How to choose an alternative route and transport mode during disruptions

Turn your contingency plan into a decision system

To prepare for supply chain disruptions, we recommend establishing a decision framework before drawing up a list of alternative ports or transport modes. Document in advance the conditions for abandoning the current plan, the checks an alternative must pass and who will approve the change. This allows you to separate collecting quotes from making decisions during a crisis.

Eurostat’s modal split statistics assess freight movement in tonne-kilometres and on the basis of activity within national borders. Do not use this indicator to rank speed or reliability for a specific shipment; use it to understand the overall structure of the network. Eurostat’s methodological explanation provides the basis for this distinction. The framework below is an original decision-making approach recommended for use at shipment level.

Check feasibility first

Before pricing alternatives, identify the shipment’s non-negotiable requirements. Confirm suitability in terms of dimensions, weight, packaging, temperature requirements, handling limits and the consignee’s acceptance conditions. Verify documentation and carrier acceptance requirements with the relevant operational parties. Do not shortlist options with uncertain suitability simply because they are inexpensive.

Next, clarify the journey covered by the quote: departure from the factory, terminal acceptance, main carriage, transshipment, arrival procedures and final delivery. Do not compare main-carriage transit time and estimated door-to-door delivery in the same column. For each option, record where the estimate begins and ends, and which steps have not yet been verified.

Test whether the route is genuinely independent

Eurostat emphasises that the availability of transport modes is linked to geography and existing networks. Therefore, do not assume that the same alternatives are available for every origin–destination pair based on national or modal shares. Source: Eurostat.

In your decision table, also specify which cause of disruption the alternative eliminates. If another carrier uses the same terminal or crossing point, mark it as an option with a shared dependency rather than an independent backup. Compare the route’s critical nodes, not just its name.

When assessing Türkiye–Europe shipments, also scrutinise the first- and last-leg connections of proposals involving a different exit crossing, port or delivery terminal. Distinguish the portion of the alternative confirmed by a booking from the portion still at the quotation stage. “Can be planned” and “capacity confirmed” should not have the same decision status.

Assess modal changes alongside the load unit

Eurostat’s review of containerisation explains that standard transport units support transfers between modes without rehandling the cargo itself. This feature makes it useful to treat equipment compatibility as a separate check when assessing a modal change. Source: Eurostat’s review of freight unitisation.

In your own checklist, ask about container or trailer acceptance, terminal equipment, repackaging requirements and the possibility of splitting the shipment. The same source also notes that some indicators across modes use different measurement bases; do not translate industry averages directly into shipment performance. Source: Eurostat.

For options whose suitability has been verified, you can compare service arrangements such as multimodal transport and separating out the critical quantity for shipment by air freight. Treat these not as automatic solutions, but as options subject to cargo acceptance and capacity confirmation.

Compare the total impact of the decision, not just freight rates

In the cost table, request additional inland transport, terminal, storage, repackaging and booking-change charges alongside the main-carriage cost. Assess the impact of disruption through stockouts, production schedules or customer delivery obligations that your business can verify. Leave unknown items explicitly uncertain rather than treating them as zero.

Use a two-stage selection process: first eliminate options that fail to meet mandatory suitability requirements; then compare the remaining options in terms of meeting delivery needs, total cost, shared exposure to disruption and flexibility to make changes. Procurement, production and logistics teams should set the criterion weights together. Do not allow a single overall score to conceal a critical failure to meet requirements.

Define the switching threshold and decision owner in advance

Finally, document the conditions that will activate the contingency plan: use business-specific thresholds such as loss of confirmed capacity, exceeding the period covered by available stock or falling outside the acceptable delivery window. For each threshold, define approval authority, the budget limit and the point for reassessment.

The decision record during a disruption should include the current option, the rejected alternative, the information used and outstanding uncertainties. The aim is not a perfect forecast, but to make clear which risk you accepted and why. This article is an independent assessment drawing on Eurostat sources; Eurostat is not responsible for the interpretations and recommendations.

Sources

Analysis and translations: Avemes Editorial. Source institutions are not responsible for this analysis or its translations.

• Freight transport statistics - modal split — Eurostat; n.d.; 2014-2024. CC BY 4.0
• Freight transported in containers - statistics on unitisation — Eurostat; n.d.; 2014-2024. CC BY 4.0