Fast and unprecedented change is rocking ocean shipping as it deals with a reconfiguration of the industry, looming trade wars, and technological innovation.
Last year in the state of logistics special issue of CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly, we discussed the unprecedented amount of change that was disrupting the container shipping industry—carrier bankruptcies, mergers, and a large-scale reconfiguration were among the top trends that were reshaping the business. This year, we are seeing that rate of change accelerate as three key macro-currents exert their pull at a dizzying pace: the continued restructuring of the industry, the escalation of tariffs, and the relentless march of technological innovation.
In the past year, ocean transportation has seen many significant changes in how the industry is structured. One of the biggest changes involved the industry going from having four major carrier alliances, which allow multiple carriers to share assets and services, down to three. This restructuring brought some level of competitive parity to carriers large and small by enabling the smallest carriers to build scale through the pooling of assets and service offerings.1
Mergers also accelerated over the past year and are continuing into the present day. The container shipping companies COSCO and OOCL, for example, are set to merge this summer, and Ocean Network Express (which was created as a merger of Japan's "Big Three" shipping lines—Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, and K Lines) started operating as a single company in Q2 of 2018.
According to the analyst firm Alphaliner, once the COSCO-OOCL deal is complete, the top ten ocean carriers will control 31 percent more shipping capacity than the top ten carriers managed at the beginning of 2017.2 These same ten carriers will also control about 83 percent of the market, up about 10 percent during the same time period.3
As the ocean industry restructured, pricing volatility continued, driven by traditional seasonality. However, the price range was less extreme last year than it had been in the recent past. During the 2016 calendar year, rates ranged from US$650 per 40-foot equivalent unit (FEU) container up to US$1,850 per FEU, according to the Drewry World Container Index. Between July 2017 and July 2018, the range was limited to US$1,125 per FEU to US$1,600 per FEU (see Figure 1). While there is still a large swing on a percentage basis, the slightly more constrained range has led to more stable contract rates and service levels.
The industry is also seeing restructuring in terms of the mix of U.S. ports that are being used. Looking at volumes in May 2018, container ports on all three U.S. coasts saw import and export volumes grow relative to May of 2017. The expansion of the Panama Canal in the middle of 2016, however, has boosted volumes into the Gulf and U.S. East Coast ports, as the larger vessels allowed through the canal brought efficiency and capacity into those markets. Houston, Texas, saw the fastest growth of any major container port, posting a 12-percent increase on the year. Meanwhile East Coast ports had import growth rates of 4 to 9 percent. Individual ports on the West Coast, however, saw mixed performance—Los Angeles, California, and Seattle, Washington, were down, while Long Beach, California, saw volume increases.
Market share is also being shifted from the West Coast to the East Coast. From May 2017 to May 2018, the West Coast lost 1 percent of the share of the market—moving from handling 58 percent of all U.S. twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) imports in May 2017 to 57 percent in May 2018. While the container volumes in the Gulf and East Coast markets are growing faster, the historical bias of flows through the West Coast gives those ports a significant leg up when it comes to market share.
This year's wild card: trade wars
While the forces within the industry seem to be settling around the new order, ocean shipping is poised to be rocked by macroeconomic forces in the near future. Trade wars seem to be the most likely outcome of the recent trend to elect nationalistic and populist politicians across the globe. The United States, for example, has imposed protective tariffs on imported steel and aluminum as well as imported solar panels and washing machines. In retaliation, most U.S. trade partners have acted against automobiles and airplanes/parts, soybeans and pork, and sales of scrap and waste.
These actions will have a significant impact on shipping, but the impact will unfold differently for different ocean modes and routes.
For example, the tariffs on steel and aluminum will mostly impact demand and rates for containerized and bulk shipping, as these are the primary ways that these commodities are shipped. However, the impact will be different for different lanes. The majority of the United States' steel imports come from Canada, Mexico, and Europe, which means that bulk and container shipping rates on these lanes may drop as demand falls.4 The tariffs, however, exempt Brazil, South Korea, Argentina, and Australia. Of these only Brazil and South Korea are major exporters today, so bulk and container shippers with volumes coming from those two countries might expect to see steadier pricing.
In some cases, the effects of one tariff will offset another. For example, the increases in containerized shipments of steel products from South Korea are likely to be offset by the tariffs for solar panels and washing machines, which are also primarily shipped in containers. The trade data provider firm Datamyne reports that the largest producer countries for solar panels are Malaysia, South Korea, and China; for washing machines, it's Vietnam and Thailand.5 It's very likely that we'll see a decrease in demand and potentially rates on the affected lanes.
In response to these U.S. tariffs, other countries are targeting some U.S. exports. China, for example, recently banned the import of waste, such as paper, plastic, and metals, for recycling. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, paper and paperboard are the number-one containerized export commodity from the U.S.6 Demand for containerized shipping from the United States to China will also be affected by China's retaliatory tariffs on pork products. Actions by China on these cargoes will significantly disrupt the repositioning of empty containers for ocean container lines as well as cold chain container networks between Asia and the United States.
Meanwhile bulk shipping out the U.S. will also be affected by tariffs that have been placed on U.S. soybean exports, which are generally shipped in bulk. Soybean shipments make up around 2 to 3 percent of the world's dry bulk shipments, 25 percent of which originate in the United States.
Ocean shipping of automobiles will likely also be affected by trade actions. While there have been threats of actions in many different directions, so far, China has retaliated against U.S. automobiles, and the United States and Europe have threatened tariffs on one another. Automobiles are traditionally shipped by "roll-on/roll-off" or "pure car carrier" (PCC) vessels. The bulk of trans-Pacific automobile flows are on the eastbound side of the trade. Decreasing U.S.-to-China automobile flows will likely increase the cost of imported cars in the U.S., as the head haul flow makes up for the lost backhaul revenue. If the trans-Atlantic discussions result in reductions in exports on both sides, PCC operators are going to suffer as a result. Â
Technological disruption
Another macroeconomic force, technological innovation, will also continue to play a disruptive role for the foreseeable future. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in California, for example, have invested in several technologies to drive more efficient operations. The Port of Long Beach has teamed up with GE Transportation to implement its Port Optimizer solution, which integrates manifest data across multiple parties to enable advance planning of labor and equipment needs. Another example is the revisions being made to PierPass' OffPeak program. PierPass is a not-for-profit entity that was launched in 2005 to reduce port congestion and improve air quality and security. Originally the OffPeak program charged a "traffic mitigation fee" on weekday daytime cargo moves to incentivize cargo owners to use off-peak shifts. Based on feedback from port users earlier this year, the program is moving away from the incentive pricing model and instead now requires that trucks set up appointments through the terminal operators' online appointment systems.
One area where the application of emerging technology has potentially hit a roadblock is on the blockchain front. IBM and Maersk have been partners for several years in the development of a blockchain for international shipment. Conceptually, having a single repository of international transport data—covering transportation as well as all the paperwork involved in global trade—could unlock significant benefits including standardization, efficiency, and transparency. However, earlier in the year, CMA-CGM and Hapag-Lloyd rejected the Maersk blockchain solution, saying that a joint industry standard was needed instead. Despite near universal acknowledgement of the positive use case for blockchain in shipping, implementation is likely many years away at this point.
While change in the ocean industry has always been the norm, the amount of transformation over the past few years has been unprecedented and seems to be accelerating. This means that shippers managing their ocean networks will have to stay on top of not only their own network and their carrier partners but also changes in the overall macro environment as the paradigms of international trade are rewritten.
ReposiTrak, a global food traceability network operator, will partner with Upshop, a provider of store operations technology for food retailers, to create an end-to-end grocery traceability solution that reaches from the supply chain to the retail store, the firms said today.
The partnership creates a data connection between suppliers and the retail store. It works by integrating Salt Lake City-based ReposiTrak’s network of thousands of suppliers and their traceability shipment data with Austin, Texas-based Upshop’s network of more than 450 retailers and their retail stores.
That accomplishment is important because it will allow food sector trading partners to meet the U.S. FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204d (FSMA 204) requirements that they must create and store complete traceability records for certain foods.
And according to ReposiTrak and Upshop, the traceability solution may also unlock potential business benefits. It could do that by creating margin and growth opportunities in stores by connecting supply chain data with store data, thus allowing users to optimize inventory, labor, and customer experience management automation.
"Traceability requires data from the supply chain and – importantly – confirmation at the retail store that the proper and accurate lot code data from each shipment has been captured when the product is received. The missing piece for us has been the supply chain data. ReposiTrak is the leader in capturing and managing supply chain data, starting at the suppliers. Together, we can deliver a single, comprehensive traceability solution," Mark Hawthorne, chief innovation and strategy officer at Upshop, said in a release.
"Once the data is flowing the benefits are compounding. Traceability data can be used to improve food safety, reduce invoice discrepancies, and identify ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout the store,” Hawthorne said.
Under FSMA 204, retailers are required by law to track Key Data Elements (KDEs) to the store-level for every shipment containing high-risk food items from the Food Traceability List (FTL). ReposiTrak and Upshop say that major industry retailers have made public commitments to traceability, announcing programs that require more traceability data for all food product on a faster timeline. The efforts of those retailers have activated the industry, motivating others to institute traceability programs now, ahead of the FDA’s enforcement deadline of January 20, 2026.
Inclusive procurement practices can fuel economic growth and create jobs worldwide through increased partnerships with small and diverse suppliers, according to a study from the Illinois firm Supplier.io.
The firm’s “2024 Supplier Diversity Economic Impact Report” found that $168 billion spent directly with those suppliers generated a total economic impact of $303 billion. That analysis can help supplier diversity managers and chief procurement officers implement programs that grow diversity spend, improve supply chain competitiveness, and increase brand value, the firm said.
The companies featured in Supplier.io’s report collectively supported more than 710,000 direct jobs and contributed $60 billion in direct wages through their investments in small and diverse suppliers. According to the analysis, those purchases created a ripple effect, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and driving $105 billion in total income when factoring in direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.
“At Supplier.io, we believe that empowering businesses with advanced supplier intelligence not only enhances their operational resilience but also significantly mitigates risks,” Aylin Basom, CEO of Supplier.io, said in a release. “Our platform provides critical insights that drive efficiency and innovation, enabling companies to find and invest in small and diverse suppliers. This approach helps build stronger, more reliable supply chains.”
Logistics industry growth slowed in December due to a seasonal wind-down of inventory and following one of the busiest holiday shopping seasons on record, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The monthly LMI was 57.3 in December, down more than a percentage point from November’s reading of 58.4. Despite the slowdown, economic activity across the industry continued to expand, as an LMI reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The LMI researchers said the monthly conditions were largely due to seasonal drawdowns in inventory levels—and the associated costs of holding them—at the retail level. The LMI’s Inventory Levels index registered 50, falling from 56.1 in November. That reduction also affected warehousing capacity, which slowed but remained in expansion mode: The LMI’s warehousing capacity index fell 7 points to a reading of 61.6.
December’s results reflect a continued trend toward more typical industry growth patterns following recent years of volatility—and they point to a successful peak holiday season as well.
“Retailers were clearly correct in their bet to stock [up] on goods ahead of the holiday season,” the LMI researchers wrote in their monthly report. “Holiday sales from November until Christmas Eve were up 3.8% year-over-year according to Mastercard. This was largely driven by a 6.7% increase in e-commerce sales, although in-person spending was up 2.9% as well.”
And those results came during a compressed peak shopping cycle.
“The increase in spending came despite the shorter holiday season due to the late Thanksgiving,” the researchers also wrote, citing National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that U.S. shoppers spent just short of a trillion dollars in November and December, making it the busiest holiday season of all time.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.
That percentage is even greater than the 13.21% of total retail sales that were returned. Measured in dollars, returns (including both legitimate and fraudulent) last year reached $685 billion out of the $5.19 trillion in total retail sales.
“It’s clear why retailers want to limit bad actors that exhibit fraudulent and abusive returns behavior, but the reality is that they are finding stricter returns policies are not reducing the returns fraud they face,” Michael Osborne, CEO of Appriss Retail, said in a release.
Specifically, the report lists the leading types of returns fraud and abuse reported by retailers in 2024, including findings that:
60% of retailers surveyed reported incidents of “wardrobing,” or the act of consumers buying an item, using the merchandise, and then returning it.
55% cited cases of returning an item obtained through fraudulent or stolen tender, such as stolen credit cards, counterfeit bills, gift cards obtained through fraudulent means or fraudulent checks.
48% of retailers faced occurrences of returning stolen merchandise.
Together, those statistics show that the problem remains prevalent despite growing efforts by retailers to curb retail returns fraud through stricter returns policies, while still offering a sufficiently open returns policy to keep customers loyal, they said.
“Returns are a significant cost for retailers, and the rise of online shopping could increase this trend,” Kevin Mahoney, managing director, retail, Deloitte Consulting LLP, said. “As retailers implement policies to address this issue, they should avoid negatively affecting customer loyalty and retention. Effective policies should reduce losses for the retailer while minimally impacting the customer experience. This approach can be crucial for long-term success.”