Produce shippers seek carrier metrics to prevent costly delays

By James Calloway

Nearly two-thirds of produce supply-chain respondents saw costs rise by 10% or more, and one in seven reported increases above 50%, according to the Global Coalition of Fresh Produce’s latest survey, published last week.

The survey found 85% of respondents reporting higher costs in each of five categories: fuel, shipping, fertiliser, plant protection products and packaging.

Most respondents struggled to pass those increases on to customers. Almost two-thirds considered their medium-term economic sustainability threatened, according to the alliance of produce shippers.

What does the GCFP charter cover?

At this month’s Fruit Attraction event in Madrid, the Global Coalition of Fresh Produce unveiled its charter of best practices for produce supply chains. The initiative seeks a collaborative approach among all participants.

The charter calls for collaboration and communication, fair and transparent business terms, competition and efficiency, cargo integrity and product quality. It also supports optimal handling, resilience and risk preparedness.

The charter was well received at the event, although some industry executives said it did not go far enough to produce transformative change.

Why does an on-time vessel still fail an importer?

Edouard Brière, founder of Trackberry, a container tracking and document automation platform for fresh produce importers, called the charter “a welcome step forward.” He said it needed importer-focused measurements to succeed.

Brière argued that an estimated time of arrival at the destination port misses the effect of schedule changes on importers. Whether a vessel arrives technically on time becomes irrelevant if its container cannot move when the importer planned, because of a transit schedule update, late documentation or another disruption.

A container that is not ready as planned rapidly adds port storage, electricity for the reefer, a wasted truck journey and warehouse costs. Those expenses pale beside penalties for missing buyer deadlines for selling produce in a planned window, according to Brière, who also cited lost future business.

“The recurrent frustration [for importers] is not that a ship is late. It’s that they find out too late to do anything about it,” Brière said.

What should carriers measure?

Brière said importer-focused performance reporting should track:

• How close the actual arrival is to the estimate issued one week ahead.
• How often the estimated arrival changes.
• How late the importer receives notice of a change.
• Whether documents required for customs clearance arrive ahead of the cargo.

He said measuring carrier reliability would not require complex data. A container number and its promised departure and arrival dates would provide the minimum information needed, allowing importers to compare performance across individual shipments, lanes and carriers.

That tracking would show how far the expected arrival moves from the schedule provided, rather than recording only whether a vessel reached its published destination date on time.

What changes for shippers, carriers and forwarders?

For shippers, the critical failure point is the buyer’s sale window, not the vessel’s berth. Missing that window can cost more than port storage, reefer electricity, truck and warehouse expenses combined.

For carriers, the proposed lane-and-carrier comparison would judge service against importer readiness rather than the published sailing schedule alone. Shippers and forwarders would receive earlier notice when estimates move, preserving time to respond instead of learning about a disruption after useful action is no longer possible.

With most respondents unable to pass higher costs to customers, the charter’s next test is whether the coalition can turn broader collaboration principles into container-level, lane-specific measures that reduce costly delays and deadline failures.