.png)
Carrier selection has always been one of the most influential decisions in freight procurement. Yet even as the industry has matured, many organisations still evaluate carriers using a process that relies heavily on past experience, incomplete data and subjective weighting.
Rate is only one part of a carrier’s performance. Reliability, transit predictability, emissions intensity and capacity behavior all carry financial and operational consequences. But accessing consistent, unbiased data across all carriers has historically been difficult.
As a result, procurement teams often make decisions based on the information they can gather, not the information they actually need.
A growing number of global shippers are challenging that model. They are shifting to multi-dimensional scorecards that compare carriers with the same metrics, the same definitions and the same data quality. And that shift is already reshaping how they award business, structure partnerships and defend their decisions internally.
Several organisations shared their experience during recent early access evaluations. Their insights outline a clear and emerging pattern: the companies best prepared for the next tender cycle will be the ones replacing subjective carrier comparison with transparent, evidence-based evaluation.
When habit becomes a hidden procurement cost
Carrier decisions are often influenced by history. The same carriers receive invitations to tenders. The same assumptions shape internal conversations. The same performance anecdotes guide decision-making long after conditions have changed.
One procurement leader put it simply.
“This opens up new possibilities for our team; everyone can evaluate carriers using the same objective benchmark data, free from historical biases. It will open our minds and ensure we are optimising our carrier mix.”
This is a challenge many organisations recognise. Bias is rarely intentional. It comes from familiarity, past experiences or long-standing relationships. But when the market shifts quickly or new lanes are introduced, historical loyalty does not always align with current performance realities.
Without an objective benchmark to compare reliability, transit times, emissions and capacity behaviour, it becomes difficult to:
- Assess whether current suppliers still outperform alternatives
- Introduce new carriers with confidence
- Defend decisions internally with data that stands up to scrutiny
- Build partnerships aligned to long-term performance, not legacy expectations
The pain of building scorecards manually
Before adopting structured comparisons, many shippers rely on custom-built Excel models or fragmented sources of performance data. These scorecards often require weeks of manual work to:
- Collect carrier information from inconsistent reports
- Reconcile internal data with external benchmarks
- Normalize definitions
- Adjust weightings
- Rebuild the same model every tender cycle
By the time the scorecard is complete, the market may have already moved.
One global procurement manager from the apparel industry described the challenge of combining internal and external metrics.
“The potential we see in a unified scorecard is that we can use the same metrics we use internally, but grounded in external data as well. That alignment has been missing.”
The cost of manual work is not only time. It increases the risk of errors, creates inconsistent evaluation frameworks across regions and makes it harder for procurement, logistics and finance to operate from the same version of the truth.
Organisations need something more reliable and significantly faster.
Why teams are shifting toward multi-dimensional scoring
The move toward structured, holistic carrier comparison is driven by three forces reshaping freight procurement.
Service quality now impacts cost as much as rate
Unreliable carriers increase buffer stock, delay production and extend lead times. A low rate with poor performance is rarely a low rate once the true cost is measured.
Sustainability is becoming a procurement priority
Emissions benchmarking is no longer optional for many global tender processes. Scorecards must capture emissions intensity transparently and fairly.
Capacity behaviour matters
Blank sailings, service changes and network reliability have a direct impact on planning. Procurement teams increasingly want evidence of operational discipline, not just price competitiveness.
These are metrics that cannot be evaluated consistently without a shared, neutral data foundation.
What modern carrier evaluation looks like
Teams adopting a multi-dimensional scorecard describe several immediate advantages.
Shared language
Everyone evaluates carriers using the same definitions and the same metrics. Internal debates become grounded in evidence rather than preference.
Configurable weighting
A mid-sized shipper emphasised how important this flexibility is.
“The best aspect is choosing which factor matters most. Adjusting the weight of transit time or reliability changes the entire decision.”
Each organisation can tailor the scorecard to the priorities of their procurement strategy, whether that is service reliability, sustainability, network performance or delivered cost variability.
Stronger alignment with logistics and finance
When performance metrics are transparent, cross-functional discussions become faster and more productive. Finance gains evidence for audit trails. Logistics gains visibility into service quality. Procurement gains leverage in negotiations.
Confidence in awarding business
Carrier decisions become easier to justify, internally and externally. The scorecard itself becomes the proof.
A more strategic way to manage carrier portfolios
The organisations adopting structured performance scorecards are not simply trying to optimise one tender. They are building a foundation for longer-term strategy.
They can identify underperforming lanes before peak season. They can spot where reliance on a single carrier creates unnecessary risk. They can discover carriers who quietly outperform incumbents. They can shift volumes without relying solely on anecdotal feedback. And they can evaluate sustainability impact in the same frame as service.
The result is a procurement model that is more resilient, more transparent and more aligned with the real conditions of global shipping.
Carrier selection is becoming a data discipline, not an intuition exercise
The industry is moving in this direction not because the tools have changed, but because the stakes have changed. Reliability, emissions and capacity are no longer side metrics. They have become central to cost control, risk mitigation and supply chain performance.
Shippers who modernise now will enter the next tender cycle with a clear advantage. They will know who delivers, who needs improvement and where their portfolio has gaps.
And they will make those decisions without relying on guesswork, legacy bias or incomplete information.
Belief is not a business case
If your team is evaluating how to modernise its carrier comparison process, the best next step is seeing how performance varies across your own key lanes.
You can compare carriers side by side, test weightings, align internal stakeholders and uncover insights that transform how you award business.
Learn more about how the Xeneta client community are evaluating carriers and explore the Carrier Comparison Scorecard today.
