Index-Based Freight Contracts: A Risky Shift for Shippers
As the global shipping industry grapples with volatility, index-based freight contracts have emerged as a seemingly data-driven solution for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). These contracts promise transparency and alignment with market conditions. However, many shippers are discovering that they may inadvertently shift risks rather than provide real value, raising concerns about whether these contracts truly serve the interests of BCOs.
The Power Shift in Freight Contracts
The landscape of freight contracts has changed dramatically over the past two decades, particularly due to industry consolidation. By the late 2010s, a mere 10 carriers controlled about 85% of global shipping capacity. This consolidation has empowered carriers to move away from fixed-rate contracts, which were once the norm, pushing instead for index-based models as a condition for accessing capacity. This shift not only represented a pricing innovation but also a strategic power move that many logistics managers found difficult to counter.
The rise of freight indexes such as the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) and Xeneta has further complicated matters. These indexes present data that appears objective and reliable. Procurement teams favor them for their auditability and benchmarking capabilities, which help mask any perceived inefficiencies. Carriers, on the other hand, appreciate the ability to transfer the risks associated with spot market volatility onto their customers. This shifting of risk can leave BCOs vulnerable, particularly when market conditions fluctuate.
Including decarbonisation in ocean bids and procurement decisions: 5 key changes
The Illusion of Transparency and Loss of Leverage
Though marketed as objective indicators, many freight indexes rely on spot market data, known for its volatility. This creates a mismatch for BCOs, who typically operate on long-term budgets and planning cycles. When freight rates surge, index-linked contracts adjust swiftly. Conversely, when markets soften, the relief often comes slowly or is diluted through averaging methods, creating an imbalance that favors carriers.
Moreover, the automation of pricing mechanisms diminishes shippers’ leverage. Long-standing discussions around volume commitments and loyalty transform into routine administrative tasks. As a result, BCOs may end up paying for rate fluctuations they did not cause, all while losing control over critical service outcomes.
To navigate this complex landscape, shippers need to rethink their approach to contracts. Indexing can serve as a useful tool in specific contexts, such as tactical lanes or short-term agreements, but should be accompanied by governance mechanisms like rate ceilings and service-related adjustments. In a world where volatility is increasingly the norm, the focus should shift from merely identifying market rates to ensuring contracts provide control, predictability, and accountability. As we look toward 2026, the evolution of freight contracts will hinge on smarter contract architectures that incorporate hybrid pricing and risk-sharing models, moving beyond simple pricing formulas to foster genuine partnerships.
