Last year ocean shipping rates spiked as demand increased in response to anticipated tariffs. This year the industry prepares to deal with new fuel regulations and digital innovations.
The ocean shipping ecosystem saw a period of disruption last year as demand skyrocketed in reaction to nationalistic trade policies and new tariffs. In an effort to avoid looming tariffs, shippers sought to pre-build up their import inventories. This increase in demand led to ocean-shipping capacity constraints and higher rates for shippers that lasted through the first quarter of 2019.
Ocean shipping has spent the first half of 2019 recovering from these disruptions, with container rates returning in the past few months to where they began at the start of 2018. But new potential disruptions are on the horizon as ocean carriers prepare to respond to new fuel requirements designed to reduce emissions and launch significant digital transformation efforts.
According to the Drewry World Container Index (see Figure 1), rates peaked at a level of $1,800per forty-foot equivalent (FFE) in the fourth quarter of 2018 before dropping steeply.1 From March to July of 2019, rates have been trading between $1,300 and $1,400, marking a relatively "long" period of rate stability compared with the volatility experienced the past few years. In other markets, dry bulk rates echoed that pattern, with the Baltic Exchange Index recently declining in the first quarter of 2019 from elevated 2018 rates.2
While rates and demand appear to be steadying, shippers and carriers alike will face new challenges and costs as they strive to meet the International Maritime Organization's low-sulfur requirements over the next year. (These requirements will reduce sulfur oxide pollution by an estimated 77%.)
For example, dry bulk shipping has seen some temporary capacity shortfalls as carriers have taken ships out of service to make mandatory upgrades to meet these environmental regulations. This reduction in capacity has driven dry bulk rates in the second quarter to their highest points in the past five years. Additionally, in advance of the changes, many carriers have increased their BAF (bunker adjustment factor), or fuel surcharges, in anticipation of higher fuel costs. Inconsistencies among the BAF programs has introduced abit of uncertainty into pricing expectations.3 However, it appears that the implementation of the refining capacity needed to support the new sulfur mandates is moving ahead with limited risk of disruption.4
The coming digital transformation
With mergers seemingly out of the way for the immediate future and brinksmanship on tariffs the new norm, the greatest source of near-term disruption comes from digital innovations occurring across a wide swath of the ocean ecosystem. Everything from paperwork to rate benchmarking to end-to-end forwarding is ripe for digital disruption. It's clear that digital technologies have the potential to immediately change the way forward-thinking shippers have been doing business for centuries.
For example, digital startups, like Flexport in the freight forwarding arena, are attracting significant attention from both shippers and investors.5 Flexport promises its clients a "digital-native" infrastructure that will eliminate paper, automate manual processes, and provide advanced analytics to consolidate customer shipments and generate customer insights. The company has grown to $441 million in revenue in a few years. As a result, in February, investors pumped $1 billion into the company, and it is currently valued at $3.2 billion.
Other startups go beyond forwarding to include ocean-ratevisibility (Xeneta) and digital marketplaces (such as Shippabo, CoLoadX, and Kontainers). Innovation is not limited to the container world, either. Startups, like London, U.K.-based Fractal Logistics, are applying analytics and data science to dry bulk shipping.6
Flexport and Fractal support their digital operations with hard assets like ships, aircraft, and warehouses. In turn, some traditional asset-based players like Maersk are also keen to be at the forefront of this wave of digital invention (while others are more skeptical of immediate change). For instance, Maersk is developing several key offerings internally. The ocean-shipping provider has launched a digital forwarding platform called Twill. Additionally, Maersk is a leader in driving the adoption of blockchain standards and has developed blockchain-based solutions like TradeLens. On top of homegrown solutions, Maersk is incubating external startups through programs like OceanPro in India. Through this program, Maersk is supporting the growth of local startups with the ultimate objective of leveraging developments in its own digital ecosystem.
On top of digital transformation, Maersk is also changing the nature of ocean contracting.7 Its digital solution Maersk Spot is creating guaranteed bookings for specific ships. For shippers with predictable supply chains, this innovation offers reduced lead time variability, which would translate into significant reductions in inventories for shippers.
For shippers, all these innovations are generally good news. These digital solutions are driving new service offerings, more efficient operations, and tailored offerings for underserved corners of the market. For instance, there has probably never been a better time for smaller manufacturers to leverage rate transparency and cargo consolidation to minimize their disparities of scale versus larger manufacturers. Larger shippers, for their part, are developing new capabilities (and in many cases, investment funds) to select and foster startups to meet their unique needs and create competitive advantage.
All shippers need to keep in mind that there will be winners and losers in this transformation, and they need to carefully consider potential impacts to their networks should any of their current partners struggle as a result of these changes.
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.”