European Freight Forwarding Still Runs on Excel — Here’s Why
In short: Despite digital tools, European freight forwarders still rely on Excel for carrier sourcing. This article explains why — and what structure is missing.
European Freight Forwarding Still Runs on Excel — Here’s Why
European freight forwarding has modernised in many ways. Digital TMS systems, real-time tracking, automated documentation and AI-powered optimisation tools are now part of daily operations.
And yet, when it comes to one of the most critical tasks in freight forwarding — finding the right carrier for a specific lane — many professionals still rely on the same tool they used twenty years ago.
Excel.
Not because it is efficient. Not because it is scalable. But because, in many cases, there is still no better alternative.
The unspoken reality of carrier sourcing in Europe
Ask a freight forwarder how carriers are sourced for cross-border European transport, and the answer is rarely technological.
It usually involves:
- personal contact lists
- spreadsheets built over years
- notes about “who worked well on this lane once”
- outdated emails and phone numbers
- internal files no one else fully understands
These Excel files often become strategic assets, even though they are difficult to maintain, impossible to standardise, not shareable across teams and disconnected from real-time market conditions.
Yet they persist — because European freight is complex.
Why European freight is especially difficult to structure
Unlike single-market logistics environments, Europe combines multiple national regulations, different transport cultures, varying infrastructure quality and strong regional specialisation of carriers.
A carrier excellent on one corridor may be irrelevant on another. A company active domestically may not operate reliably cross-border.
As a result, carrier selection is not about “who exists”, but about who operates this lane, under these constraints, with this mode, at this moment.
Excel becomes the fallback tool because it allows forwarders to manually recreate this logic — even if it’s fragile.
Excel works… until it doesn’t
Spreadsheets initially feel efficient: quick to build, easy to customise and familiar to everyone.
But over time, problems appear: data becomes outdated, knowledge remains locked with individuals, new colleagues struggle to reuse existing files, and lanes evolve while files do not.
Most importantly, Excel does not scale with lane complexity.
The missing layer: lane-based visibility
The core issue is not Excel itself. It is what Excel is trying to compensate for.
Most tools organise transport data by company, country or service type. But freight forwarding decisions are rarely made that way.
They are made by lane: origin to destination, mode and constraints, reliability and availability.
Without structured, lane-based visibility, forwarders are forced to rebuild this logic manually — again and again.
Why digital tools often fail to replace Excel
Many platforms promise to “replace spreadsheets”. Few actually do.
They focus on transactions instead of flows, listings instead of lanes, and automation without clarity.
Technology amplifies structure. If the structure is wrong, technology accelerates inefficiency.
A lane-based agenda instead of a company list
This is where the logic behind LaneList fits into the European freight reality.
Instead of asking “Which carriers exist?”, the approach starts with which lane, which mode, which origin and destination.
The objective is not to replace relationships, but to structure visibility, reduce search time and make carrier sourcing more readable.
Why this shift matters now
European freight is under increasing pressure: cost volatility, regulatory complexity, capacity fluctuations and sustainability constraints.
Time spent searching becomes a hidden cost.
Forwarders who can read lanes faster and identify relevant carriers earlier gain a real operational advantage.
Conclusion: Excel is not the problem — structure is
European freight forwarding still runs on Excel because the market is fragmented, lane visibility is poor and existing tools do not reflect operational reality.
Excel fills the gap — but it was never designed to carry that weight.
The opportunity lies in moving from personal spreadsheets to shared, lane-based visibility — not to remove expertise, but to make it scalable and transferable.