Every time ocean freight between Asia and Europe calms down after a volatile stretch, I get some version of the same question: does this mean we can go back to sourcing the way we did before — one main supplier, lowest landed cost, don't overthink it? The honest answer is no, and the reason has nothing to do with freight.
Rates flattening is a real, welcome change. It makes the cost gap between a single Asian supplier and a diversified Asia–Gulf–Europe mix smaller than it's been in a while. But the diversification itself wasn't really a freight-cost decision in the first place — it was a response to how often one route, one port or one supplier turned out to be a single point of failure. Cheaper freight doesn't change how exposed a one-supplier setup still is; it just changes the price you'd be paying for that exposure.
What's actually worth revisiting
- Landed-cost comparisons that were run during the expensive-freight period — worth re-running now, since the gap has likely narrowed, not disappeared.
- Minimum order quantities that were inflated purely to spread freight cost — some of that padding may no longer be necessary.
- Backup suppliers that were qualified under time pressure — calmer freight is a good moment to actually finish that qualification properly, not drop it.
Rates will move again — they always do. The sourcing structure that held up through the expensive stretch is worth keeping, even while the current numbers make it tempting to simplify back down to one supplier.
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.