Now It’s Forwarders ‘Behaving Badly’ as Well as Carriers

Why It Matters

The episode highlights how unchecked forwarder pricing power can inflate logistics costs and erode trust, threatening supply‑chain stability during periods of disruption.

Key Takeaways

• Forwarders demanded surcharges ranging from 0% to 250% on identical lanes
• GSA abandoned consensus effort, shippers revert to ad‑hoc spot voting
• Ocean carriers limited extra fees to fuel and war‑risk only
• COVID‑era surcharge alignment succeeded, unlike current market
• Excessive forwarder charges may damage long‑term shipper relationships

Pulse Analysis

Freight forwarders have long acted as the middlemen between shippers and carriers, wielding considerable influence over pricing, especially when market conditions are volatile. The Global Shippers Association, representing roughly $5 billion in annual logistics spend, attempted to impose a structured surcharge framework across key origin‑destination pairs. However, the forwarder response was anything but uniform—some quoted zero assistance while others sought up to a 250% premium for the same lane. This fragmentation forced the GSA to abandon the initiative, leaving members to rely on ad‑hoc spot rates and exposing the fragility of collective bargaining in the freight‑forwarding sector.

The divergence in forwarder behavior stands in stark contrast to ocean carriers, which have largely restrained themselves to fuel and war‑risk surcharges. Carriers face a market where container demand remains subdued and capacity is abundant, creating a strategic incentive to preserve long‑term relationships rather than chase short‑term windfalls. During the COVID‑19 crisis, the GSA managed to secure forwarder consensus on monthly surcharge adjustments, demonstrating that alignment is possible when both parties recognize mutual benefit. The current lack of cohesion suggests that some forwarders view disruption as an opportunity to extract higher margins, a practice that could prompt shippers to reassess contract structures and demand greater pricing transparency.

Looking ahead, shippers may push for more granular data sharing and standardized surcharge benchmarks to curb opportunistic pricing. Industry bodies could facilitate real‑time benchmarking platforms, enabling members to compare forwarder proposals across identical lanes instantly. Such mechanisms would not only restore confidence but also mitigate the risk of inflated logistics costs spilling over into end‑product pricing, preserving competitiveness across the supply chain.