McKinsey research conducted with the World Economic Forum found that where operators coordinate effectively, delivery emissions and congestion could fall by 30% by 2030 against a do-nothing baseline, while technology could reduce delivery costs by 25% over the same period.
Coordination across organisations is the largest untapped efficiency in freight, and the least implemented. What follows is what horizontal collaboration is, why the economics have always worked, and why the arrangement usually fails for reasons that have nothing to do with economics.
What horizontal collaboration is
Horizontal collaboration is an arrangement in which companies at the same stage of the supply chain share transport, warehousing, or distribution capacity rather than operating parallel networks.
It differs from vertical collaboration, which integrates parties at different stages, such as a supplier and a retailer. Horizontal collaboration is between peers, frequently between direct competitors, which is the source of both its value and its difficulty.
MIXMOVE frames the mechanism simply. Two half-empty vehicles travelling to the same destination is not a transport problem. It is an information problem, because neither party knows the other is going.
Why hub and spoke networks suit it
A hub and spoke network already pools volume by design. Freight from many origins converges at one point, is sorted, and departs towards common destinations.
The infrastructure for collaboration is therefore already present. Adding a second shipper’s freight to a hub that already consolidates does not require a new facility, a new process, or a new route. It requires the allocation decision to consider both parties’ freight at the same moment.
That is why collaboration produces disproportionate returns in this model and marginal returns in point-to-point networks.
Why the idea has not spread further
Collaborative shipping has been discussed in logistics for decades and implemented rarely. The usual explanation is that companies are reluctant to work with competitors.
That explanation is incomplete. The economics are compelling enough that reluctance alone would not hold the line. The obstacle is more specific, and it is solvable.
The confidentiality problem, stated properly
To co-load, somebody has to know what both parties are shipping, where it is going, and when.
That information is commercially sensitive in a precise way. Volumes reveal demand. Destinations reveal customers. Frequencies reveal contract terms. Timing reveals promotional activity. A competitor with a full view of another’s freight profile has a material advantage, and no amount of goodwill makes that acceptable.
Traditional collaboration attempts resolved this with a trusted intermediary or a legal agreement, both of which add cost and delay to a decision that has to be made in minutes on a dock.
The structural answer is different. The allocation decision needs the freight attributes, meaning destination, dimensions, weight, and time window. It does not need the commercial identity attached to them. Where the system evaluates the first without exposing the second, the confidentiality objection largely disappears.
What collaboration delivers
Fill rate improvement. The direct effect. Two partial loads to a shared destination become one full movement, which is the single largest lever in freight economics.
Access to uneconomic lanes. A daily service to a thin destination that no single shipper can justify becomes viable when volume is pooled. Smaller participants gain reach they could not fund alone.
Absorption of variability. Where one participant’s volume falls, another’s may rise. Shared capacity smooths a curve that each party would otherwise cover with its own buffer.
Emissions reduction from the same work. Fewer movements for the same delivered volume. Under CSRD, that reduction is reportable, and under ETS2 it carries a direct financial value.
The five requirements for a working arrangement
Compatible flows. Shared destinations, compatible handling requirements, and overlapping time windows. Without these, the pooling maths does not work regardless of willingness.
Attribute-level allocation. The system must match freight on physical and timing attributes rather than requiring parties to exchange commercial detail.
Transparent cost allocation. How the saving is split must be defined before the first shared movement, not negotiated after it. This is where most arrangements collapse.
Governance defined in advance. Liability, service failure, and priority during capacity shortage all need answers before they are tested.
Neutral execution. The party building the load must not be advantaged by the sequence in which freight is allocated.
What the evidence shows
McKinsey and the World Economic Forum put the coordinated scenario at 30% lower delivery emissions and congestion by 2030, alongside a 25% reduction in delivery cost through technology.
McKinsey research into mid-mile and last-mile handovers attributes between 6% and 13% of carrier revenue to waste at blind handoffs, with dwell time named as a leading driver.
The European Environment Agency identifies road freight as one of the fastest-growing sources of transport emissions, driven by rising delivery volumes and low vehicle utilisation.
Across MIXMOVE deployments, operations have recorded fill rate improvements of 10% to 20%, dwell time reductions of 40%, and up to 130% higher warehouse hub throughput. The platform is in use across 35+ distribution companies in 20+ countries.
At 3M, a decade of collaboration produced a 90% truck fill rate, a 35% reduction in transport costs, and a 50% reduction in CO₂ emissions.
“By using the MIXMOVE software, 3M managed to reduce transport costs by 35% and CO₂ emissions by 50%.”
— Patrick Van De Vyver, Former Head of EMEA Logistics Operations, 3M
How MIXMOVE HUB OS allocates without disclosure
MIXMOVE HUB OS makes allocation decisions on freight attributes. A unit is identified at item level with its destination, dimensions, weight, and delivery window, and matched against outbound capacity heading the same way.
The consolidation decision requires those attributes and nothing further. Participants receive the loads and the cost outcome without receiving each other’s commercial profile, which removes the objection that has stalled collaborative shipping for years.
Because allocation happens while freight is on the dock rather than in a prior planning cycle, participants can join a shared movement on the day rather than committing to a fixed pooling schedule that assumes volumes nobody can guarantee.
MIXMOVE HUB OS operates alongside an existing TMS, WMS, or ERP as an orchestration layer, or as a standalone platform.
MIXMOVE DI reports the outcome per participant, including utilisation, cost, and Scope 3 transport emissions structured to ISO 14083 methodology, so each party can demonstrate its own result without visibility of anybody else’s.
The maths on collaborative shipping has always worked. What blocked it was that co-loading required competitors to see each other’s business. Systems that match on attributes rather than identity remove the reason to refuse.
Read the MIXMOVE HUB OS overview to see how loads are matched on freight attributes rather than shipper identity.
Frequently asked questions
What is horizontal collaboration in logistics?
An arrangement in which companies at the same stage of the supply chain share transport, warehousing, or distribution capacity rather than running parallel networks. It commonly takes the form of co-loading vehicles heading to shared destinations.
How does it differ from vertical collaboration?
Vertical collaboration integrates parties at different stages, such as a supplier and a retailer. Horizontal collaboration is between peers at the same stage, frequently direct competitors.
How can competitors share loads without sharing commercial data?
The allocation decision requires physical and timing attributes, meaning destination, dimensions, weight, and window. It does not require commercial identity. Systems that match on attributes alone keep volumes, customers, and contract terms confidential.
What does a collaboration arrangement need to work?
Compatible flows, attribute-level allocation, a cost-sharing method agreed in advance, governance covering liability and priority, and neutral execution so no participant is advantaged by allocation order.
