由 lltx1822 The Pain of Costs: How Port Congestion Drives Up Global Logistics and Trade Expenses
**
Ports, as the core hubs of the global supply chain, handle over 80% of the world’s import and export cargo transport. When vessels at Hong Kong’s port wait 3-5 days to berth, when unloading delays at Europe’s Antwerp Port exceed 7 days, when the Red Sea crisis forces route detours of thousands of nautical miles, congestion is no longer a localized problem for a single port. It has evolved, through a full-chain transmission of “vessel – cargo – enterprise – market,” into a systemic risk that drives up global logistics and trade costs. This cost pressure includes both the soaring of direct expenditures like fuel and demurrage charges, and covers hidden losses like order defaults, inventory backlogs, and loss of market pricing power, ultimately borne collectively by manufacturing enterprises, consumers, and even national economies.
I. The Direct Cost Blow to Shipping Companies: Surging Expenditures from Declining Operational Efficiency
Port congestion impacts shipping companies most directly, with various expenses increasing geometrically due to declining vessel turnaround efficiency, becoming the core driver of rising maritime transport costs.
(I) Vessel Demurrage and Detour Costs: Time Loss Converted into Real Money
Vessel waiting time at ports directly translates into demurrage costs. The average berthing wait time for vessels at Hong Kong’s port is 3-5 days, even exceeding 7 days during peak periods. A single ultra-large container ship of 18,000 TEUs has a daily operating cost of approximately $300,000. Demurrage alone incurs an additional expense of $900,000 to $1.5 million per port call per vessel. Congestion at European ports is even more severe. Unloading delays at Antwerp Port are 3-5 days behind schedule, with cumulative congestion time exceeding 7 days, forcing leading shipping companies like MSC and Maersk to adjust routes and cancel some port calls. While route adjustments can avoid congestion, detours often extend voyages by thousands of nautical miles. During the Red Sea crisis, vessels detouring via the Cape of Good Hope increased Asia-Europe route distances by approximately 30%, raising fuel costs by over $200 per ton, adding $1-2 million in fuel expenditure per vessel per voyage.
(II) Declining Capacity Turnover Efficiency: Hidden Costs Amplify Operational Pressure
Port congestion directly reduces vessel turnover rates, leading to a decrease in effective capacity supply. Under normal circumstances, a container ship completing a round-trip on the Asia-Europe route takes about 35 days. Congestion extends this turnover time to 45-50 days, equivalent to each vessel completing 2-3 fewer voyages per year. To maintain capacity supply, shipping companies are forced to deploy more vessels or lease additional capacity, further pushing up operating costs. Data shows that while global maritime trade volume is projected to grow only 0.5% in 2025, freight rate volatility has expanded to over 30%, largely due to capacity supply-demand imbalances caused by port congestion. Additionally, congestion increases hidden expenses like crew costs (overtime pay) and vessel maintenance costs (prolonged berthing accelerates equipment wear), comprehensively raising shipping companies’ operating costs by 20%-30%.
(III) Emergency Scheduling Costs: Additional Burdens of Route Adjustments and Resource Redeployment
To cope with congestion, shipping companies frequently adjust routes and change port calls, generating substantial emergency scheduling costs. MSC consecutively raised freight rates on the Far East to Northern Europe route twice and canceled eastbound calls at Antwerp Port, diverting to the UK’s Felixstowe Port. The Gemini route operated by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd also added calls at Danish and Swedish ports, altering the original transshipment model. Route adjustments not only require replanning logistics networks and coordinating port resources but can also lead to poor cargo transshipment connections, generating additional costs for barge transport and storage transfers. More seriously, frequent route changes can reduce customer trust, forcing shipping companies to maintain customer relationships through price cuts and subsidies, further squeezing profit margins.
II. Cost Transmission to Shipper Enterprises: Comprehensive Spread from Logistics Expenditure to Operational Risk
Soaring shipping costs are transmitted through the supply chain to shipper enterprises, while delays and inventory backlogs caused by congestion further amplify business costs and risks.
(I) Direct Rise in Logistics Costs: Dual Squeeze from Freight Rates and Surcharges
Rising ocean freight rates directly increase shipper enterprises’ logistics expenditure. In the first half of 2025, due to European port congestion, freight rates on the Far East to Northern Europe route accumulated an increase of over 25%, with the rate for a 40-foot container soaring from $1,800 to over $2,300. Beyond basic freight, congestion has spawned various surcharges—port demurrage, storage charges, expedited fees, etc. Container storage charges at Hong Kong’s port rose 50% during peak congestion periods compared to normal times, with additional fees for storage exceeding 7 days doubling daily. For high-value-added enterprises, rising logistics costs directly erode profits: OPPO saves 2 yuan per kilogram in logistics fees by exporting through the Greater Bay Area air cargo center, saving over 1.3 million yuan in annual freight. Conversely, logistics cost increases caused by congestion directly offset these savings.
(II) Inventory and Capital Occupation Costs: Chain Reactions Triggered by Supply Chain Stagnation
Port congestion causes cargo delivery delays, forcing enterprises to increase safety stock, thereby pushing up inventory holding costs. A Pearl River Delta electronics company revealed that due to Hong Kong port congestion, the delivery cycle for imported components extended from 30 to 45 days. To avoid production line shutdowns, the company had to increase safety stock from 15 to 30 days, increasing capital tied up in inventory by approximately 8 million yuan. At an annualized interest rate of 4%, this adds about 320,000 yuan annually in financing costs alone. For industries with strong timeliness like fresh produce and fast-moving consumer goods, losses from cargo spoilage and expiration due to congestion are more severe. For example, if Southeast Asian fruit transiting through Hong Kong faces congestion delays exceeding 7 days, the spoilage rate rises from 5% to 20%, directly causing a 15% loss in cargo value.
(III) Order Default and Market Opportunity Costs: Hidden Losses Far Exceed Direct Expenditure
For export enterprises, delivery delays caused by port congestion can trigger order defaults, resulting in huge penalty fees. In international trade contracts, penalties for delayed delivery are typically 0.5%-1% of cargo value per day. If a shipment of electronics worth $10 million is delayed 10 days due to congestion, the enterprise could face penalties of $500,000 to $1 million. More seriously, frequent defaults can cause enterprises to lose market share, with long-term clients转向 competitors with more stable supply chains. UNCTAD notes that small island developing states and least developed countries are most severely affected, where higher freight costs and delays quickly translate into higher import prices and food insecurity. In some net food-importing countries, grain transport delays due to port congestion have pushed up domestic food prices by 10%-15%.
III. Systemic Costs of Global Trade: Deep-Seated Impacts of Market Volatility and Resource Misallocation
The costs of port congestion are not confined to the enterprise level but spread to global markets through trade networks, leading to intensified market volatility, declining resource allocation efficiency, and driving up the overall operational costs of global trade.
(I) Trade Price Distortion: Price Rises Triggered by Cost Shifting
Rises in shipping and logistics costs ultimately get passed on to final commodity prices. Taking electronics as an example, logistics cost increases due to port congestion account for about 3%-5% of the final retail price. The global average smartphone price in 2025 rose about 8% compared to 2023, with 1-2 percentage points directly attributable to port congestion. For bulk commodities like energy and grains, price volatility triggered by congestion is more pronounced. Congestion at European ports caused liquefied natural gas (LNG) transport delays, leading to a 40% fluctuation range in European spot natural gas prices in the first half of 2025. Grain transport delays pushed up the global food price index, exacerbating global food security risks. UNCTAD warns that the叠加 of geopolitical tensions and port congestion has already caused the global trade cost index to rise 18% compared to 2020, with port inefficiency contributing 6 percentage points.
(II) Supply Chain Restructuring Costs: Additional Investment to Mitigate Risks
To counter the uncertainty brought by port congestion, enterprises are forced to restructure supply chains, generating substantial additional costs. Some multinational companies are relocating production bases from Asia to North America or Europe, or establishing parallel supply chains in multiple regions, leading to increased fixed asset investment and diminished economies of scale. For example, a clothing company, to mitigate congestion risks at Hong Kong and Shenzhen ports, built a new production base in Mexico with a total investment exceeding $200 million. While product transport costs decreased, production costs rose by 15%. Additionally, enterprises need to invest in building digital tracking systems,备用 logistics channels, etc., further pushing up supply chain operational costs. Estimates suggest that from 2023-2025, global enterprises’ supply chain restructuring to cope with port congestion has cumulatively added over $50 billion in costs.
(III) Trade Flow Misallocation: Efficiency Losses from Imbalanced Port Competitiveness
Port congestion causes trade flows to shift towards more efficient ports, triggering resource misallocation. Antwerp Port in Europe lost over 15% of its Far East route cargo flow due to persistent congestion, shifting instead to ports like Felixstowe and Rotterdam. Congestion at Hong Kong’s port also caused some high-value-added cargo flow to转向 Shenzhen’s Yantian Port. In 2025, Yantian Port’s US and Europe mainline cargo flow increased 12% year-on-year, while Hong Kong’s port declined 3%. While this flow diversion can alleviate congestion short-term, long-term it leads to underutilization of facilities and resource waste at some ports. The utilization rate of Hong Kong’s port’s 24 deep-water berths dropped from 105% to 85%, while Yantian Port’s berths operated at overloaded capacity, creating a pattern of “uneven busyness.” Simultaneously, cargo flow diversion increases the complexity of regional logistics networks, leading to declining overall transport efficiency and further driving up systemic costs of global trade.
IV. Hidden Costs on Regional Economies: Long-Term Drag on Port Cities and Hinterlands
Port congestion not only affects trade and logistics but also exerts a long-term drag on the economies of port cities and their hinterlands, forming hidden but persistent cost pressures.
(I) Economic Losses for Port Cities: Weakening Hub Function and Industry Outflow
Ports are key growth poles for urban economies. Declining efficiency due to congestion weakens their hub function. Congestion at Hong Kong’s port has already led some shipping companies to relocate regional headquarters from Hong Kong to Singapore and Shanghai. From 2024-2025, employment in Hong Kong’s shipping services sector decreased by approximately 2%, and the scale of shipping finance business declined by 5%. Simultaneously, port congestion affects related industries. Industries like logistics warehousing, ship repair, and cross-border trade lose clients due to inefficiency. In 2025, Hong Kong’s cross-border e-commerce consolidation business volume declined 8% year-on-year, with some companies relocating to Shenzhen’s Qianhai. Estimates suggest port congestion causes Hong Kong’s GDP an annual loss of about 0.3%-0.5%, equivalent to HKD 20-30 billion.
(II) Declining Competitiveness of Hinterland Economies: Logistics Disadvantage Weakens Industrial Edge
Port congestion transmits to hinterland economies, weakening regional industrial competitiveness. The Pearl River Delta, as the core hinterland of Hong Kong’s port, relies heavily on Hong Kong for import/export trade for its numerous manufacturing enterprises. Rising logistics costs and delivery delays caused by congestion diminish the comprehensive cost advantage of Pearl River Delta manufacturing. A Dongguan electronics manufacturer stated that due to Hong Kong port congestion, its product export cycles lengthened and costs rose, reducing its price competitiveness in global markets by about 10%, with some orders taken by enterprises in Vietnam and Malaysia. UNCTAD research shows that for every 10% decline in port efficiency, the export competitiveness of hinterland manufacturing declines 3%-5%. This is a heavy blow to regional economies highly dependent on exports.
(III) Opportunity Cost of Infrastructure Investment: Passive Investment Squeezes Development Resources
To alleviate congestion, governments and enterprises need to invest substantial funds in infrastructure upgrades,占用 resources that could be used for other development areas. Hong Kong’s planned West Port Project is预计 to invest over HKD 100 billion. While it can alleviate space insufficiency long-term, it will挤占 investment budgets for public services like education and healthcare in the short term. Europe’s Rotterdam Port invested 500 million euros to build the “Next Generation Logistics” digital platform and 300 million euros to open the “Container Exchange Route” to应对 congestion. While these被动 investments can improve efficiency, they also挤占 resources for areas like green transition and technological innovation. More seriously, some developing countries, with limited funds, struggle to bear the costs of port modernization,陷入 a vicious cycle of “congestion – low efficiency – insufficient investment – worse congestion,” further exacerbating global trade inequality.
V. Paths to Alleviate Cost Pressure: From Short-Term Mitigation to Long-Term Governance
To solve the problem of soaring costs triggered by port congestion, a combined strategy of “short-term mitigation + long-term governance” is needed, starting from three dimensions—efficiency enhancement, synergistic linkage, and institutional safeguards—to reduce the congestion sensitivity and cost transmission effects of supply chains.
(I) Short-Term Mitigation: Improve Port Operational Efficiency, Reduce Direct Costs
Accelerating port digitization and automation transformation is key to improving efficiency and reducing costs in the short term. Learning from Singapore Port’s experience,推广 the “Port Community System” (PCS) to achieve digital coordination for processes like vessel berthing applications, customs clearance/inspection, and yard scheduling, compressing clearance time from 1.5 hours to within 30 minutes, reducing port stay time and related fees. Upgrade existing terminals for automation,提升 quay crane handling efficiency. Increase the automated quay crane coverage rate at Hong Kong’s port from less than 30% to 50%, reducing per-container handling time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes, saving over 8 hours per voyage, and reducing demurrage costs by approximately $240,000. Simultaneously, optimize the collection and distribution system, promote “sea-rail intermodal” and “river-sea intermodal” to divert over 30% of cross-border trucking volume, alleviating road congestion around ports, and lowering transport costs.
(II) Medium-Term Synergy: Build Port Cluster Linkage Mechanisms, Distribute Congestion Pressure
Learn from the experiences of the New York-New Jersey port cluster and the Greater Bay Area Combined Port, establish cross-port synergy mechanisms to achieve resource sharing and flow diversion. Through the “Greater Bay Area Port Resource Coordination Platform,” divert 20% of Hong Kong’s port’s empty containers for storage at Shenzhen and Guangzhou ports, and divert 30% of US and Europe mainline cargo flow to berth at Yantian Port, alleviating Hong Kong’s storage and berth pressure. Advance cross-regional synergy models of “one-time pilotage, one-time inspection, one-time release” to reduce process losses in cross-border logistics. The Shenzhen-Hong Kong Dapeng Bay “one-time pilotage” model has cumulatively reduced costs for enterprises by 650 million yuan, saving nearly 1 hour per vessel per voyage, and could be推广 in the Pearl River Delta and nationwide. Simultaneously, increase the density of feeder route networks, build a transport system of “hub port + feeder port,” concentrating分散 cargo sources at hub ports for transshipment,提升 vessel load factors, and lowering unit transport costs.
(III) Long-Term Governance: Enhance Supply Chain Resilience, Reduce Cost Transmission
To fundamentally reduce cost pressure caused by congestion, the resilience and flexibility of supply chains need strengthening. Enterprises should optimize inventory management, adopting a combined model of “lean inventory +应急 reserves” to avoid excessive inventory and resulting capital occupation costs. Simultaneously, establish diversified logistics channels and port options to reduce reliance on a single port. Governments should increase investment in port infrastructure, advance projects like Hong Kong’s West Port Project and Shenzhen’s Yantian Port expansion, enhance ports’ long-term handling capacity, and avoid congestion triggered by overloaded operation. Improve international trade rules, reduce interference from trade barriers and geopolitical conflicts on shipping routes, lowering detour costs and uncertainty. Additionally, promote green logistics and intelligent scheduling technologies to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions, achieving the dual goals of “cost reduction” and “carbon reduction.”
Conclusion
The soaring global logistics and trade costs triggered by port congestion are essentially the inevitable result of the global supply chain’s “efficiency-first” model under risk冲击. From demurrage costs for shipping companies and inventory pressure for shipper enterprises, to price volatility in global trade and long-term drag on regional economies, the costs of congestion are transmitted layer by layer through the entire supply chain, ultimately borne by all market participants. UNCTAD’s warning is not alarmist. If effective measures are not taken promptly, port congestion will become a “stumbling block” for global economic recovery, exacerbating trade protectionism and global development inequality.
Solving this challenge requires ports themselves to accelerate digitalization and automation transformation to improve operational efficiency. It also requires building cross-regional, cross-port synergy mechanisms to distribute congestion pressure. More fundamentally, it requires完善 the resilience and governance system of the global supply chain to reduce cost transmission effects. For Hong Kong, this is both an urgent need to应对 current cost pressures and a long-term strategy to consolidate its status as an international shipping center. By deepening Greater Bay Area synergy, advancing the West Port Project, and upgrading smart port technology, Hong Kong can not only solve its own congestion dilemma but also provide a “Chinese solution” for global port congestion governance, reduce the systemic costs of global trade, and inject new momentum into economic globalization.