The container shipping industry experienced an unparalleled surge during the pandemic; however, in 2023 so far, the market has been anaemic due to an oversupply of capacity and sluggish demand.
Freight demand has declined significantly after reaching its peak in September 2021, as consumers reduced their spending on luxury goods and the global economy grappled with inflation and rapid interest rate hikes. As a result, spot rates on significant trade routes have dropped rapidly.
Although shipping lines reported strong profit margins in Q1 of 2023 due to pre-negotiated contract rates, we anticipate a substantial decrease in these margins. As contract negotiations are currently underway, revised rates will soon come into effect, impacting the profitability of shipping lines in the second half of 2023 and throughout 2024.
While the drop in demand and rates are having an immediate effect on carriers’ profitability, the forthcoming influx of new ships will have a significant impact on the market for years to come.
Freefalling prices, surging costs
The year 2023 started with a significant oversupply of containers and high uncertainty in the market—which led to substantial container-price erosion. The average container prices have been freefalling, and there are no signs of revival as we approach the busiest period in the shipping industry. It is quite evident that this year’s peak season is almost invisible.
Container prices in June 2023 for major supply chain markets like China, Europe, and the U.S. reached their lowest average levels when compared to the same month in both 2022 and 2021. This decrease in container prices may suggest an additional burden on the profitability of shipping companies.
A recent study conducted by Container xChange examined the trends in average container prices for standard containers (new and cargo-worthy) during the second quarter of 2023 (April to June). The study found no significant rise in average container price for either new or cargo-worthy containers during Q2. Figure 1 shows the price development (or “delta”) of average containers on key routes during Q2 2023. Only Northern Europe and the Middle East and Indian Subcontinent regions experienced slight increases in prices. The rest of the regions showed negative (or near flat) trends for standard containers.
[FIGURE 1] 90-day delta for average prices of standard containers Enlarge this image
Figure 2 compares average container prices for some of the busiest ports in the world from the Container xChange platform. The prices have fallen to the lowest levels in the last three years of comparison. Clearly, the data indicates poor demand for containers in 2023 up to June.
[FIGURE 2] Average prices for 20-foot cargo-worthy dry container (in U.S. dollars) Enlarge this image
While container prices have been dropping, operating expenses for container lines have been rising. The main reasons for this increase have been soaring energy prices and labor expenses, neither of which are expected to decrease soon. Additionally, the shipping industry is facing high demurrage and detention charges and various fees related to container storage and transfers. The shortage of container depot space also remains a persistent struggle, with depots charging exorbitant fees that pose additional burdens. Our customers have informed us about terminal tariff hikes in Europe and India, causing further concerns for carriers.
These rising operating costs will likely influence spot freight rates. In the intensely competitive container shipping industry, the minimum price offered in the market tends to align with variable costs. Over the years, variable costs in container transportation have risen by approximately 15% to 25% since 2019, varying depending on the specific trade route. Consequently, the lower threshold of freight rates set by carriers has also increased within the range of 15% to 25%. This presents challenges for shippers, as they now encounter higher variable costs when transporting goods. Despite the significant decrease in average container rates from 2021 to 2023, with a reduction of nearly 85%, the underlying variable costs remain elevated. As a result, it is unlikely that spot freight rates will experience a significant additional decline, as contract rates still have room for further depreciation and remain relatively stable.
Capacity takes center stage
The container shipping market’s recent good years prompted a surge of orders for new and larger container vessels. Research conducted by the maritime consulting company Drewry and the financial services company ING Group estimates that fleet capacity will be increased by 27% due to the new vessels being delivered between 2023 and 2025.1 More than 700 ships are expected to be delivered between 2023 and 2024, with an additional 150 coming in 2025, according to ING and Drewry. Among these orders, 45% are for Neo-Panamax size vessels (12,500-18,000 TEU or twenty-foot equivalent unit) and another 20% are for ultra-large container vessels (ULCV). Feeder vessels (up to 3,000 TEU) make up just over a third of the ordered vessels, representing 8% of the total capacity. The report says these investments are being driven not just by expected future demand but also by a desire among carriers to expand their fleet and introduce larger and more efficient vessels.
Indeed, it is unlikely that the additional capacity will be absorbed by increased demand any time soon. Moreover, as port congestion eases, previously blocked capacity is gradually being freed up. These supply chain improvements could significantly improve supply; especially considering that at the worst point in early 2022 up to 15% of capacity was tied up at the ports. The significant influx of new capacity, combined with sluggish trade growth, could potentially disrupt freight rates. And yet, we do not expect to see extensive order cancellations, as stakeholders will aim to preserve the efficiency gains they have made per unit carried.
That’s not to say that we won’t see capacity cuts. Container liners operating on the Asia–U.S. trade route, for example, have implemented a 14% reduction in capacity due to persistent weak demand and surplus capacity. And more capacity cuts may be on the way. While some container lines and analysts predicted a surge in cargo demand in August—driven by dwindling inventory stocks in the U.S. and the aftermath of recent port operation delays caused by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) strikes—that optimism has not been reflected at the ground level. Shippers, for their part, continue to observe weak demand, with only a slight increase in less-than-container load (LCL) shipments, indicating a lack of strong demand for full container load (FCL) shipments. Furthermore, many shippers have already adopted online spot rates, indicating a shift in their preferred approach to freight rate negotiations. To achieve rate stability, carriers will need to make more substantial capacity cuts, which will test their determination as they strive to push for rate increases in August.
Effective capacity management becomes crucial considering these circumstances. The container liners response to this uncertain scenario is yet to be seen. So far, liners have been driven to secure market share. Vessel utilization levels have already decreased (down to 75% in the first quarter), and freight rates have demonstrated fragility in the second quarter, with the potential for further decline. Given that container liners are financially strong, these circumstances could easily evolve into a prolonged price war.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
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).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.