Many companies that source products internationally and rely on ocean transportation to the U.S. do not have an established strategy for obtaining optimal rates and service. While some organizations have an established international logistics group, others view international shipping more as a task—or as a type of “utility cost”—where ocean transportation is treated simply as a spot-market expense. However, establishing a structured and strategic approach to managing inbound ocean shipments can yield significant benefits in cost control, service performance, and inventory management. In fact, a well-designed ocean transportation strategy provides the framework to shift from reactive to proactive logistics planning. Now, let’s consider some of the key factors. 1. Volume projections The very first agenda item is to forecast shipping volumes. Interestingly, knowing exactly where suppliers’ shipping locations are located is not always apparent to companies. However, it’s necessary to identify origin and destination locations, the total number of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), and any shipment seasonality. This information is vital when sharing projections with carriers to negotiate volume commitments and rates. 2. Contracting vs. spot market strategy Some companies ship exclusively via the spot market, meaning these rates are determined by the supply and demand for sailing slots at a specific time. While this strategy might work for companies that ship a limited number of ocean containers, it’s generally not effective for companies that move higher volumes of shipments and TEUs. Spot ocean container rates can fluctuate significantly. For example, when companies attempted to beat tariff implementations applied to imports, spot container rates skyrocketed. However, once the tariffs were implemented, spot rates dropped drastically. Fixed annual contracts provide more stable rates and are less sensitive to market swings, allowing for more accurate management of an ocean transportation budget. 3. Ocean carrier selection and diversification Ocean carriers manage their own operations, including vessel scheduling, maintenance, and cargo handling. It’s essential to conduct thorough research to establish clear criteria for carrier selection. Key factors to evaluate include cost, transit time, service reliability, geographic coverage, and port accessibility. To mitigate risk and ensure service continuity, companies should avoid over-reliance on a single carrier and instead pursue a diversified carrier strategy. 4. Freight forwarder and NVOCC relationships Freight forwarders act as intermediaries, coordinating multiple aspects of the international shipping process on behalf of the shipper. Their services typically include arranging transportation, preparing documentation, and providing additional support such as customs brokerage. When evaluating freight forwarders, it’s critical to consider more than just cost—factors such as customer service quality, shipment visibility tools, and issue resolution capabilities are equally important. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) function similarly to ocean carriers, despite not owning or operating their own vessels. They issue their own bills of lading and assume responsibility for managing shipments from origin to destination. As with freight forwarders, selecting the right NVOCC requires evaluating service reliability, global coverage, and their ability to manage logistics across complex trade lanes. 5. Lane and port strategy Once supplier and customer locations have been defined and projected shipment volumes are estimated, it becomes essential to optimize origin and destination ports to balance both cost and service. Developing a port strategy should include primary and alternate ports to account for potential disruptions such as congestion, labor disputes, or seasonal delays. Port decisions must align closely with inventory management and purchasing strategies. For instance, a shipment originating in Asia may be routed through West Coast ports, followed by inland transportation via rail or drayage to the final destination. Alternatively, the same shipment could be routed through East Coast ports. While this typically involves longer transit times, it may offer cost or service advantages depending on market conditions and the location of the final delivery point. Route selection should consider transit time, rate variability, and network efficiency to ensure optimal supply chain performance. 6. Performance metrics and KPIs As previously noted, a freight forwarder that provides visibility into shipments is important. Companies should use the technology available to develop meaningful key performance indicators (KPIs). Monitoring shipment service levels and carrier performance is vital to holding partners accountable. Common KPIs include on-time delivery, dwell time, container utilization, cost per unit, and container detention and demurrage charges. 7. Risk management and contingency planning Proactive risk management is essential to maintaining a resilient supply chain. Disruptions such as labor strikes, severe weather, geopolitical instability, or unexpected market shifts can significantly impact ocean transportation. To mitigate these risks, organizations should develop comprehensive contingency plans that include alternative ports of entry, backup carriers, and flexible routing options. In some cases, it may be necessary to expedite shipments or delay them strategically to ensure alignment with inventory and purchasing strategies. A well-prepared contingency plan should account for a wide range of potential disruptions—including geopolitical events, pandemics, carrier alliance shifts, and port closures. Having predefined protocols in place allows for faster decision-making and minimizes the impact of unforeseen events on cost, service, and overall supply chain performance Developing and implementing a structured ocean freight strategy enables organizations to transition from a reactive approach to a proactive, strategic model for managing international logistics. This shift enhances financial control, improves service reliability, and strengthens resilience against disruptions. In today’s increasingly complex and dynamic global trade environment, a well-executed ocean transportation strategy is essential for achieving long-term supply chain efficiency and customer satisfaction. Tom Schaefges is a senior project manager with St. Onge Company and has more than 25 years of experience in supply chain and logistics across both corporate and consulting roles. His industry experience includes work in food service, retail, heavy manufacturing, transportation, food production, and third-party logistics. He can be reached at [email protected]

The introduction of a new 10% global tariff in February of this year—and President Trump’s subsequent announcement that it could increase to 15%—has created widespread uncertainty within the European Union, as well as among European companies and the logistics sector. Following the EU-U.S. agreement that had already been reached, questions now remain about how U.S. Customs policy will evolve, which provisions of the agreement will remain valid, and whether additional increases could occur once the 150-day period under Section 122 expires. On Feb. 23, 2026, the European Parliament responded to the new tariffs by halting the ratification process for the current trade agreement between the European Union and the United States, officially known as the “Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade.” Due to the legal uncertainty, EU parliamentarians paused the vote to clarify whether the new tariff “surcharge” would be applied in addition to the rates already outlined in the agreement or would replace them. Further discussions with the Trump administration are now under way. The Trump administration’s shifting trade and tariff policies—combined with a recent Supreme Court decision—have created new challenges and additional work for shippers and logistics providers, particularly as companies prepare to negotiate contract agreements in the coming months. Lars Jensen, president of the consulting firm Vespucci Maritime, explains: “The new uncertainty surrounding tariffs comes at an inconvenient time for shippers, as U.S. importers remain unable to make stable long-term decisions for their supply chains. This creates a very difficult environment for shippers, who must commit to shipping volumes over the next 12 months while also determining where key parts of their cargo will originate. Many are effectively forced to gamble on whether now is the right time to front-load cargo ahead of a potential new tariff regime in July.” Because the new tariff is temporary—lasting only 150 days under Section 122 unless Congress acts to extend it—Jensen expects the tariff regime could change again before July 24, 2026. “We just don’t know when or how,” he says. The new tariff uncertainty is also creating additional work for many logistics companies in Europe as customer inquiries increase significantly. “The need for advice is correspondingly high,” explains Robert Gutsche, CFO of the German logistics service provider Röhlig Logistics. After months of turbulence in the trans-Atlantic partnership, many Europeans are questioning whether the U.S. remains a reliable partner and are increasingly turning toward new trade relationships. In January 2026, the European Union concluded two major trade agreements—after years of negotiations—with the Mercosur countries and with India. Together, these agreements could create two of the world’s largest trading areas. The EU-Mercosur trade agreement links the EU’s 27 member states with the four founding Mercosur nations—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The pact covers a market of roughly 700 million people and represents nearly 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP). The agreement will eliminate tariffs on 91% of goods traded with Mercosur. That includes duties currently as high as 35% on products such as cars and spirits. In return, the EU will eliminate tariffs on 92% of imports from Mercosur, saving EU exporters more than $4.6 billion annually in duties. Despite quotas and safeguards designed to protect European agricultural interests, the deal represents a significant step toward further trade liberalization between the two economic blocs. However, the process encountered a setback on Jan. 21, 2026, when the European Parliament referred the agreement to the European Court of Justice for review, effectively halting the ratification process. Relief followed a month later when EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Feb. 27 that the agreement could be provisionally applied to secure a first-mover advantage. Under current rules, the agreement can enter provisional force two months after the exchange of notifications with Mercosur member states. That development is welcome news for many logistics providers who are placing considerable hopes on the deal. “In times of rising tariffs, increasing protectionism and growing trade fragmentation, this agreement stands out as a much-needed beacon of hope,” says Tobias Bartz, CEO of the German-based logistics provider Rhenus Group. “It sends a clear signal for open trade, mutual growth and long-term resilience.” According to Bartz, the agreement reflects the kind of strategy the EU needs right now—strengthening alliances with like-minded regions. “As Latin America becomes an increasingly important pillar of global trade, closer cooperation is essential for Europe,” he says. “With growing demand, strong industrial potential and a deep talent base, countries like Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay offer more than raw materials—they offer opportunity.” Bartz adds that the agreement will not only eliminate tariffs and simplify customs procedures, but also create clearer rules, faster cargo flows and more reliable planning for globally operating companies. The European Commission estimates that the agreement could boost annual EU exports by as much as €49 billion and create more than 440,000 jobs, particularly in the automotive, mechanical engineering and pharmaceutical sectors. “This is a deal that strengthens Europe,” says Bartz. Attention is also turning to how quickly the EU’s second major trade agreement—this one with India—can be ratified. Described by von der Leyen as the “mother of all deals,” the EU-India free trade agreement would cover roughly 2 billion consumers and account for about 25% of global GDP and one-third of global trade. The agreement would eliminate tariffs on 99.5% of Indian exports to the EU and 96.6% of EU exports to India over a five- to ten-year period. Key provisions include cutting Indian car import tariffs from 110% to 10%, reducing wine duties to between 20% and 75%, and eliminating duties on machinery and chemicals. Global maritime news portal gCaptain expects container shipping to feel the impact quickly. Tariff savings of roughly $4.75 billion annually on EU goods would make moving cargo between the regions significantly more economical. Ports on India’s west coast—including Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mundra and Pipavav—are well positioned for growth due to their proximity to Europe-bound shipping routes. European hubs such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Piraeus and Valencia are also expected to capture increased volumes. The EU-India agreement could also encourage new direct deep-sea services between India and Northern Europe, reducing dependence on transshipment hubs in East Asia such as Singapore or Colombo. Carriers may respond by reducing Chinese port rotations and adding additional Indian calls. Lower tariffs on machinery and industrial equipment could boost breakbulk and project cargo movements, while liberalization in the automotive and engineering sectors may increase demand for ro-ro carriers and specialized heavy-lift vessels. Manufacturing shifts could also influence bulk shipping flows, according to gCaptain. UK–U.S. relations have long been defined by a strong trans-Atlantic partnership and deep trade ties. However, ongoing political tensions and punitive tariffs imposed by the U.S. government on the UK and EU have strained those traditionally close relationships. The two governments had already agreed to a trade deal in May 2025. Known as the U.S.–UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), the agreement focused on sector-specific tariff reductions and regulatory cooperation. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s February decision declaring President Trump’s previous “reciprocal” tariffs illegal—followed by his announcement of a new 15% global tariff under Section 122, initially limited to 150 days—has created additional uncertainty for the British government, manufacturers and the logistics industry. According to the International Trade Trends Survey 2026, published by Make UK and DHL Express in Feb. 2026, sweeping tariffs and shifting global trade policies are forcing UK manufacturers to rethink their international trade strategies. Rising costs, uncertainty and growing trade barriers are reshaping global markets and prompting many companies to diversify exports, adjust supply chains and reassess long-term growth plans. In fact, 82% of exporting manufacturers report that the EU remains their primary export market, confirming that the EU’s single market continues to be the main destination for UK-manufactured goods. Despite the UK’s exit from the EU, this reliance highlights how EU standards, rules and customs procedures remain critically important for British manufacturers. Data from the survey shows that the United States remains a key export destination for British manufacturers. It is the largest single-country market for UK manufactured goods and the second-largest export market overall, with 58% of respondents reporting shipments to the U.S. A further 34% also export to Canada. However, the impact of tariffs is now being felt across UK manufacturing. The survey data shows that U.S. tariffs have driven both short-term surges in trade and longer-term market retrenchment. One in four respondents (24%) reported shipping more goods to the U.S. ahead of new tariffs taking effect. At the same time, a similar percentage (24%) said they had lost revenue due to higher costs tied to tariffs, while 23% reported shifting their focus to other markets as a mitigating strategy. One in five companies (20%) said they had already stopped or reduced exports to the U.S., and another 16% plan to do so. This suggests a notable minority of manufacturers are exiting the U.S. market as a result of tariff policy changes. There is growing concern within the logistics industry that President Trump’s political threats and uncertain tariff policies toward Great Britain and Europe could continue. As a result, the business group Logistics UK has urged policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic to take a measured approach to trade negotiations in order to protect global supply chains and avoid inflationary pressures. According to James Mills, head of trade policy at Logistics UK: “The United States is the UK’s largest single-country trading partner, with around 40,000 UK businesses exporting goods to the U.S. and close to one million jobs supported by that trade. Many of these businesses and employees are in the logistics sector, which enables all trade to happen smoothly. Any renewed threat of tariffs risks creating uncertainty that supply chains and exporters can ill afford—particularly when margins are already tight and businesses are focused on growth and investment.” Despite tense trans-Atlantic relations, Great Britain remains an attractive market for U.S. logistics providers. In recent years, GXO Logistics has placed strong strategic emphasis on the UK market. Following its acquisition of British logistics provider Wincanton in 2024, GXO reported in its fiscal-year 2025 results that the integration “is underway and on track to deliver full run-rate synergies of about $60 million by the end of 2026.” In February 2026, GXO also announced a new partnership with London Luton Airport (LLA) to operate the airport’s first consolidation center, which will screen all airside deliveries entering the facility. From high-end fashion and cosmetics to consumer electronics and goods destined for LLA’s shops and restaurants, GXO will securely check and deliver every item entering the terminal as well as shipments supporting airside operations. The consolidation center will be located in one of three hangars being repurposed as part of an £11.5 million refurbishment program that also includes two new aircraft engineering and maintenance hangars. While relations between the United States and many of its trans-Atlantic partners have cooled considerably, Hungary occupies a somewhat unique position in its relationship with Washington. Within the European Union, Hungary often plays the role of an outlier due to its frequent opposition to certain EU policy decisions. At the same time, the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has positioned the country’s foreign policy as a mediator between major global powers, including the United States, Russia and China. Hungary’s close ties with Washington—along with the personal relationship between Orbán and President Trump—have recently translated into both political and economic advantages for the country. As a result, Hungary received an exemption from U.S. sanctions affecting imports of Russian oil. At the same time, the Hungarian government reached an agreement with the White House involving significant purchases of U.S. liquefied natural gas, military equipment and technologies related to small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). According to Péter Szijjártó, Hungary’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, more than 1,500 U.S. companies are currently active in Hungary, employing roughly 100,000 people. Over the past decade, the Hungarian government has supported approximately 145 investment projects by U.S. companies. Most recently, Procter & Gamble announced new investments in the country. Hungary’s strategic location in Central Europe also offers excellent development opportunities for the logistics industry. The country has been a member of the European Union since 2004 and connects Western Europe with the markets of Eastern Europe and Asia. The Mordor Intelligence Institute estimates the size of the Hungarian freight and logistics market at $11.15 billion for 2026, with projections reaching $13.12 billion by 2031—representing a compound annual growth rate of 3.31% during the forecast period from 2026 to 2031. The Hungarian freight and logistics market benefits from its role as a hub on the Rhine-Danube and Orient-Eastern Europe-Mediterranean transport axes, steady inflows from the EU Cohesion Fund, increasing investment in the automotive and battery industries, and growing e-commerce volumes, which are driving growth in courier, express, and parcel services. The ongoing expansion of the motorway and rail transport infrastructure is increasing the reliability of services in the transport and logistics business. The Hungarian government is investing in logistics infrastructure projects to further enhance its competitiveness. One major project is the construction of a third terminal at Budapest Airport, scheduled for completion by 2032. Around €2 billion ($2.4 billion) is being invested in this project. Budapest Airport has developed into a leading regional air cargo gateway for Central and Eastern Europe, and its cargo business recorded strong growth in 2025, reaching 426,519 tons, an increase of 42.3% over the previous year. To date, the airport has invested €80 million in the expansion of the BUD Cargo City logistics center, which began operations in 2020 and was expanded to a total area of 42,000 m² in 2023. The center offers fast cargo handling and clearance, and dedicated facilities for temperature-sensitive goods. The CEP business has been developed in close collaboration with courier and freight integrators such as FedEx, UPS and DHL, which have invested in modern transshipment facilities at the airport. UPS’s main logistics center for the Budapest area is located in Vecsés, close to Budapest Airport. This facility serves as the headquarters for UPS Hungary and the country’s main transshipment hub for packages and cargo. How relations between the United States and Europe will develop remains to be seen. New wars and crises around the world are causing new tensions. The old-world order no longer applies, and so both political and economic relations must be realigned. Europe has moved closer together to strengthen free trade, democratic values, and the independence of the EU. New markets and partnerships are being sought, presenting major challenges but also new opportunities for the logistics industry.

USTR expands investigation to dozens more economies

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced it has added 60 additional countries to its ongoing Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974. The move follows an earlier round of probes launched this week and extends the review into a much broader set of trading partners.

Markets included in the initial probe

The first tranche of investigations focused on a number of major manufacturing and trading jurisdictions. That initial list included:

• China
• European Union
• Singapore
• Switzerland
• Norway
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• Cambodia
• Thailand
• South Korea
• Vietnam
• Taiwan
• Bangladesh
• Mexico
• Japan
• India

Reason for the expanded inquiries

USTR said the broader review aims to determine whether each country’s actions, policies or practices — particularly failures to impose and enforce bans on imports made with forced labor — are unreasonable or discriminatory and whether they burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

USTR’s message on forced labor and competitive fairness

USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer framed the investigations as an effort to confront unfair competitive advantages tied to forced labor. He said:

“Despite the international consensus against forced labor, governments have failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labor from entering their markets. For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor. These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses.”

Legal and tariff context surrounding the probes

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the legality of the Trump administration’s use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In response, the White House adopted a 10% tariff under Section 122 for a 150-day period, a measure set to expire in late July. The administration cited reasons including a serious international payments imbalance, a widening U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, a push to increase domestic manufacturing, and efforts to curb fentanyl flows across the northern and southern borders.

Industry views on legal challenges and enforcement

Pete Mento, Director of Global Trade Management Services at Baker Tilly, told LM that Section 301 tariffs—aimed at addressing unfair trade practices—are particularly difficult for companies to overturn in court and that the full force of these tariffs has not yet been seen by industry stakeholders.

Mento noted the data gathered in Section 301 probes can strengthen the government’s case on issues such as forced labor, unfair trade practices, currency manipulation and intellectual property concerns. In a LinkedIn post he added that if the USTR finds a country’s industrial policies unreasonable or distortive, the United States could respond with tariffs.

1. Investigation
2. Public comments
3. Hearings
4. Findings
5. Imposition of new duties (tariffs)

Procedural timeline and opportunities for comment

The USTR has scheduled a public hearing on these investigations for April 28. Written comments are due by April 15, providing stakeholders an opportunity to submit views before the hearing.

Analysts’ take on broader economic impacts

Chris Rogers, Head of Supply Chain Research at S&P Global Market Intelligence, wrote that the overall economic effects of recent trade policy moves may be limited. He argued that duty rates tied to IEEPA are likely to be replaced by other programs with similar effective rates, and that the global economy has so far shown resilience to tariffs. Rogers also pointed out that larger near-term risks include uncertainty from conflict in the Middle East and attendant effects on oil prices.