Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Officer Rolf Habben Jansen has called for more flexible freight contracts as sharp market swings put pressure on arrangements that fix rates for twelve months. His comments at the Xeneta Summit in Munich highlight a practical challenge for carriers, forwarders and shippers: how to preserve the planning benefits of long-term relationships while allowing prices, cargo commitments and service obligations to respond to changing conditions.

Commercial balance under pressure

In a LinkedIn post following the summit, Habben Jansen said successful partnerships need to create value for both sides. Relationships come under pressure when the economic benefits remain heavily unbalanced over time, however strong the underlying trust. He also pointed to growing customer expectations for reliability, operational agility and digital capabilities, areas in which Hapag-Lloyd continues to invest.

The pressure works in both directions. When spot rates rise well above contracted levels, shippers can face shortages of space, rolled cargo or demands to renegotiate. When the market falls, previously agreed rates may become uncompetitive, encouraging customers to shift volumes or seek reductions. The wider the gap becomes, the harder it is to maintain the commercial assumptions on which the agreement was based.

Forwarders sit between these competing pressures. A mismatch between the rate validity offered to a customer, the price secured from a carrier and the volume commitments on either side can squeeze margins and disrupt delivery. For a forwarder, a sustainable agreement depends on aligning these obligations across the full transaction, including what happens when demand or available capacity changes.

Carrier costs can also move rapidly. Hapag-Lloyd reported around US$600 million in additional cost headwinds arising from the Middle East conflict in the second quarter of 2026. Its earnings announcement identified pressures involving bunker fuel, insurance, storage, rerouting and inland transportation. Higher volumes and freight rates can help offset such costs, but operational disruption can still erode the resulting earnings improvement.

Demand for longer agreements remains strong

Xeneta disclosed at the summit that 36% of ocean contracts signed in 2026 ran for twelve months or longer, compared with 27% in 2020, the highest share in six years. Discussions involving DSV and Kuehne+Nagel explored how traditional contracts could be adapted, including fixing predictable baseline volumes while applying indexed pricing with an agreed range to the more volatile portion.

Contract duration, pricing frequency and volume flexibility can be designed separately. A relationship may last several years, with rates reviewed monthly or quarterly and cargo commitments allowing for seasonal changes. Each element serves a different business need. Carriers require a credible basis for deploying capacity; shippers need continuity for production and sales; finance teams need a framework for explaining and managing changes in expenditure.

For a shipper, the value of a long-term agreement ultimately depends on whether critical cargo moves as planned, space remains available during peak periods and costs stay within an acceptable range. Repeated renegotiations during disruption create additional work and can bring emergency procurement, inventory and delivery costs. Assessing a contract therefore requires looking at its execution alongside the rate agreed at the tender.

Carriers are offering different combinations of price and capacity

Hapag-Lloyd already offers flexibility through its commercial products. Its Quality Freight Product, or QFP, combines long-term agreements with guaranteed space and equipment, with fixed or dynamic pricing options. The Committed Volume Agreement, or CVA, offers priority access to space and equipment with a different level of commitment. It also allows fixed or dynamic pricing, with dynamic rates typically updated quarterly.

Maersk similarly separates capacity arrangements from the pricing mechanism in its Ocean Contract range. Some products offer a choice between fixed pricing and monthly indexed rates linked to Xeneta short-term rates or the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Its Block Space product uses weekly indexed pricing and specifies a customer commitment of 90% of the minimum quantity commitment, with unused space subject to deadfreight, while Maersk commits to providing 100% of the agreed quantity.

These structures allow prices to move with the market while preserving longer-term obligations around cargo and capacity. Predictable baseline volumes help carriers plan deployment, while defined space commitments support shippers’ production and inventory decisions. The commercial question is how to combine those commitments with enough flexibility to accommodate changes that neither party can forecast precisely.

Surcharge treatment can materially affect the result. For the relevant options, Maersk lists fixed pricing as subject to emergency and peak season surcharges, while the corresponding indexed pricing options exclude those two surcharges. Comparing offers requires examining the base ocean rate together with the adjustment provisions, so that buyers understand how total expenditure could change under different market conditions.

Indexed pricing needs clear operating rules

An index-linked agreement starts with a benchmark accepted by both parties and a formula for updating the rate. Xeneta’s documentation identifies parameters including the reference index, adjustment frequency, calculation method, starting price and any discount or premium. Contracts can also incorporate floors, ceilings and minimum adjustment thresholds. Together, these determine how closely the rate follows the market and how much volatility each party accepts.

Using an average index value over a defined period can smooth daily fluctuations. Quarterly adjustments offer a longer budgeting window but can leave a wider gap between the contractual rate and current market conditions. A ceiling can limit a shipper’s exposure to extreme increases, while a floor provides some revenue protection for the service provider. The appropriate balance depends on the stability each side needs and the risks it is prepared to retain.

The benchmark also needs to fit the service being purchased. A broad regional trend may differ from conditions affecting a particular port pair, equipment type or cargo requirement. Agreements should specify the charges covered by the benchmark, how adjustments are calculated and what happens when actual conditions diverge materially. Otherwise, negotiations over the rate can give way to disputes over the index and its application.

Volume forecasting is equally important. Shippers seeking reliable peak-season capacity need to provide credible cargo plans. Carriers receiving baseline commitments need to define the service they will deliver and how shortcomings will be addressed. From a commercial perspective, measurable obligations on both sides give a pricing mechanism a stronger basis for surviving changes in market conditions.

Reliability needs to be tested against actual delivery

Habben Jansen’s emphasis on reliability is consistent with Hapag-Lloyd’s Strategy 2030, which prioritises service quality, operational efficiency and digital capabilities. Its Gemini Cooperation with Maersk is part of that effort to improve network performance. For carriers, continued investment in networks and service depends on customers recognising the value of dependable transport. For shippers, that value must be visible in the movement of their cargo.

Performance also needs continuous scrutiny. In its account of the summit’s second day, Xeneta said Gemini remained ahead of the other alliances, but its own performance had deteriorated and it was failing to meet its 90% target on any trade lane. The assessment illustrates how route changes and operational disruption can test even networks whose commercial proposition places particular emphasis on reliability.

Shippers can bring that assessment down to shipment level: actual transit time, successful connections at transshipment hubs, the speed of disruption notices and the availability of workable alternatives. Considering these outcomes alongside procurement prices provides a better basis for assessing inventory costs, emergency replenishment and delivery exposure. Forwarders also have a role in translating flexible contracts into practical transport plans by tracking allocations, monitoring utilisation and reorganising shipments when services change.

Preparing for softer rates and further disruption

The 2027 outlook adds urgency to the contracting debate. In its forecast published on 5 November, Xeneta projected global container fleet growth of 6.8% against demand growth of 2.5% to 4%. It expected average spot rates in 2027 to be 30% below the third-quarter 2026 baseline, with average long-term rates 5% lower. A central assumption is the release of capacity as services return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal after longer diversions around the Cape of Good Hope.

That outlook gives shippers an incentive to secure the benefits of a falling market, while carriers seek to preserve cargo volumes and network utilisation. Xeneta also warned that major supply chain shocks could overturn the expected direction of rates. Adjustment rules that work through both increases and decreases offer a more durable basis for agreement than provisions designed around only one side of the cycle.

For the next tender cycle, procurement can be organised around the predictability of cargo and the consequences of delay. Stable baseline volumes can support defined capacity commitments, seasonal increases can be given agreed flexibility, and occasional shipments can retain access to the spot market. The pricing mechanism for each portion should reflect the buyer’s budget tolerance and delivery requirements.

The next round of negotiations will need to settle specific operating questions: when prices reset, how volumes are declared and revised, how costs are allocated when routes change, and how service performance is recorded. Resolving those issues in advance gives carriers, forwarders and shippers a better chance of keeping their agreements functioning when freight markets change direction again.