Data sharing decisions are rarely neutral. This insight explains how commercial incentives, competitive concerns, and uncertainty around return on investment shape what data is shared, with whom, and why many initiatives struggle to move beyond pilot stages.
Commercial considerations were identified as a central reason why data exchange initiatives continue to struggle to progress beyond pilots.
Responses included misalignment of who pays versus who benefits, no clear return on investment, lack of contract frameworks, fear of losing competitive advantage, and the perception that partners benefit more.
These responses highlight that data exchange is not perceived as a neutral operational improvement, but as a change which shifts risk, cost, or visibility between parties. When one party carries most of the cost and the benefits are spread across the network, there is little motivation to push changes to the data exchange process beyond the pilot stage.
Commercial considerations strongly influence how much data is shared. “Many carriers fear losing their role. They worry that if terminals see stability or lashing data, carriers lose control, even though responsibilities would stay the same,” said Sven Burdorf, Ship Planner at HHLA.
Data-sharing is often discussed, yet implementation remains limited. One reason for this is that the commercial incentives to share data are uneven. Larger carriers may receive preferential access to information due to their volume or bargaining power, and smaller carriers are often restricted to basic updates.
Terminals have some commercial reasons to withhold certain types of information. For example, real-time data on crane breakdowns, yard congestion, or resourcing decisions could expose operational vulnerabilities. The fear is that this could weaken their reputation in the industry.
As a result, they often share only partial or retrospective data rather than live operational signals. A General Manager at a global container shipping company further explained how some terminals might not want to share their berthing window with other carriers because they might prioritise certain carriers over others.
The lack of industry governance or rules worsens this. Without a framework for data-sharing obligations, many companies protect their own commercial advantage rather than improving collective efficiency.
Romaric Bonny, Senior Manager QSSE Stowage at CMA CGM, described how commercial and security concerns continue to shape carriers’ behaviour. “Everyone knows that data is the new gold,” he said. “People fear that sharing information could let competitors profit from it, or that neutral platforms could resell the data.”
This mindset keeps the industry from improving overall quality and makes it difficult for a collaborative approach to data to scale, even when the technology is a clear improvement.
To discover what effective cargo data exchange looks like, and how it can be achieved in today’s port operations read the full Thought Leadership report ‘Rethinking Cargo Data Exchange: Modernising Communication Between Terminals, Carriers, and Vessels’ produced in partnership with Kaleris.
Â
