ESSFeed Intelligence · June 25, 2026
Freight Forwarders Face a New Profitability Trap as Global Shipping Markets Stabilise in 2026 — What Food and Beverage Supply Chain Leaders Need to Know
The hardest part of a shipping crisis is not always the crisis itself. For the global freight forwarding industry, the second half of 2026 is shaping up to deliver a counterintuitive commercial challenge — one that is easy to miss precisely because it arrives dressed as good news.
Global shipping markets are beginning to stabilise after months of geopolitical turmoil driven by Strait of Hormuz disruptions, Houthi activity in the Red Sea, erratic freight rates, and the kind of operational unpredictability that defined the first six months of the year. A potential peace agreement between the United States and Iran now appears increasingly attainable. The tanker insurance market is steadying. Route predictability is returning. For food and beverage supply chain leaders who spent the first half of 2026 managing disruption, this should be welcome news.
It is. But it comes with a margin trap that many freight forwarders — and the food and beverage companies who depend on them — are not yet adequately prepared for.
Table of Contents
The Recovery Phase Problem: When Customer Expectations Reset Before Costs Do
The central insight from Oliver Gritz, Founder and CEO of OntegosCloud — a platform focused on freight forwarder profitability — is deceptively simple but commercially critical: stability does not automatically mean profitability.
The sequence of events in a shipping market recovery follows a predictable pattern. Customer confidence rebounds first. Procurement teams quickly recalibrate their expectations when they sense market conditions improving, demanding lower transport costs, pushing back on temporary surcharges, and applying competitive pricing pressure that was constrained during the crisis period when options were limited. The problem is that the underlying cost structures within freight forwarding operations do not adjust at the same speed.
Insurance premiums negotiated during peak disruption remain elevated long after the geopolitical situation that triggered them has resolved. Network inefficiencies accumulated through months of route diversification and operational improvisation persist in processes and staffing structures. Contractual obligations forged during the turbulent period bind forwarders to arrangements that no longer reflect the emerging market reality. Working capital strains built up through months of complex, exception-heavy operations continue to weigh on cash positions.
The result is a margin squeeze that arrives at precisely the moment when everyone — customers, management, and markets — believes the worst is over. As Gritz observed, customer confidence is the first aspect to bounce back, while profitability is often the last, creating a breeding ground for margin pressure.
What Forwarders Built in H1 2026 — and What They Risk Losing in H2
During the first six months of 2026, freight forwarders navigated an environment defined by erratic freight rates, steep insurance costs, route unpredictability, and persistent supply chain interruptions. These conditions were operationally demanding. But they also enforced a commercial discipline that was commercially valuable — companies sharpened their pricing strategies, strengthened margin oversight, improved cost recoupment mechanisms, and developed a level of operational rigour that lean market conditions rarely demand.
That discipline is now at risk of eroding precisely as conditions improve.
The four commercial challenges likely to define freight forwarding in the second half of 2026 are clearly identifiable. Margin compression is the first, driven by customer expectations outpacing the pace of cost structure adjustment — procurement teams pushing for lower rates before insurance, repositioning, and operational costs have normalised. Profitability transparency is the second — in the first half, forwarders prioritised operational visibility and disruption handling; in the second half they will need detailed insight into profitability at the shipment, customer, and service level to make sound commercial decisions. Revenue recovery is the third — billing complexities introduced during the disruption period, including surcharges, operational exceptions, and customised client agreements, often persist in processes long after conditions improve, creating ongoing revenue leakage and cost recapture failures. Cash recovery is the fourth — outstanding receivables, unresolved disputes, and the working capital strains built up during H1 are projected to continue impacting financial results deep into the second half, even as operational conditions brighten.
The companies that navigate this transition successfully will not necessarily be those in the most stable markets. They will be those that maintain commercial discipline as conditions improve — protecting margins, recovering revenue consistently, and converting operational recovery into genuine financial performance.
Why This Matters Specifically for Food and Beverage Supply Chains
For food and beverage companies, the freight forwarding transition from disruption to recovery management is not a distant industry dynamic. It is an active variable in procurement cost planning, supplier relationship management, and food logistics budget forecasting for the second half of 2026 and into 2027.
The food industry’s dependence on international freight is acute and structurally unavoidable. Dairy ingredients from Ireland and the Netherlands, beef from Argentina and Brazil, grain from North America, seafood from Norway and Asia, packaging materials from across Asia-Pacific, and the finished packaged goods that flow between every major manufacturing region — all of these move through the freight forwarding infrastructure that is now entering the recovery phase described above.
For procurement and supply chain teams the immediate practical implication is straightforward: do not assume that stabilising shipping market indicators translate directly into lower landed costs on your next supplier invoice. Forwarders carrying elevated cost structures from H1 2026 will need to recover those costs somewhere, and the most commercially sophisticated ones will do so through mechanisms — surcharge maintenance, contract structure, minimum volume commitments — that are easy to miss in a purchasing review focused on headline rate movement.
For food and beverage CFOs and finance teams the cash flow implication deserves specific attention. Outstanding freight invoices, disputed surcharges, and working capital pressures accumulated during the disruption period will continue flowing through supplier accounts payable and freight cost lines well into Q3 and Q4 2026. Companies that budget for a clean H2 cost normalisation without accounting for this lag will find their freight cost variance unfavourable against plan.
For logistics managers and 3PL relationships the recovery phase is a natural contract review trigger. Companies that renegotiated freight terms during the crisis — accepting higher rates, broader force majeure provisions, or temporary surcharge structures — should be systematically reviewing those agreements now that market conditions are improving. The window between market stabilisation and the point where forwarders lock in new contract cycles is commercially important.
For food importers and exporters specifically exposed to the Strait of Hormuz the approaching resolution of Iran-US tensions is operationally significant. A full reopening of normal routing through the Strait — rather than the continued Cape of Good Hope diversions that have added 10–14 days to Asia-Europe voyage times — would structurally reduce both voyage times and per-voyage fuel costs. But the timing of that normalisation, and how quickly those savings translate into commercial rate reductions, will depend heavily on the pace at which carrier contract cycles reset.
The Broader Context: Where Food and Beverage Logistics Sits in H2 2026
This forwarding profitability dynamic plays out against a broader logistics market backdrop that is already under significant pressure. The Drewry World Container Index declined to USD 2,107 per 40-foot container in late January 2026, reflecting a gradual unwinding of disruption-driven pricing. Global container ship capacity is projected to rise approximately 36% between 2023 and 2027, creating structural overcapacity that is progressively shifting negotiating power toward shippers.
For food and beverage importers and exporters, the medium-term rate environment should be favourable. But the forwarding profitability transition described above means that the path from lower spot rates to lower total landed cost is not automatic. The commercial layer between the carrier and the shipper — the freight forwarder — is where the margin recovery dynamic will play out, and food companies that understand this layer will be better positioned to negotiate effectively as conditions evolve through H2.
The food industry’s logistics bill is enormous. Global food logistics is valued at USD 187–330 billion in 2026. The difference between a logistics market that has stabilised and one that has fully normalised in terms of cost structure is measurable in hundreds of millions of dollars of procurement cost for the industry as a whole. Understanding where that transition stands — and where it is likely to be in 90 days — is a genuinely material commercial intelligence question for every procurement director and supply chain executive operating across international food trade.
Strategic Takeaways for F&B Supply Chain Leaders
Review outstanding H1 freight invoices and disputed surcharges now. The working capital and cash recovery pressure on freight forwarders in H2 means that disputes that have been sitting unresolved will be actively managed from the forwarder side. A proactive review from the shipper side is commercially preferable to a reactive one.
Do not benchmark freight costs against H1 2026 peaks. The relevant benchmark for H2 freight cost planning is pre-disruption structural rates, not the elevated rates that defined Q1 and Q2. Setting H2 budget targets against H1 actuals understates the potential rate improvement achievable as markets normalise.
Interrogate surcharge structures in forwarding contracts. The billing complexities — surcharges, operational exceptions, customised agreements — introduced during the disruption period are now commercially renegotiable for many shippers. A systematic review of contract terms with key forwarding partners is a direct margin protection activity.
Build the Strait of Hormuz normalisation into scenario planning. The US-Iran diplomatic trajectory suggests that a meaningful improvement in Hormuz routing conditions is a realistic H2 scenario rather than a distant possibility. Food supply chains with significant Asia-Middle East-Europe routing exposure should have a documented scenario plan for what full Hormuz normalisation means for their freight cost structure and transit time planning.
Treat forwarding partner profitability as a supply chain risk variable. Forwarders operating under severe margin pressure are operationally vulnerable — they are more likely to deprioritise service levels, reduce capacity commitments, and ultimately consolidate or exit markets. Understanding the financial health of key forwarding partners is a supply chain resilience question as much as a commercial one.
Related:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is causing freight forwarders to face profitability pressure in the second half of 2026?
Freight forwarders face a counterintuitive profitability challenge in H2 2026 as global shipping markets stabilise after months of geopolitical disruption. The core dynamic is that customer expectations normalise faster than underlying cost structures. As the Strait of Hormuz situation improves and shipping rates decline, procurement teams immediately demand lower freight costs, push back on surcharges, and apply competitive pricing pressure. However, forwarders continue to carry elevated insurance premiums, repositioning costs, network inefficiencies, and contractual obligations forged during the disruption period. Insurance expenses, working capital strains, and operational costs accumulated during H1 often linger in forwarding operations well after market sentiment improves. The result is margin compression that arrives at precisely the moment when conditions appear to be improving — customer confidence rebounds first while profitability is often the last metric to recover.
How does freight market stabilisation affect food and beverage procurement costs in H2 2026?
Stabilising freight markets do not automatically translate into lower landed costs for food and beverage importers and exporters. The commercial layer between shipping carriers and food shippers — the freight forwarding sector — carries elevated H1 cost structures that need to be recovered through H2. Food and beverage procurement teams should not budget for a clean and immediate cost normalisation as container rates decline. Outstanding invoice disputes, surcharge structures negotiated during the disruption period, and working capital recovery mechanisms on the forwarding side will delay the translation of lower spot rates into lower total procurement costs. The realistic timeline for full cost structure normalisation in food freight logistics runs into Q3 and potentially Q4 2026 for many operators.
What is the commercial significance of a Strait of Hormuz reopening for food supply chains?
A full normalisation of routing through the Strait of Hormuz — made possible by the improving US-Iran diplomatic situation — would be operationally significant for food supply chains with Asia-Middle East-Europe exposure. The rerouting of vessels around the Cape of Good Hope since late 2023 has added approximately 10–14 days to Asia-Europe voyage times, increasing per-voyage fuel costs, extending transit times for temperature-sensitive cargo, and reducing the commercial viability of certain fresh produce categories in long-haul ocean freight. Full Hormuz normalisation would reduce voyage times, lower fuel cost per tonne of cargo, and structurally improve the economics of chilled and frozen food categories in long-haul ocean trade. However, the timeline between geopolitical resolution and commercial rate normalisation depends on the pace of carrier contract cycle resets and the forwarding cost structure recovery described above.
What are the four main commercial challenges for freight forwarders in H2 2026?
The four commercial challenges identified for freight forwarders in the second half of 2026 are: first, margin compression driven by customer pricing expectations outpacing the pace of operational cost adjustment; second, profitability transparency — the need for shipment-level, customer-level, and service-level margin visibility to guide sound commercial decisions as conditions shift; third, revenue recovery — billing complexities introduced during the disruption period, including surcharges, operational exceptions, and customised agreements, often persist as revenue leakage risks long after disruption ends; and fourth, cash recovery — outstanding receivables, unresolved disputes, and working capital pressures built up during H1 are projected to continue impacting financial results deep into the second half of the year.
What should food and beverage supply chain leaders do right now in response to freight market stabilisation?
Food and beverage supply chain leaders should take five specific actions in response to the H2 2026 freight market stabilisation. Review outstanding H1 freight invoices and disputed surcharges proactively rather than waiting for forwarder-initiated recovery. Benchmark H2 freight cost targets against pre-disruption structural rates rather than H1 disruption peaks. Review surcharge structures and contract terms with key forwarding partners, as the billing complexities introduced during the crisis period are now commercially renegotiable. Build Strait of Hormuz normalisation into supply chain scenario planning as a realistic H2 development. And treat forwarding partner financial health as a supply chain risk variable — forwarders under severe margin pressure are operationally vulnerable, and understanding their financial position is a resilience consideration as well as a commercial one.
Sources and Additional References
| Source | Description | URL |
|---|---|---|
| OntegosCloud / Supply Chain Connect | Primary source analysis from Oliver Gritz, Founder and CEO of OntegosCloud, on freight forwarder profitability challenges in H2 2026 | https://www.scmr.com/article/freight-forwarders-face-new-profitability-pressures |
| ESSFeed Intelligence — Global Transport, Shipping and Logistics Report 2026 | ESSFeed’s comprehensive analysis of the global food logistics market, container shipping dynamics, Strait of Hormuz impact, and cold chain infrastructure | https://essfeed.com/global-food-beverage-logistics-industry-report-2026 |
| Drewry World Container Index | Global container shipping rate benchmark — primary source for container freight rate data | https://www.drewry.co.uk/supply-chain-advisors/supply-chain-expertise/world-container-index-assessed-by-drewry |
| DHL Logistics of Things | Ocean and air freight diverging paths in 2026 — primary DHL market intelligence on freight rate dynamics | https://lot.dhl.com/ocean-air-freight-diverging-paths-2026/ |
| Supply Chain Dive | 2026 logistics outlook — AI, ocean freight, last-mile, and operational volatility analysis | https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/2026-logistics-outlook |
