For years, global supply chains were built around one overriding principle: minimise cost. The assumption was that goods, components and raw materials would always move freely across borders, and that transport systems could absorb shocks without lasting consequences.
That assumption no longer holds.
A new UK-focused policy analysis by Transport Intelligence argues that the country is already operating in a “post-global” reality, where trade routes, sourcing decisions and transport flows are increasingly shaped by geopolitics, security risks and policy fragmentation. For road transport operators, freight forwarders and logistics providers, the implications are not abstract — they are already visible in congestion, volatility and rising operational risk.
From efficiency to resilience. At a cost
One of the paper’s central conclusions is that decades of cost-driven globalisation have stripped resilience out of UK supply chains. Heavy dependence on long-distance sourcing, particularly from Asia, has increased exposure to disruptions ranging from pandemics to armed conflict.
For transport operators, this has meant longer routes, unstable volumes and sudden pressure on European road networks when maritime flows are disrupted. Recent diversions away from the Suez Canal illustrate how shocks at sea quickly translate into congestion, rescheduling and higher costs inland.
The analysis argues that resilience cannot be rebuilt through emergency measures alone. It requires structural changes in trade policy, infrastructure investment and industrial strategy, all of which directly affect freight demand and network stability.
Read more: EU realises Euro 7 truck rules went too far
Rather than reducing trade, the proposed policy shift would redirect it. The analysis suggests moving away from an unfocused approach to trade agreements and instead prioritising partnerships that reduce dependency on politically hostile or coercive states.
For logistics companies, this would mean changing trade lanes rather than shrinking volumes. Sourcing from “friendly” countries could shorten routes and improve predictability, but it would also require rapid adaptation by operators currently serving Asia-centric flows.
The key operational risk identified is transition speed: freight networks tend to adjust more slowly than political decisions.
Maritime security becomes a transport issue
The paper treats maritime security not as a defence debate, but as a supply chain cost issue. Attacks on shipping lanes have already forced vessels onto longer routes, increasing fuel consumption, freight rates and inventory costs.
Those costs do not stop at the port gate. They are passed down to road and rail operators through disrupted schedules, peak congestion and unstable demand.
The analysis warns that without stronger protection of trade lanes, transport operators will continue to absorb the downstream consequences of conflicts they have no control over.
A major recommendation is the rebuilding of UK manufacturing capacity, not only in advanced sectors but also in industries considered essential for economic and social stability.
If implemented, this would significantly affect road freight. More domestic production would mean higher internal transport volumes, greater demand for regional distribution and increased pressure on already congested roads.
The analysis highlights that the UK’s logistics performance has fallen behind international competitors, largely due to infrastructure constraints and slow planning processes — a problem that would intensify if freight volumes grow without parallel investment.
Infrastructure: small fixes, fast gains
Instead of focusing exclusively on large, long-delayed megaprojects, the paper argues for prioritising smaller, targeted infrastructure upgrades.
From a haulier’s perspective, this is one of the most practical messages. Local road bottlenecks, port access routes and junction capacity often deliver far higher returns than flagship projects that take decades to complete.
Congestion on the strategic road network is already costing the economy billions each year, and the analysis stresses that underinvestment at local level is a major contributor to delays, vehicle damage and scheduling inefficiency.
Another key finding is that environmental and planning policies often work against supply chain resilience. Higher energy costs and regulatory burdens encourage offshoring, even when production abroad results in higher global emissions due to coal-based energy and longer transport distances.
For transport operators, this creates a double bind: rising compliance costs at home, combined with longer international routes that increase operational exposure.
The analysis also points out that small and medium-sized businesses — including many hauliers — are least able to absorb the indirect costs passed down through supply chains.
No single owner of supply chain policy
Perhaps the most striking conclusion is institutional. Supply chains are affected by decisions on transport, trade, taxation, energy, skills and security — yet responsibility is spread across multiple government departments.
The lack of a single policy owner means that one branch of government can undermine another, often without realising it. In practice, this results in delayed projects, contradictory incentives and regulatory uncertainty for operators trying to plan fleet investment or network expansion.
