As supply chains become more complex and dynamic, shippers and their logistics partners are seeking strategic partnerships that drive long-term value while fostering innovation and improving resilience.
Several factors are influencing the shift toward these deeper collaborations. For shippers, key motivators include supply chain disruptions and complexity, cost optimization opportunities, and digital transformation and technology integration priorities. On the 3PL side, the drivers include the demand for end-to-end visibility, customization and value-add services, and cost optimization.
Transitioning from transactional relationships to truly strategic partnerships requires time, trust, joint investment and alignment on shared goals. Strategic partnerships often involve formal mechanisms to support long-term collaboration. However, the research shows that shippers and their logistics partners aren’t always aligned on what those mechanisms should be. Additionally, they are less engaged in strategic mechanisms aimed at fostering long-term collaboration than might be expected.
Notably, a higher percentage of 3PLs (94%) cite the use of quarterly business reviews compared to shippers (68%). Both groups show greater alignment on the use of service level agreements (SLAs), which 56% of 3PLs and 63% of shippers cite. 3PLs note gain-sharing agreements more frequently than shippers.
Several attributes serve as hallmarks of strategic shipper-3PL relationships, including co-investment opportunities. Coordination on operational improvements is the most common form of collaboration, which 65% of shippers and 62% of 3PLs cite. In contrast, just 35% of shippers but 62% of 3PLs cite warehouse automation and robotics. Additionally, 46% of 3PLs indicate involvement with human capital engagements, compared to 6% of shippers. The discrepancies in these percentages are likely due to 3PL respondents having greater involvement with operational and labor resources.
More generally, research into this special topic suggests many 3PL-customer relationships that are described in terms such as partnerships and “win-win” are not as strategic as may be intended.