2025 State of Transportation Report

Figure 1: Shippers’ top 3 considerations when establishing carrier partnerships1

2025
	57% Cost
	48% On-time pickup/delivery reliability
	37% Favorable shipment schedules

2024
	47% Add on services that enable me to consolidate vendors
	46% On-time pickup/delivery reliability
	45% Innovative technology capabilities
	45% Sustainable or alternative energy shipping capabilities

2023
	77% Cost
	64% Capacity
	63% On-time pickup/delivery reliability

Shippers’ actions reflect their increasing focus on controlling costs as they search for opportunities to optimize their networks. More than half (55%) are focused on expanding their use of additional transportation modes, such as rail and intermodal. Additionally, almost half (47%) plan to expand volume with core strategic carriers, compared with just 39% who plan to diversify carrier relationships [Fig. 2].

Figure 2: Steps shippers are taking to prepare for the anticipated market flip in 2025

		55% are expanding the use of additional transportation modes (e.g., rail or intermodal)
		52% are working to secure the lowest possible rates ahead of time
		47% are expanding volume with core strategic carriers
		47% are implementing advanced forecasting tools to predict demand more accurately
		42% investing in supply chain technology to improve visibility and efficiency
		39% are diversifying carrier relationships to ensure capacity
		36% are addressing high-risk lanes in their transportation networks
		24% are optimizing routes and consolidating shipments for cost-efficiency

This varied approach is indicative of every shipper’s unique network requirements and strategy. The decision to diversify or consolidate carriers depends on factors like geographic needs, capacity considerations, and risk management concerns.

Less than a quarter of shippers (24%) say they’re optimizing routes and consolidating shipments for cost efficiency. For shippers that don’t already have established strategies, it’s a missed opportunity ahead of the market flip. Fluctuating variables like fuel prices and spot market rates make route optimization and shipment consolidation critical strategies for controlling costs.

How to best-in-class shippers evaluate carriers? In the event of a freight market flip, a significant share of carriers hope to use their leverage to sign more contracts with premium shippers [Fig. 3]. To win that business, they may have to prove their operations are financially sound. Of shippers with more than $500 million in annual revenue, 41% said they consider a carrier’s financial stability when establishing a partnership, compared with just 28% of shippers with $500 million in annual revenue or less. How are carriers reacting to a potential market event? If and when the market flips, carriers expect to unlock new opportunities for growth. They plan to capitalize on a carrier favorable market by expanding their fleets and services (49%), signing more contracts with premium shippers (44%), raising prices (43%), and diversifying their customer bases (43%) [Fig. 3]. These strategies reflect carriers’ readiness to leverage a shifting market dynamic to strengthen their competitive positions and drive profitability.		Figure 3: Actions carriers plan to take if the freight market flips in 2025
				49% will expand fleet size or services
				44% will sign more contracts with premium shippers
				43% will raise prices/renegotiate contracts with existing customers
				43% will diversify their customer base
				39% will invest in route optimization technology
				37% will expand dedicated capacity

More challenges on the horizon for transportation teams The anticipated freight market flip won’t be the only event that impacts transportation strategies in 2025. A significant share of respondents across shippers and carriers also believe supply chain shortages (44%) and extreme climate events (44%) may affect the industry. Additionally, a third of respondents expect major regulatory changes (34%) and labor disruptions in other sectors of the supply chain (33%) to materialize [Fig. 4].

Figure 4: Disruptions most likely to impact the transportation industry in 2025

		44% of respondents think it’s supply chain shortages (e.g., parts, materials, or vehicles)
		44% of respondents think it’s extreme climate events (e.g., unusually strong storms, hurricanes, wildfires, drought)
		34% of respondents think it’s major regulatory changes (e.g., emissions standards, safety requirements)
		33% of respondents think it’s labor relations/strikes in related sectors (e.g., ports, railways
		27% of respondents think it’s an economic downturn or recession

With the White House proposing new tariffs on imported goods, domestic shipping volumes are expected to grow. Supply chain shortages may occur as the market adjusts to this new dynamic.

Compounding these challenges is the potential for domestic labor issues, and shippers are proactively taking steps to minimize possible disruptions. For 3 in 5 shippers (60%), labor uncertainty is one more reason to prioritize diversifying their transportation modes [Fig. 5].

Figure 5: How labor challenges are influencing shippers’ transportation strategy for 2025

		60% of shippers are focusing on diversifying transportation modes to bolster contingency plans
		51% of shippers are considering driver and port worker wellness as part of their RFP process to ensure they’re partnering with carriers who invest in their staff
		43% of shippers are seeking carriers with specific regional and lane-level experience
		37% of shippers are increasing their transportation budgets to account for potential disruptions (e.g. disruption surcharges)

Greater network diversity provides more contingency options in the event of a disruption. For example, some shippers may look to move some lanes from rail to truckload in 2025 to maintain strong carrier relationships in the event of service disruptions on rail. Others are leveraging opportunities with niche regional providers near ports to bolster their network.

How are freight fraud and cargo theft impacting transportation strategies?

While freight fraud continues to be a popular topic of conversation, many transportation leaders view cargo theft and freight fraud as less immediate or impactful concerns than other disruptions expected in 2025.

• Only 31% of shippers say insurance coverage for cargo theft or freight fraud is a consideration when establishing new partnerships with carriers over the next 12 months.
• When asked what types of disruptions are most likely to impact the transportation industry in 2025, just 11% of shippers and carriers selected cargo theft.
• Less than a quarter (21%) of shippers and carriers say they lean on freight fraud detection capabilities to stay agile and adaptable.

Transportation leaders feel prepared and confident in navigating change

Shippers’ forward-thinking approach to potential labor challenges in 2025 is suggestive of a broader trend: The challenges of the past few years have left transportation leaders more adaptable and comfortable with pivoting their strategies when circumstances change.

Most shippers (92%) believe their organizations are prepared to adapt to future disruptions affecting the transportation industry with agility. Of these, 37% believe their organizations are very prepared for future disruptions [Fig. 6].

Figure 6: Organizations’ readiness level to adapt to future disruptions affecting the transportation industry

		37% of all respondents feel their organization is very prepared – their company is very agile
		55% of all respondents feel their organization is somewhat prepared – their company is somewhat agile
		7% of all respondents feel their organization is somewhat unprepared – their company is somewhat slow-moving
		2% of all respondents feel their organization is very unprepared – their company is very slow-moving

What makes them so resilient and agile?

Among respondents who say their organizations are somewhat or very prepared, half (50%) say it’s due to access to reliable market insights that enable them to get ahead of changes and disruptions, and nearly as many (47%) credit a diversified network of carrier or shipper partners. Such partnerships offer flexibility and a buffer against unexpected challenges, such as capacity shortages or regional disruptions [Fig. 7].

More than a third of respondents (39%) named a fuel reimbursement program that moves with the market as an important tactic for organizational agility [Fig. 7]. This approach stabilizes costs during volatile periods, allowing organizations to maintain financial predictability in a fluctuating fuel economy.

Figure 7: How organizations that are “very” or “somewhat” prepared for disruptions stay agile and adaptable

		50% of all respondents say their organizations use market insights to get ahead of changes or disruptions
		47% of all respondents say their organizations diversify their network of carrier/shipper partners
		44% of all respondents say their organizations have flexible contracts to support adaptability
		39% of all respondents say their organizations have a fuel reimbursement program that moves with the market
		39% of all respondents say their organizations have granular, real-time data on every route to identify high-risk areas
		39% of all respondents say their organizations have predictive analytics that help anticipate disruptions
		28% of all respondents say their organizations have AI-powered freight optimization solutions
		21% of all respondents say their organizations have freight fraud detection capabilities/strategies

The takeaway

Diversification is a prevailing trend for 2025. Shippers are looking to diversify transportation modes and, in some cases, carrier partners in preparation for the expected market flip. Meanwhile, carriers seek to capitalize on the market event to diversify their customer bases. For both groups, working with a diverse group of partners is a top factor in their ability to remain resilient during disruptions.

Figure 8: Shippers’ sustainability-related transportation goals
2024			2025
		63% Achieving or fulfilling specific sustainability certifications or standards (e.g., science-based targets)			51% Achieving or fulfilling specific sustainability certifications or standards (e.g., science-based targets)
		60% Achieving a specific percentage reduction in greenhouse gas emissions			51% Achieving a specific percentage reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
		50% Achieving net-zero emissions			47% Achieving net-zero emissions
		45% Achieving carbon neutrality			44% Achieving carbon neutrality
		2% None of the above – we haven’t set any long-term sustainability-related transportation goals			13% None of the above – we haven’t set any long-term sustainability-related transportation goals

While it’s clear that sustainability remains a critical focus for shippers, the slight decline in long-term goal-setting may be an early indication that shippers are anticipating cost pressures from market dynamics along with uncertainty driven by a new administration in the White House. The federal government’s focus is shifting away from emissions policy and toward industrial policy, international trade, and immigration. Meanwhile, consumers, who also drive corporate sustainability action, remain focused on the elevated cost of goods. As a result, shippers may face less pressure to showcase their sustainability commitments. But no matter the root cause, delaying or deemphasizing sustainability is a short-sighted approach for U.S. shippers. Many operate globally and still need to demonstrate emissions reduction progress in European markets. Plus, pulling back on sustainability could leave shippers at a disadvantage relative to competitors that continue to prioritize sustainability in their freight strategies. It’s too soon to tell how this trend will develop. In the meantime, the share of shippers with transportation sustainability goals are relying on a variety of tactics and strategies to move the needle. Aside from tracking scope 1 transportation emissions from company-controlled assets, an action 52% of shippers are taking, there’s no clear consensus on how to make sustainability progress. A range of tactics are on the table, from tracking scope 3 transportation emissions (38%) to contracting with more sustainable carriers (37%) and increasing alternative energy usage (30%) [Fig. 9].

Figure 9: Top sustainability tactics for shippers who have set sustainability-related transportation goals

		52% Track scope 1 transportation emissions (i.e., direct emissions from controlled assets, like company-operated trucks)
		38% Track scope 3 transportation emissions (i.e., indirect upstream and downstream emissions, such as from carriers, 3PLs, or suppliers)
		37% Track scope 2 transportation emissions (i.e., indirect emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity usage at facilities)
		37% Contract with more sustainable carriers (e.g., SmartWay certified)
		36% Optimize routes to minimize distance traveled
		31% Prioritize educational opportunities for your transportation team to learn more about alternative energy options and impacts
		31% Consolidate or optimize shipments/load fill
		30% Increase use of alternative energy (e.g., EVs, biodiesel, hydrofuel)

A missed opportunity: Addressing sustainability in the RFP process

Only 14% of shippers say they include alternative energy requirements in their RFIs or RFPs. For shippers that want to limit diesel consumption, RFIs and RFPs are critical tools to influence carrier practices and attract innovative, forward-thinking partners. Likewise, with 38% of shippers committed to addressing scope 3 emissions, there is an opportunity for carriers to differentiate by proactively supporting shippers’ sustainability efforts.

How carriers’ approach to sustainability stacks up

Like shippers, carriers are taking a multidimensional approach to emissions reduction, with no single tactic clearly dominating their strategies.

Notably, carriers are leaning into technology and equipment upgrades that allow them to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets. Tracking scope 1 transportation emissions from controlled assets (43%) is the most common step, closely followed by upgrading to more fuel-efficient equipment (41%), implementing fuel-efficient technologies into vehicles (39%), and optimizing route planning to maximize fuel consumption (39%) [Fig. 11].

Figure 11: Carriers’ planned actions to reduce emissions in 2025

		43% Track scope 1 transportation emissions (i.e., direct emissions from controlled assets, like company-operated trucks)
		41% Replace older equipment with newer, more fuel-efficient equipment
		39% Implement fuel-efficient technologies in our vehicles (e.g., telematics, trailer aerodynamics, etc.)
		39% Optimize route planning to minimize fuel consumption
		34% Add battery electric vehicles to our fleet
		34% Conduct regular maintenance to ensure optimal vehicle performance

But overall, emissions reduction is tightly bound with costs. Price is both an incentive and a barrier to sustainability for carriers.

On the positive side, two-thirds of carriers (67%) say cost savings are an impetus for their sustainability efforts [Fig. 12]. This reflects the growing cost-competitiveness of alternative fuels like renewable diesel and renewable natural gas compared to traditional petroleum diesel, especially where incentive programs are available.

Figure 12: Top factors driving carriers’ sustainability efforts

		67% Cost savings
		50% Emissions reduction goals
		50% Shipper/consumer demand
		38% Regulatory requirements
		34% Pressure to stay competitive with peers

Just how big is the EV opportunity? A third of carriers (34%) say they plan to add battery electric vehicles (EVs) to their fleets in 2025 [Fig. 11]. But don’t expect to see an influx of EV tractor-trailers on highways just yet. The majority of the EV charging infrastructure across the U.S. only supports passenger and light-duty electric vehicles. That means in the transportation sector, EV adoption remains concentrated among light-duty trucks and Class 8 EVs that return to the depot each day. Yet despite small wins in some areas, carriers’ plans to adopt more sustainable fuel alternatives have lagged behind expectations. The majority of carriers (89%) have experienced at least one roadblock to using more sustainable fuel alternatives throughout their fleets. For more than half of carriers (57%), the high upfront cost of EVs, renewable natural gas vehicles, and other alternative fuel equipment has been a barrier to adoption. A third (33%) say limited access to alternative energy in their service area or along their routes has also been a limiting factor. Roughly a third (31%) also say they would need to charge shippers more to use alternative energy equipment, but shippers aren’t open to rate increases [Fig. 13].

Figure 13: Top factors delaying carriers’ adoption of more sustainable fuel alternatives

		57% High upfront cost/required capital investment
		33% Limited alternative energy or fuel availability in my area, or along our routes
		31% Shippers won’t accept rate increases to use alternative energy equipment
		29% Lack of public heavy-duty EV charging infrastructure
		27% Uncertainty about future regulations and policies
		27% Limited availability of alternative energy equipment

The takeaway

Sustainability will remain a priority for shippers and carriers in 2025, but other challenges may delay progress or pull focus. Notably, cost pressures may prevent shippers from setting more ambitious emissions reduction targets and continue to stall the adoption of alternative energies where cost is already a barrier. In the long term, alternative energies must be cost-competitive with diesel for widespread adoption to be feasible, even among shippers with robust sustainability commitments.

Where are alternative energy efforts focused?

Transportation leaders are prioritizing alternative energy sources where equipment is accessible and fuel costs are competitive with diesel. Alternatives to diesel are more widely available in 2025 than ever before, but it will take time and continued investment to reach critical mass.

Top 3 alternative energy priorities for shippers and carriers

1. Electric vehicles
2. Renewable natural gas (RNG)
3. Renewable diesel