Specifically, the volume of freight shipments moved via truck declined in the first quarter of 2023 by 6.1% year-over-year, marking the fourth quarter in a row where volume has contracted on an annual basis. That result aligns with other recent reports on falling freight volumes across all truck types in recent months, such as ACT Research’s For-Hire Trucking Index and FTR’s Trucking Conditions Index (TCI).
The drop was most intense in the Southeast (16.1%), West (14.1%), and Northeast (13.8%) regions. Shipments also fell year-over-year in the Midwest, dropping a smaller amount—just 2.4%—but showing a persistent decline as it dropped for the 12th straight quarter.
“This quarter was a prime example of how important it is to examine regional data when assessing truck freight shipments in the U.S.,” Bobby Holland, director of freight data solutions at U.S. Bank, said in a release. “Boosted by growing truck-transported trade with Mexico and increased activity at the Port of Houston, truck freight activity in the Southwest region is markedly different than what we’re seeing in other regions.”
Meanwhile, spending on truck freight fell nationwide just 0.3% year-over-year driven by an 8% year-over-year spending drop in the Midwest. Spending rose in all other regions, including by 16.7% annually in the Southwest and 7.8% in the Southeast.
“It’s clear that capacity is not uniform across the country,” Bob Costello, senior vice president and chief economist at the American Trucking Associations (ATA), said in a statement. “The spending data we’re seeing in the South is more evidence that there is real trucking supply tightness there, while the Midwest is experiencing the opposite.”
As U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an uncertain business landscape in 2025, a substantial majority (67%) expect positive growth in the new year compared to 2024, according to a survey from DHL.
However, the survey also showed that businesses could face a rocky road to reach that goal, as they navigate a complex environment of regulatory/policy shifts and global market volatility. Both those issues were cited as top challenges by 36% of respondents, followed by staffing/talent retention (11%) and digital threats and cyber attacks (2%).
Against that backdrop, SMEs said that the biggest opportunity for growth in 2025 lies in expanding into new markets (40%), followed by economic improvements (31%) and implementing new technologies (14%).
As the U.S. prepares for a broad shift in political leadership in Washington after a contentious election, the SMEs in DHL’s survey were likely split evenly on their opinion about the impact of regulatory and policy changes. A plurality of 40% were on the fence (uncertain, still evaluating), followed by 24% who believe regulatory changes could negatively impact growth, 20% who see these changes as having a positive impact, and 16% predicting no impact on growth at all.
That uncertainty also triggered a split when respondents were asked how they planned to adjust their strategy in 2025 in response to changes in the policy or regulatory landscape. The largest portion (38%) of SMEs said they remained uncertain or still evaluating, followed by 30% who will make minor adjustments, 19% will maintain their current approach, and 13% who were willing to significantly adjust their approach.
Maersk’s overall view of the coming year is that the global economy is expected to grow modestly, with the possibility of higher inflation caused by lingering supply chain issues, continued geopolitical tensions, and fiscal policies such as new tariffs. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions could threaten global stability, climate change action will continue to shape international cooperation, and the ongoing security issue in the Red Sea is expected to continue into 2025.
Those are difficult challenges, but according to Maersk, a vital part of logistics planning is understanding where risk and weak spots might be and finding ways to dampen the impact of inevitable hurdles.
They include:
1. Build a resilient supply chain As opposed to simply maintaining traditional network designs, Maersk says it is teaming with Hapag-Lloyd to implement a new East-West network called Gemini, beginning in February, 2025. The network will use leaner mainliners and shuttles together, allowing for isolation of port disruptions, minimizing the impact of disruptions to supply chains and routes. More broadly, companies should work with an integrated logistics partner that has multiple solutions—be they by air, truck, barge or rail—allowing supply chains to adapt around issues, while still meeting consumer demands.
2. Implementing technological advances
A key component in ensuring more resilience against disruptions is working with a supply chain supplier that offers advanced real-time tracking systems and AI-powered analytics to provide comprehensive visibility across supply chains. An AI-powered dashboard of analytics can provide end-to-end visibility of shipments, tasks, and updates, enabling efficient logistics management without the need to chase down data. Also, forecasting tools can give predictive analytics to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency. And incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) into digital solutions can enable live tracking of containers to monitor shipments.
3. Preparing for anything, instead of everything Contingency planning was a big theme for 2024, and remains so for 2025. That need is highlighted by geopolitical instability, climate change and volatility, and changes to tariffs and legislation. So in 2025, businesses should seek to partner with a logistics partner that offers risk and disruption navigation through pre-planned procedures, risk assessments, and alternative solutions.
4. Diversifying all aspects of the supply chain Supply chains have felt the impact of disruption throughout 2024, with the situation in the Red Sea resulting in all shipping having to avoid the Suez Canal, and instead going around the Cape of Good Hope. This has increased demand throughout the year, resulting in businesses trying to move cargo earlier to ensure they can meet customer needs, and even considering nearshoring. As regionalization has become more prevalent, businesses can use nearshoring to diversify suppliers and reduce their dependency on single sources. By ensuring that these suppliers and manufacturers are closer to the consumer market, businesses can keep production costs lower as well as have more ease of reaching markets and avoid delay-related risks from global disruptions. Utilizing options closer to market can also allow companies to better adapt to changes in consumer needs and behavior. Finally, some companies may also find it useful to stock critical materials for future, to act as a buffer against unexpected delays and/or issues relating to trade embargoes.
5. Understanding tariffs, legislation and regulations 2024 was year of customs regulations in EU. And tariffs are expected in the U.S. as well, once the new Trump Administration takes office. However, consistent with President-elect Trump’s first term, threats of increases are often used as a negotiating tool. So companies should take a wait and see approach to U.S. customs, even as they cope with the certainty that further EU customs are set to come into play.
For an island measuring a little less than 14,000 square miles (or about the size of Belgium), Taiwan plays a crucial role in global supply chains, making geopolitical concerns associated with it of keen interest to most major corporations.
Taiwan has essentially acted as an independent nation since 1949, when the nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island following the communist takeover of mainland China. Yet China has made no secret of the fact that it wants to bring Taiwan back under its authority—ambitions that were brought to the fore in October when China launched military drills that simulated an attack on the island.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it could have serious political and social consequences that would ripple around the globe. And it would be particularly devastating to our supply chains, says consultant Ashray Lavsi, a principal at the global procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio. He specializes in solving complex supply chain, operations, and procurement problems, with a special focus on resilience. Prior to joining Efficio’s London office in 2017, he worked at XPO Logistics in the U.S. and the Netherlands.
Lavsi spoke recently with David Maloney, Supply Chain Xchange’s group editorial director, about what might happen if China moves to annex Taiwan—what shortages would likely arise, the impact on shipping lanes and ocean freight costs, and what managers should be doing now to prepare for potential disruptions ahead.
It’s no secret that China has ambitions on Taiwan. If China were to attempt to seize control of Taiwan, how would that affect the world’s supply chains?
There would be wide-ranging disruptions around the world. The United States does a lot of trade with both China and Taiwan. For example, the U.S. imports about $470 billion worth of goods from China, while China imports about $124 billion from the U.S. Meanwhile, Taiwan is the No. 9 trading partner for the U.S. So all of this trade could come to a halt, depending on the level of conflict. Supplies would likely be disrupted, and trade routes could be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs.
Furthermore, there would likely be disruptions to trade not just between the U.S. and China, but also across the board. It could very well be that the NATO members get involved, that South Korea gets involved, that Japan gets involved, the Philippines get involved, so it could very quickly spiral into widespread disruptions.
We’ve seen big changes in the way businesses in Hong Kong operate since Britain handed control of Hong Kong over to China nearly 30 years ago. If China were to succeed in bringing Taiwan under its authority, would we see a similar outcome?
Indeed, I would expect so. I read recently that since around 2020, foreign direct investment in Hong Kong has dropped by nearly 50%, from $105 million to $54 million. The drop was primarily because of increased regulatory oversight. There are now a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech as well as tighter control over business operations. Something similar could very well happen in Taiwan if China were to succeed in taking over the island.
As you mentioned, the United States conducts a lot of trade with both Taiwan and China, and both countries have become strategic supply chain partners. Beyond the diplomatic considerations, what would a military or economic conflict mean for the United States?
There is a lot of trade in goods like agricultural products, aircraft, electronic components, and machinery, and our access to all of those items could be cut off. On top of that, China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth minerals [which are crucial for the production of a wide variety of electronic devices]. So any conflict in the region would almost certainly result in many disruptions, particularly in critical sectors like technology and electronics—disruptions that would lead to shortages and increased costs.
Trade routes would also be affected, resulting in delays and higher shipping costs. U.S. companies would need to seek out alternative suppliers for critical materials or components they currently source in China, if they haven’t already. And if they haven’t lined up alternative suppliers, any hostilities could result in a complete halt in production.
What effect would such a move have on the global economy?
It’s been quite a few years since economies have just been localized. Any disruption now has widespread ripple effects across the world. As we discussed, any conflict between the United States and China naturally pulls in countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the NATO countries, and it can very quickly spiral out.
Look at the semiconductor, or chip, shortages. If you recall, back in 2021, those shortages led to almost a half-trillion-dollar loss for the automakers, who lost out on sales of 7.7 million vehicles because they couldn’t meet demand. We could see a repeat of that situation—maybe even on a larger scale.
I found this statistic interesting—we often talk about the semiconductor shortages during the pandemic, but if you look at true production numbers, the actual production of chips went up from 2020, to 2021, to 2022. The shortage was driven not by a drop in production, but rather, by a surge in demand for PCs from people working from home. That demand has since dwindled, but we’d still face a major semiconductor shortage if much of the production were halted. So that’s going to be a very big change, a very big disruption.
Of course, the United States, along with a number of other countries, has taken steps to reduce its exposure to risk by bringing some semiconductor production back to its own shores. But it will take time to get those operations up and running, and their output would still be just a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. So what would a takeover of Taiwan mean for the overall semiconductor flow?
It essentially stops, right? Let me paint a picture that illustrates the importance of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry to global manufacturing. Semiconductors go into everything from cars to military equipment to computers to data centers to microwaves—they are in everything around us. Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of the advanced chips. Just let that sink in: More than 90% of all the advanced chips produced worldwide come from Taiwan, primarily from a big fabrication company called TSMC.
So the complexity and the precision required to make advanced semiconductors, combined with the limited number of companies around the world, make Taiwan’s position unmatched. The second-largest producer after TSMC is South Korean-based Samsung, which produces 18%, so that’s the gap that we are talking about.
As you rightly said, there are efforts by governments across the world to reduce their reliance on Taiwan. For example, TSMC is building three fabrication facilities in Arizona—the third with funding from the U.S. government. The first plant is set to go live next year and the third by 2030. But even once all three plants are up and running, the production volumes won’t be close to what TSMC produces in Taiwan. It’s going to take years to reduce our reliance on production in Taiwan. If that supply is cut off, the ripple effect will be tremendous.
Setting aside the historical and political claims China has made on Taiwan, is Taiwan’s dominance in the semiconductor industry a main reason why China has set its sights on it?
It could be. China has been investing heavily in chip production—for instance, today, most, if not all, of the chips in the latest Huawei phones are locally produced in China. But China is still quite a few years behind TSMC. So that’s definitely going to be one of the big factors, right? One article that I found very interesting declared that chips are the new oil. If you control chip production, you control the global market.
Let’s talk about the implications for shipping lanes. If you take a look at the map, you realize that the Taiwan Strait is a very important shipping lane for containerized goods coming out of both China and Taiwan. If China were to institute a military blockade, how would that affect the world’s container flows?
That flow would be affected tremendously. The Taiwan Strait plays a crucial role in global shipping, particularly for goods moving between Asia and the rest of the world. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes, and any blockage would severely disrupt global container flows.
Now let me put that into perspective. Fifty percent of the world’s containerships pass through the Taiwan Strait—50%. That’s a huge number. By comparison, the Suez Canal handles about 20% of global trade. Or to use another measure: 88% of the world’s largest ships by tonnage passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022.
I’ve been reading up on this in the past few months and it seems that a military blockage is a very likely scenario—one that would cripple Taiwan’s economy without a full-scale invasion. So instead of a mounting a full-on attack, China might just block the strait, which would lead to delays in the delivery of goods, affecting global supply chains and causing shortages across Asia and the U.S.
Given the escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, should shippers and manufacturers be preparing today for a potential conflict?
Businesses have to begin preparing today. If businesses were to say, “Okay, I’m going to wait until the conflict breaks out, and then figure out what I’ll do,” it will be too late. You’re done. Your production comes to halt. You can no longer satisfy your customer requirements. So proactive measures are an absolute requirement.
What should they do to prepare?
I would urge manufacturers and shippers to take what’s essentially a two-pronged approach.
First, you need to segment and identify your critical components, based on how crucial they are to your production operations and the risk associated with their sources, where they’re coming from. After you segment them, you list your top-priority items—the critical components that you absolutely cannot do without. You then split your supply chain into two, so that you have a much more redundant supply chain built for those critical items and then a second supply chain for everything else.
To build redundancy, you establish multiple suppliers and diversify them geographically. You also build in stringent contingency measures, which could include strategic stockpiling, nearshoring, and friendshoring, which is where you store inventory with an ally or in a friend consortium, as well as buying alternative components wherever possible. So all of those measures need to be put in place for the components that you’ve identified as absolutely critical for your production.
What is the second prong?
The second prong is the need to manage increased costs. There’s no getting away from higher costs, right? If you’re holding more inventory, you have higher inventory carrying costs. And if you’re diversifying your supply base, that means you don’t have as much leverage [with individual suppliers]. You’re also going to be managing multiple supply chains, which requires an increase in human capital because you’ll need more people to manage the more complex supply chains that you’re putting in place.
One way to manage costs could be by implementing strategic sourcing programs across the board that are aimed at mitigating some of the expenses. By taking these steps, manufacturers can safeguard their operations against potential disruptions and ensure continuity.
A lot of U.S. companies have been nearshoring to Mexico, which has now become the United States’ leading trade partner. Is that a simple solution for companies looking to reduce their reliance on Asia?
It is one of the solutions. But you won’t be able to replace your Asian supply base immediately—as with semiconductors, it may take a few years to build out that capacity.
So you need to start stockpiling essential components now—particularly if you won’t be able to find alternatives. You want to make sure that you’re holding the right amount of inventory of the components that you absolutely need. So nearshoring is an option, but you need to be careful what you move to Mexico.
Is that because moving production to Mexico will raise your costs compared to sourcing in Asia?
Yes, production costs will be higher compared to a place like Vietnam, where wages are currently lower than in Mexico. It might reduce the logistics cost, but I think there’s still a net increase overall because you’ll have higher expenses for things like regulatory compliance. Plus you’ll have the one-time cost of setting up the facilities.
Ideally, you’ll never have to face these problems we’ve been talking about, but it’s always better to be prepared.
Editor’s note:This article first appeared in the November 2024 issue of our sister publication DC Velocity.
Keep ReadingShow less
Attendees visit the CSCMP EDGE 2024 Resource Center.
As I assume the role of Chair of the Board of Directors for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), I fondly reflect on the more than 10 years that I’ve had the privilege of being part of this extraordinary organization. I’ve seen firsthand the impact we have had on individuals, companies, and the entire supply chain profession.
CSCMP’s journey as an organization began back in 1963. It has since grown from a small, passionate community to the world’s premier association for supply chain professionals. Our mission—to connect, educate, and develop supply chain professionals throughout their careers—remains not only relevant, but vital in today’s world.
As we look ahead, the opportunities are vast. What stands out the most to me is simply this:We are stronger together. Every individual brings a unique perspective, and it’s through our collective wisdom and efforts that we will continue to advance the work we do. The road ahead is not one we travel alone. It’s a path we navigate as a community—one united in purpose and direction.
My vision for the year ahead centers around growth—growth in our global reach and, perhaps even more importantly, growth in how we engage and support each other. We have tremendous opportunities for international expansion, especially in Europe, the U.K., Mexico, Central and South America, and Canada. I’m happy to share that we're already seeing progress in our reach to these regions.
I'm incredibly excited about the potential for even more growth ahead. One of the initiatives I am most passionate about is our Centers of Excellence. These centers will provide members the space to engage deeply in key supply chain disciplines. I invite each of you to dive into these areas, share your experiences, and contribute to the innovative solutions we develop together. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so. These centers are not only academic spaces—they are hubs for innovation, where we can share best practices and work together to solve our industry’s biggest challenges.
Education and thought leadership will continue to be at the heart of what we do. By expanding our research capacity, we will offer cutting-edge insights that keep our members at the forefront of industry trends and innovation. Through our platforms, we will create even more opportunities for connection and collaboration—ensuring that every voice is heard. Your insights, curiosity, questions, and engagement will drive the transformation we seek. We all play a part in the advancement of our industry and our profession.
Our impact begins with membership. Expanding collaborations with public, private, and nonprofit sectors will give us new ways to drive progress. In a world where our ecosystem is even more interconnected than ever before, the ability to engage with diverse stakeholders will help us unlock new solutions and truly make a difference on a global scale. None of this would be possible without the strong foundation that has been built over the years by serving our supply chain community. Each of you holds the ability to shape the future of the supply chain, and I can’t wait to see what we will achieve together.
The concept of using a neutral third party to resolve conflicts between suppliers and customers is not new. Mediation and arbitration have long been considered as more efficient and less costly ways to resolve contractual disputes than litigation. In fact, 2025 marks the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act, which allows for contract disputes to be resolved through a private resolution process instead of going to court.
Over the years, the concept of using a neutral has expanded to include more preventive techniques for keeping business relationships healthy and addressing potential contractual misalignments earlier. For example, the construction industry has been utilizing the concept of a dispute review board (DRB) since 1975 to solve issues that arise during major projects, such as cost overruns, schedule delays, and disputes over payment or the quality of workmanship. The DRB is typically a panel of three independent expert advisors who are immediately available to help resolve disputes that arise during the contractual relationship.1 The panel is formed at the beginning of the construction project with the goal of resolving any issues or differences before they become formal claims.
Recently the concept has evolved further into what is now known as a “standing neutral” and has been adopted by companies in many industries outside of construction. A standing neutral is a highly qualified and respected expert, selected by both parties in a business relationship to help them resolve issues and maintain a healthy relationship. This can best be described as a proactive approach where the neutral provides quick, informal, flexible, adaptable, and nonadversarial ways for preventing disputes.
The role of the standing neutral
Unlike a neutral third party used on an ad-hoc basis for dispute resolution in mediation or arbitration, a standing neutral is a readily available “fast response” technique. It is designed to prevent any issues from escalating into adversarial disputes that might otherwise go to mediation, arbitration, or litigation. A key feature is that the neutral is “standing,” meaning it is integrated into the parties' continuing governance structure. Another key concept is that the standing neutral supports the relationship itself and both parties equally; the goal is to ensure the success of the relationship.
Embedding a standing neutral into a contracting party's governance structure can have a powerful impact on the success of the business relationship. The standing neutral provides a helpful "dose of reality" to the parties and encourages them to be more objective in their dealings with each other. When differences of opinion arise, the parties can quickly use the standing neutral as an objective sounding board, obtaining a recommended course of action that is minimally disruptive to the business relationship.
While the classic role of a standing neutral is to serve as a “real-time” issue-resolver throughout a relationship, companies have begun to expand how they have used a standing neutral. The University of Tennessee’s research—which is detailed in the white paper “Unpacking the Standing Neutral”—reveals the creative ways that companies are using a standing neutral.2 For example, some companies are increasing the role of their standing neutral to support annual relationship health checks and even using neutrals as “deal facilitators” to help craft highly complex or strategic outsourcing agreements.
Today, there are many different variations of a standing neutral. Figure 1 shows some of the most common options companies can consider when designing the role and scope of their standing neutral. In the figure, these options are organized across nine design principles or considerations. For an example of how a standing neutral can operate in a real-world setting see the sidebar “Idea in action: EY case study."
Getting ramped up
If you think using a standing neutral would benefit one of your relationships, we suggest going through the following simple stages. It’s important to note that the cost and expenses of the standing neutral are absorbed equally by both parties.
1. Selection: At the outset of their relationship, parties select one person (or three) with whom they trust and have confidence to serve as standing neutral throughout their relationship. A single standing neutral should always be entirely independent. In most cases where there is a panel of neutrals, each party nominates one member, and the two nominated neutrals will select a third member; in such cases, it is typically required that every panel member be acceptable to both parties and that all panel members be independent and impartial, with no special allegiance to the nominating party.
As part of the selection process, the parties formalize an agreement with the standing neutral, which includes determining the standing neutral's responsibilities and authority. The nine design principles in Figure 1 can be used to accomplish this.
2. Briefing: The parties brief the standing neutral regarding the nature, scope, and purpose of the relationship or venture. As part of the briefing, the standing neutral is usually equipped with a basic set of contract materials and supporting documents.
3. Continuing involvement: A key part of designing a standing neutral program is embedding your standing neutral as part of your ongoing governance. For example, we recommend at a minimum that the parties have their standing neutral attend the parties’ quarterly business reviews and lead an annual relationship health check. This enables the standing neutral to meet regularly with the parties to review the progress of the relationship, even if there are no issues.
Alternatively, it is possible to have a
standby neutral (versus a standing neutral). In the case of a standby neutral, the neutral is merely available on an ad-hoc basis to be called on whenever necessary to give an advisory opinion.
Why standing neutrals work so well
Standing neutrals have had a remarkable record—especially for resolving issues before they become disputes. A study of the use of standing neutrals in the construction industry found that, in the vast majority of cases, the parties never look to the standing neutral to make any dispute resolution recommendations or decisions. (And in the small minority of cases where the standing neutral actually makes a recommendation, 95% of the recommendations are accepted by the parties without resorting to mediation, arbitration or litigation.
3)
It may seem counterintuitive that having a standing neutral reduces the likelihood of needing a third party to resolve disputes. But research has found that the presence of others causes people to behave more honestly and reign in unethical behavior such as cheating. These effects are amplified when the third-party observer is knowledgeable in the subject matter of the agreement and in the nature of the agreement.
The establishment of a standing neutral—which appears at first to be merely an efficient technique for quickly resolving disputes—creates a dynamic situation in which the participants change their relationship and their attitudes toward each other. The changes usually are an evolution, rather than a conscious effort. For example, at first it is common for contracting parties to feel they are simply choosing a neutral expert for resolving conflicts between them promptly. However, as the standing neutral interacts with the parties during ongoing governance forums, the parties develop a greater sense of confidence in the standing neutral's ability to quickly alleviate friction in the relationship. When this happens, the parties shift their view of the standing neutral from “dispute-resolver” to one of “sensible sounding board.”
The presence of a standing neutral also encourages teamwork and improved performance by all parties. The contracting parties become incentivized to concentrate on “fixing the problem” rather than “fixing the blame,” and use their mutual knowledge to solve the problem rather than relinquishing control to the neutral. A side benefit is when the parties construct their own solutions to problems, they often increase their trust and confidence in each other's abilities, which ultimately strengthens the relationship. For these reasons, the standing neutral serves as not only a standby dispute resolution process, but also as a remarkably successful dispute prevention process.
Notes:
1 For more information see A. A. Mathews, Robert J. Smith, Paul E. Sperry, and Robert M. Matyas, Construction Dispute Review Board Manual, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996): p. 10