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

BMW’s Job Cuts Reveal the Real Battle Over Europe’s Automotive Supply Chain

Published

on

By

BMW has spent the past several years looking like the most composed member of Germany’s increasingly unsettled automotive industry.

Volkswagen has been trying to shrink a cost structure built for a larger European market. Porsche has struggled with falling demand in China. Mercedes-Benz has been cutting costs and reconsidering the breadth of its vehicle portfolio.

BMW appeared to have given itself more room to maneuver.

It continued investing in electric vehicles without committing its entire future to a single propulsion technology. Its factories retained the flexibility to build combustion, plug-in hybrid, and electric models. Its premium positioning also offered some protection from the price competition consuming the lower end of the market.

That strategy has not failed. But it has not insulated BMW from the forces now reshaping the European automotive industry.

BMW said in late July that it would eliminate several thousand positions in Germany by the end of 2027 through a voluntary severance program. The cuts are aimed at administrative and development functions, not production workers. Reuters, citing a person familiar with the plan, reported that BMW’s global workforce could eventually decline by roughly 8,000 positions. BMW has not publicly confirmed that figure.

The distinction matters.

This is not simply another automaker cutting factory employment because demand weakened. BMW is taking a harder look at how the company is managed, how decisions move through the organization, and how much overhead is required to develop and sell a vehicle.

At nearly the same time, France, Germany, and the European Commission are moving toward a more deliberate effort to keep automotive production and component value inside Europe.

The two developments belong together.

BMW is trying to become leaner and faster. Europe is preparing to make automotive sourcing more regional, more traceable, and more closely tied to public policy.

The first effort may simplify BMW. The second could make its supply chain considerably more complicated.

BMW’s Margins Leave Little Room for Delay

BMW’s second-quarter results explain why management is prepared to revisit structures that once appeared permanent.

Group profit before tax fell 35.1% from the previous year to €1.697 billion. Revenue declined 7.9% to €31.259 billion. Within the automotive segment, earnings before interest and taxes fell 60.7% to €629 million. The automotive operating margin dropped from 5.4% to 2.3%.

BMW attributed the pressure to lower volumes, intense competition in China, currency movements, higher depreciation, commodity costs, and additional U.S. tariffs. Tariffs alone reduced the automotive margin by approximately 1.25 percentage points during the second quarter and first half.

The company has already been cutting spending. Selling and administrative expenses in the automotive business fell 8.3% during the quarter. But those reductions were not enough to offset the deterioration in the market.

China remains the most immediate problem.

BMW Group deliveries in China fell 30.2% during the second quarter, from 168,959 vehicles to 117,927. Deliveries were down 20.4% for the first half. Global second-quarter deliveries declined 4.9%, despite growth in Europe and the United States.

China once provided German premium automakers with a powerful source of volume, profit, and confidence. Those earnings helped finance large engineering organizations, broad vehicle portfolios, and the enormous cost of developing the next generation of vehicles.

That economic engine is becoming less dependable.

Chinese automakers are no longer simply lower-cost competitors. They are developing new vehicles quickly, integrating software effectively, and competing most aggressively in the electric-vehicle segments where much of the industry’s investment is now concentrated.

BMW has reduced its expected 2026 automotive margin from 4%–6% to 1%–3%. It now expects deliveries to decline slightly and group profit before tax to fall significantly from the previous year.

Those numbers turn the discussion from incremental improvement to structural change.

The Next Restructuring Will Reach the Office

BMW’s decision to focus voluntary departures on administration and development says a great deal about where management believes the company has become too heavy.

Automotive complexity accumulated over decades. New regions, brands, technologies, regulations, and vehicle programs created new processes. Those processes created committees, specialists, interfaces, and layers of management.

That structure was easier to support when margins were higher and China was growing. It becomes much harder to justify when an automaker must simultaneously fund combustion engines, plug-in hybrids, battery-electric vehicles, software platforms, batteries, and autonomous-driving systems.

BMW’s new CEO, Milan Nedeljkovic, has said the company will revisit processes and structures that were previously considered untouchable. The review will extend across sales, procurement, production, and development. BMW also plans to reduce some model variants where demand no longer justifies the complexity.

That may matter more than the final number of job cuts.

A company can remove thousands of positions and still leave the underlying work untouched. The remaining employees simply inherit the same reports, approvals, meetings, and handoffs.

BMW’s real challenge is to remove work from the system.

That may mean fewer model combinations, fewer approval layers, tighter engineering priorities, and a more direct connection between product decisions and supplier execution.

Artificial intelligence will have a role in document-heavy areas such as procurement, engineering support, finance, and compliance. But the technology is not the central story.

The real test is whether BMW uses it to eliminate steps and shorten decision cycles, or merely asks a smaller workforce to operate the same complicated organization.

Germany’s Supplier Base Faces the Harder Transition

BMW’s restructuring will attract attention because of the company’s size. The more severe adjustment may occur among suppliers.

The German Association of the Automotive Industry estimates that the country lost roughly 100,000 automotive jobs between 2019 and 2025. It projects that another 125,000 could disappear by 2035 under current conditions.

Suppliers are caught between two technology systems.

They must continue supporting combustion vehicles that still generate substantial volume and cash flow. At the same time, they must invest in electric drivetrains, battery systems, power electronics, sensors, software, and thermal management.

The old business is expected to decline. The new business often lacks the scale or margins to replace it.

Automakers also continue pushing suppliers for cost reductions while those suppliers face higher European energy, labor, financing, and regulatory costs.

This is why European suppliers are pressing for a meaningful definition of “Made in Europe.”

Their concern is not simply where final assembly occurs. A vehicle can be assembled in Europe while much of its battery, electronics, materials, software, and component value comes from elsewhere.

Europe retains the assembly jobs but gradually loses the industrial capabilities that determine where engineering expertise, intellectual property, and future investment reside.

“Made in Europe” Becomes a Supply-Chain Rule

The European Commission’s proposed Industrial Accelerator Act is an attempt to reverse that drift.

Introduced in March, the proposal would increase demand for European-made, low-carbon industrial products and strengthen capacity in strategic sectors. For the automotive industry, it would connect selected public support and procurement programs to European assembly, regional content, and critical-component requirements.

The proposal has not yet completed the EU legislative process.

According to the framework described by the European automotive supplier association CLEPA, a qualifying vehicle would need to be assembled in the EU and meet a 70% regional-content threshold. A separate 50% threshold for designated critical components would take effect three years after the final regulation is published.

The political logic is straightforward. Europe does not want public money intended to support European industry flowing primarily into imported batteries, electronics, and other technologies.

The supply-chain implications are much less simple.

A 70% threshold turns the nationality of a vehicle into a data problem.

Automakers will need to know not only where final assembly occurred, but where the value inside the vehicle originated. That may require tracing battery cells, power electronics, semiconductors, magnets, software, castings, and raw-material processing across multiple supplier tiers.

Most automakers have strong visibility into tier-one suppliers. Visibility further upstream is far less consistent.

A battery pack may be assembled in Europe using cells produced elsewhere, materials processed in another country, and electronic controls from a third. A semiconductor may be designed in Europe, fabricated in Asia, and packaged in another region.

Regional-content rules will turn those relationships into eligibility decisions.

Procurement teams will have to consider whether a sourcing choice moves a vehicle above or below the threshold and whether that affects access to public incentives or government purchasing programs.

The least expensive component may no longer produce the lowest total cost.

Europe Can Buy Time, Not Competitiveness

There is a legitimate case for protecting critical European industrial capabilities.

China has used coordinated investment, financing, infrastructure, procurement, and industrial policy to build strong positions in batteries, electric vehicles, critical-material processing, and solar technology. The United States has also become more willing to connect public incentives to domestic production.

Europe is responding to a world in which its competitors are already managing industrial outcomes.

But regional-content rules cannot solve BMW’s core operating problems.

They cannot shorten vehicle-development programs, improve software, eliminate unnecessary approvals, restore Chinese demand, or guarantee that a European supplier is globally competitive.

Industrial policy may create time, demand, and investment incentives. BMW still has to use that time well.

That is the tension at the center of the story.

Europe is trying to preserve the automotive supply chain from the outside. BMW is trying to rebuild its competitiveness from the inside.

Both efforts may be necessary. Neither is sufficient on its own.

The future of Europe’s automotive industry will not be determined simply by how many vehicles are assembled in Munich, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg, or elsewhere in the EU.

The more important question is how much of the vehicle’s value is created there.

Europe could retain assembly plants while losing batteries, electronics, software, semiconductors, materials processing, and engineering. Cars would still leave European factories, but a smaller share of the economic and technological value would remain in Europe.

BMW’s cuts are therefore more than another automotive cost program. They are evidence that the next restructuring will extend through management, development, procurement, supplier networks, and the rules used to determine where a vehicle truly comes from.

Europe is preparing to defend its automotive industrial base.

BMW is preparing for the possibility that defense will only buy time.

The post BMW’s Job Cuts Reveal the Real Battle Over Europe’s Automotive Supply Chain appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Master Tendering Season: Combining Rates, Complex Data & Forecasts for Smarter Procurement

Published

on

By

Don’t React to the Market—Lead It.

Procurement season is here, and navigating seasonal shifts requires more than isolated bidding tools or standalone market data. To make confident decisions, you need your rates, market intelligence, complex data, and internal systems working as one connected engine.

In this concise, 20-minute live product tour, you’ll discover how bringing rate management, forecasting, and seamless TMS/ERP integration together gives you full control over every procurement event.

What You’ll Learn in 20 Minutes:

Run Smarter Procurement Events
Combine active rate management with forward-looking market trends to know precisely when to lock in long-term contracts, leverage spot-bidding, or trigger BAF update procedures.
Forecast with Confidence Across Modes
Translate seasonal shifts, rate predictions, and market trends across Ocean and Air into clear, actionable decision points before you enter negotiations.
Streamline Complex Data & API Integrations
Stop fighting fragmented data sets. See how easily complex freight data syncs across your existing TMS and ERP solutions via flexible, connected APIs.

Plus, Judah Levine, Head of Research at Freightos will share what the latest market signals mean for your lanes right now.

Have questions? Bring them to the session for a live Q&A.
If you´re busy that day, save your spot anyway, we’ll send you the full recording after.

Your Expert Hosts

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.

Oliver Esch

VP Commercial, Enterprise Shippers

Oliver brings 15+ years of experience helping Fortune 500 companies optimize their freight strategies. He’s guided enterprise shippers through multiple market cycles and will share battle-tested insights from the frontlines of ocean procurement.

The post Master Tendering Season: Combining Rates, Complex Data & Forecasts for Smarter Procurement appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Freightos Global Freight Outlook – August 2026

Published

on

By

You’re invited to join us for our upcoming July Freightos Global Freight Outlook market update webinar, on August 13th at 10:00am ET.

We’ll take a data-driven look at the latest in the international ocean and air freight markets, focusing on ocean implications from the latest in the Strait of Hormuz, indications for an early end to peak season on some lanes but signs of a rally for the transpacific, and the latest in tariffs and the trade war.

Speakers

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.

Connect

The post Freightos Global Freight Outlook – August 2026 appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Trending