Dr. Angi Acocella, a Freight Lab researcher at MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics, conducted research on procurement decisions and performance in the FTL market, and, via a joint survey with Freightos, on container shipping procurement as well. These studies explored how shippers make tendering decisions and provide insights on how to improve strategic procurement decisions across modes to reduce risk and costs and improve reliability.

See Dr. Acocella’s presentation of the survey results here.

The studies show that:

Both road and ocean shippers rely heavily on contracts – with most shipping at least 70% of volumes by tender – and mostly treat spot as a backup option. They also show that a significant share of contracts – on average 70% of FTL contracts – go unused.

Unused lanes come with unnecessary costs, including a 7% year-on-year increase in contract rates, while the strategic use of spot for these types of lanes can mean significant savings in both time spent on wasted negotiations and in shipping rates.

Index-linked contracts have also been shown to increase revenue for carriers and provide better reliability and lower costs for shippers.

And digital tools that provide visibility of contract performance, market intelligence, and a dynamic channel to communicate and share information with LSPs are also key to optimizing the freight procurement process.

What follows are the key findings from these recent surveys and the best practices for freight procurement and tendering that emerge from the research.

Are All Ocean Tenders Actually Used? The Findings

The surveys showed that in the FTL market, most shippers moved 90% of their volumes by contract with the remaining 10% going by spot. Ocean shippers also relied heavily on long term contracts, with more than half moving 70% of volumes or more via contracts.

In both FTL and container, the spot market is mostly used as a backup to contracts. The move to spot is most often due to the uncertainty, unreliability or unavailability of the contracted capacity, or to unexpected swings in their own demand. Often these pushes to spot are triggered when spot prices become significantly out of sync with contract rates.

At the same time, 40% of shippers do report using the spot market as a first option on some lanes, usually for trades with infrequent, less predictable and lower volumes than contracted lanes. But this finding also means that 60% of ocean shippers rely on contracts even for low volume lanes.

Freight Lab research found a Pareto principle at work for FTL shippers: in general, about 20% of shipper lanes account for about 80% of their volumes, with a long tail 80% of lanes accounting for just 20% of – mostly low or inconsistent – volumes.

For many of those long tail lanes, however, volumes don’t materialize at all. Acocella refers to lanes with unused contracts as “ghost lanes,” and research shows that shippers underestimate how many contracts go unused.

A majority of both FTL and container shippers estimate a ghost rate of 25% or less. But FTL data suggests that on average, closer to 70% of contracted lanes go unused.

Ghost lanes come with added costs beyond the resources wasted negotiating unused contracts. MIT research shows that high rates of FTL ghost lanes one year resulted both in lower acceptance rates that year and in 7% higher contract costs – often at levels higher than spot rates – the following year as carriers factor in a premium to compensate for unreliability.

The Actionable Insights

These findings – the volatility in these markets, the heavy reliance on contracts which can often become unreliable, the use of spot mostly as a second-choice backup, and the share of contracts that go unused – begged the key research questions:

What is the optimal balance between freight contracts and spot shipments? What approach is most likely to maximize reliability and efficiency and minimize costs?

The resulting Freight Lab research produced the following key components to constructing an optimized contract/spot procurement portfolio*

*These results are based primarily on research for the FTL market, with applicability to ocean likely based on the above survey and with more research on this area underway now.

Learn from past performance: A look at contract portfolio and spot usage and performance – its mix, utilization and reliability by lane – from the previous year is critical to decision-making for the coming year. Shippers and forwarders should determine where contracts performed well, where they were underused (or not used at all), and price levels paid relative to the market.

Based on this picture, companies can determine where and with which LSPs to renew contracts on highly or regularly utilized lanes. For lanes where little or no volumes materialized shippers and forwarders should consider a strategic direct-to-spot approach, given the high costs of ghost lanes.

Respect the market cycle: Shippers and forwarders should also consider where the market is in its cycle, and how contracts performed in previous instances of this phase. In tight markets it generally does not benefit shippers to negotiate hard for discounted contract rates as – often regardless of a shipper’s history with a given carrier – contract price competitiveness becomes the carriers’ priority. In soft markets, shippers have more leverage and should contract with their most reliable carriers. But here too, low-ball rates can often mean poorer performance, especially if market rates increase.

Index link some contracts – Contracts linked to an index allow rates to fluctuate in some relationship to the spot market. Significant spot changes are a main driver of poor contract performance: when spot rates climb too high above a contract’s rate, carriers roll volumes or apply premiums. When spot rates fall too low, shippers no-show and shift to the spot market or renegotiate contract levels.

Allowing a contract to float along with an index removes this incentive to deviate from the contract. And though index linking exposes carriers and shippers to fluctuations in revenue or costs, this risk can (either be accepted as the cost of reliable service/volumes, or) be hedged through derivatives called Forward Freight Agreements, effectively locking in contracted service at a set cost or revenue level even while paid rate levels may change.

Learn more about index-linked contracts here.

Acocella advises shippers to pilot index linking with a carrier they trust and with whom they have an existing relationship, and on mid-volume lanes – especially where volumes may not be consistent throughout the year – to start. Once the concept is proven, this tool can be expanded to other lanes. Research in the FTL market showed that index-linked contracts, especially on these types of lanes, often resulted in carriers realizing higher revenue and shippers getting better reliability, and often lower costs than when using typical contracts or just spot.

Track performance – Shippers and forwarders should not only evaluate past performance during tendering season, but should monitor performance and utilization during the contract period too. Generating visibility of your contract (and spot) portfolio, and tracking where volumes are materializing and which contracts are being underused, will let shippers understand how carriers are performing and how they, the shippers, are performing as a partner. Understanding where you stand can help you adjust in real time rather than carry unnecessary costs or incur higher costs or poorer reliability down the road.

Leverage tech – New tech tools help evaluate past performance or track the current status of freight tenders, costs, volume (or lack thereof) by lane, and spot usage, all of which is crucial to optimizing freight portfolios.

These tools also represent the opportunity for a significant leap in freight procurement efficiency: Beyond digital tools that help shippers compare their contract portfolio to market prices and provide market intelligence to support decision making, logistics tech is also enabling more efficient tendering by creating a dynamic, digital channel to communicate, negotiate, share data, and even make spot or contracted bookings with LSPs.

Tech that simplifies or automates parts of the freight procurement process, or otherwise reduces the time spent on negotiations and procurement, is increasingly key to overall streamlined procurement.

The Bottom Line: Don’t Tender Everything

Recent research shows a heavy reliance on long-term contracts for both road and ocean freight shippers, with the spot market mostly reserved as a backup. But shippers also carry significant wasted costs through unused or underutilized contracts, with analysis showing better efficiency via the strategic use of spot for these lanes.

These studies suggest certain key procurement best practices for shippers, including investing in visibility of their contract/spot portfolio and performance; the strategic use of spot on low volume lanes; consideration of the current phase in the market cycle; implementation of index-linked contracts, and leveraging digital tools to provide that necessary visibility as well as automate or digitize time-consuming tasks like requesting tender offers, spot rates and even placing bookings.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Ocean Freight Procurement in 2026: A Research-Based Approach appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Supply Chain KPIs Are No Longer Keeping Up with the Job

Published

on

By

Supply chain leaders are being asked to deliver far more than cost savings. They are expected to improve resilience, accelerate decisions, manage supplier risk, strengthen continuity, and support broader business strategy. Yet in many organizations, the performance metrics used to evaluate supply chain teams still reflect an older operating model built primarily around savings and transactional efficiency.

That gap matters. If the work has expanded but the scorecard has not, teams may be incentivized to optimize for short-term cost reductions while underweighting resilience, responsiveness, and risk readiness. Supplier diversification, recovery planning, sourcing cycle time, decision latency, and exposure visibility are increasingly central to supply chain performance, but they are not always captured in traditional KPI frameworks.

The Institute for Supply Management recently published a useful article on this issue, arguing that supply chain value now needs to be measured across a broader set of dimensions, including resilience, speed, risk reduction, and organizational readiness. The piece makes the case that savings remain important, but they are no longer sufficient as the primary indicator of supply chain contribution.

For supply chain executives, the larger takeaway is clear: measurement systems need to catch up with the strategic role supply chain now plays. Organizations that modernize their KPI frameworks will be better positioned to demonstrate value not only through cost control, but through continuity, agility, and better enterprise decision-making.

Read the full article from the Institute for Supply Management here: Supply Chain work has evolved faster than the KPI’s used to measure it.

The post Supply Chain KPIs Are No Longer Keeping Up with the Job appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Why Regulated Supply Chains Are Prioritizing Traceability Over Pure Efficiency

Published

on

By

For decades, supply chain strategy was dominated by efficiency. Companies reduced inventory, consolidated suppliers, optimized transportation networks, minimized operational slack, and extended global sourcing structures in pursuit of lower costs and better asset utilization.

Those priorities still matter. But in regulated industries, they are no longer enough.

Healthcare, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, food, and medical-device supply chains now operate under a broader definition of performance. Product accountability, traceability, compliance continuity, and operational control are becoming as important as traditional efficiency metrics. In these sectors, the supply chain is not simply a cost structure. It is part of the organization’s control system.

That is why traceability is moving from an administrative requirement to a strategic operating capability. It allows companies to understand where materials originated, how products moved, which lots were affected, where inventory was distributed, and which customers or facilities received product. In stable conditions, that information may appear routine. Under disruption, it becomes essential.

Efficiency Alone Can Create Fragility

Highly optimized supply chains can perform very well when conditions are stable. The problem emerges when something goes wrong.

A supplier issue, quality deviation, transportation disruption, documentation failure, or traceability gap can quickly create consequences that extend far beyond delayed delivery. In regulated environments, these failures may trigger investigations, product holds, recalls, compliance exposure, customer disruption, and reputational damage.

That changes the operating calculus. A supply chain optimized purely for cost may not provide enough visibility or control when conditions deteriorate. The result is a shift toward a more balanced view of operational performance.

The objective is no longer simply maximum efficiency. It is controlled resilience.

Traceability Is More Than Compliance

Traceability is often treated narrowly as a compliance requirement. Its strategic value is broader.

Strong traceability improves root-cause analysis. It strengthens recall precision. It supports supplier accountability. It reduces ambiguity during disruptions. It helps organizations isolate operational risk more quickly and respond with greater confidence.

In practice, traceability becomes part of the enterprise’s ability to operate under uncertainty. A supply chain that clearly understands its dependencies can respond more intelligently than one relying on fragmented records, manual investigation, and disconnected documentation.

This is especially important in industries where the cost of ambiguity is high. In food, a traceability gap can widen the scope of a recall. In pharmaceuticals, incomplete lot visibility can delay containment. In aerospace or medical devices, documentation failures can affect audit readiness, quality assurance, and customer trust.

The strategic point is straightforward: traceability is not just about knowing what happened. It is about being able to act when it matters.

Complexity Is Raising the Bar

Several forces are increasing traceability requirements across regulated industries. Global sourcing networks are longer and more complex. Product portfolios are becoming more specialized. Regulatory scrutiny continues to increase. ESG expectations are adding new accountability pressures. Serialization, product authentication, and chain-of-custody requirements are expanding.

At the same time, supply chains are becoming more digital. Sensor data, IoT monitoring, electronic batch records, serialization systems, digital quality environments, supplier platforms, and logistics visibility tools now generate far more operational information than before.

The challenge is no longer simply collecting data. The challenge is coordinating and interpreting it across the enterprise.

That requires stronger data governance, better integration, and more contextual intelligence. Traceability systems create limited value if the data remains trapped in separate systems or disconnected from operational decision-making.

Traceability Depends on Coordination

A quality alert matters only if the organization can quickly identify affected inventory. A supplier issue matters only if downstream dependencies are visible. A transportation disruption matters only if customer, inventory, and compliance implications can be understood quickly.

This is where the broader shift toward continuous intelligence becomes important. As discussed in The Next Supply Chain Operating Model Will Be Built Around Continuous Intelligence, supply chains increasingly require systems capable of sensing, interpreting, and coordinating operational response continuously.

Traceability becomes significantly more valuable when it supports faster and more coordinated decisions. It is not enough to document product movement after the fact. Companies need traceability data to inform decisions in near real time.

This also explains why graph-oriented architectures and contextual AI systems are attracting attention. Regulated supply chain risk rarely exists in isolation. It moves through relationships among suppliers, products, lots, facilities, customers, logistics flows, and regulatory obligations.

Understanding those relationships operationally is becoming increasingly important.

The Efficiency Tradeoff Is Becoming More Nuanced

Prioritizing traceability does not mean abandoning efficiency. It means recognizing that efficiency must be balanced against resilience, accountability, and operational control.

The most efficient network on paper may not be the most resilient network under stress. A lower-cost supplier strategy may create greater exposure if visibility is weak. A highly optimized transportation network may become vulnerable if traceability and exception response are insufficient.

This does not eliminate the importance of lean operations. It changes the definition of operational maturity.

The organizations that perform best increasingly understand where visibility, traceability, and control create disproportionate strategic value. They are not simply asking how to reduce cost. They are asking where lack of control could create unacceptable operational, regulatory, or reputational exposure.

The Strategic Implication

Regulated supply chains are moving toward a broader definition of operational excellence.

Cost and efficiency still matter. But so do traceability, governed response, compliance continuity, visibility, accountability, and operational resilience.

The organizations that lead over the next decade may not simply be those with the lowest cost structures. They may be the ones capable of maintaining control, preserving trust, and coordinating response effectively under increasingly complex operating conditions.

In regulated industries, traceability is no longer merely administrative infrastructure. It is becoming part of the competitive operating model itself.

The post Why Regulated Supply Chains Are Prioritizing Traceability Over Pure Efficiency appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Medtronic: Strengthening Regulated Medical Device Supply Chains

Published

on

By

Medical device supply chains operate under a different standard than many commercial supply chains.

Efficiency still matters. So do inventory discipline, transportation performance, and cost control. But regulated healthcare environments must also preserve traceability, quality assurance, compliance continuity, documentation integrity, product accountability, and controlled response processes.

That changes the operating model.

Medtronic offers a useful example. As one of the world’s largest medical technology companies, it operates across a complex global network of manufacturing sites, suppliers, logistics providers, hospitals, clinicians, distributors, regulators, and field-service organizations.

The objective is not simply to move products efficiently. It is to maintain product availability, quality, traceability, and regulatory compliance at the same time.

Regulation Changes the Supply Chain Equation

In many industries, supply chain performance is measured primarily through cost, service, and working-capital efficiency.

In regulated healthcare, the equation is broader. A shipment delay matters, but so does a documentation error, labeling issue, quality deviation, traceability gap, supplier compliance problem, or uncontrolled product movement.

The consequences can extend well beyond logistics disruption. They may affect regulatory exposure, product release, recall management, or clinical continuity.

That changes how resilience is defined. In regulated supply chains, resilience is not simply the ability to move inventory around disruption. It is the ability to preserve continuity while maintaining quality, traceability, and compliance discipline throughout the process.

That is a more demanding operating requirement.

Visibility Must Extend Beyond Transportation

For medical device companies, visibility cannot stop at shipment tracking.

The enterprise also needs visibility into supplier quality, serialized inventory, manufacturing conditions, product genealogy, service inventory, documentation status, field inventory positioning, and regulatory workflows.

The supply chain is not merely transporting products. It is managing accountable product movement across a controlled operating environment.

This is why regulated industries are investing more heavily in integrated visibility and traceability systems. Companies need to know not only where products are, but whether they remain compliant, whether documentation is complete, whether quality conditions have been maintained, and whether downstream commitments remain protected.

That requires tighter coordination across supply chain, quality, manufacturing, logistics, and regulatory functions.

Exception Management Becomes More Sensitive

Exceptions carry greater operational consequence in regulated healthcare environments.

A delayed shipment may affect hospital inventory. A supplier issue may trigger quality review. A labeling problem may delay product release. A traceability gap may complicate recall management.

The organization therefore needs more than awareness. It needs governed response.

This connects directly to the broader rise of autonomous exception management in logistics operations. In regulated supply chains, earlier detection is valuable not only because it accelerates response, but because it gives the enterprise more time to coordinate a compliant response before risk escalates.

AI-assisted systems may help prioritize exceptions, assemble context, identify affected inventory, and route decisions more efficiently. But the operating environment still requires governance, escalation controls, auditability, and human oversight.

This is not uncontrolled automation. It is governed operational intelligence.

Coordination Across the Enterprise

Medical device supply chains are deeply interconnected.

Supply chain teams must coordinate continuously with manufacturing, procurement, quality, regulatory, logistics, commercial teams, field-service operations, and healthcare providers. A disruption in one part of the network can quickly propagate into others.

That is why fragmented systems create particular risk in regulated industries. Disconnected operational environments do not merely reduce efficiency. They can increase operational and compliance exposure at the same time.

For medical device companies, enterprise coordination is not a process improvement exercise. It is part of the control system that protects product integrity, customer commitments, and regulatory standing.

The Broader Lesson

Medtronic’s operating environment reflects a broader shift across regulated industries.

The future supply chain is not simply leaner or faster. It must also be more traceable, more coordinated, more governed, more resilient, and more transparent.

That requires stronger integration between supply chain execution, quality management, regulatory processes, and enterprise intelligence systems.

In regulated healthcare, the supply chain is becoming part of the trust architecture surrounding the product itself. Over the next decade, that may become one of the most important strategic operating requirements in the industry.

The post Medtronic: Strengthening Regulated Medical Device Supply Chains appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending