NSQ 2 digital - Flipbook - Page 23
come into play: rising maritime insurance
premiums, changes in commercial shipping
routes, and adjustments in the availability of
logistics capacity.
During periods of global disruption, these
dynamics can significantly alter the cost of
transporting goods across continents. Freight
indices have repeatedly shown that logistics
costs can increase rapidly when supply chains
face unexpected tensions.
But energy is not the only factor that makes
geographic distance financially relevant.
Transit time also becomes a financial variable
when global conditions grow less predictable.
Maritime transport between Asia and the west
coast of the United States typically involves
transit times ranging from approximately 18 to
30 days, depending on the ports involved and
prevailing logistics conditions. By contrast,
overland transportation between Mexico and
the United States is often measured in hours
or a few days, depending on the industrial
corridor and border crossing used. This
difference in time has implications that extend
beyond logistics.
When a company depends on long
transoceanic routes, any disruption—whether
energyrelated, geopolitical, or logistical—can
affect its ability to respond quickly. Inventories
must be planned further
in advance, logistical
buffers tend to increase,
and working capital
remains tied up in the
supply chain for longer
periods. Geographic
proximity reduces part of
that exposure. It does
not eliminate logistical
risks entirely, but it
shortens response times
when demand changes,
operational interruptions
occur, or production
adjustments become
n e c e s s a r y. W h e n
“Within this
context,
nearshoring
takes on a
different
dimension.”
logistics cycles are shorter, companies can
adjust inventory more rapidly and respond
with greater flexibility to shifting market
conditions. For this reason, distance itself is
beginning to appear more frequently in
corporate financial evaluations.
This evolution is reshaping how many
companies structure their supply chains.
Geographic proximity, once considered a
secondary logistical advantage, is
increasingly interpreted as a component of
operational resilience. Companies are not
necessarily abandoning global operations,
but they are seeking to diversify their
exposure to long and potentially vulnerable
logistics routes.
Within this context, nearshoring takes on a
different dimension.
Rather than serving only as a mechanism to
reduce labor costs, it is increasingly
understood as a tool for reducing exposure to
certain macroeconomic variables: energy
volatility, disruptions in maritime routes, and
excessively long logistics cycles.
This shift in perspective helps explain why
many recent corporate decisions are driven
less by wage differentials and more by
considerations of operational stability.
Globalization has not disappeared. But an
increasing number of companies are
recognizing that distance is not simply a
geographic fact within a supply chain. It is also
a financial variable.
For decades, cost analysis focused primarily
on wage differentials across global regions. In
an environment characterized by greater
energy and geopolitical volatility, total logistics
cost—including transportation, energy,
inventory, and insurance—is gaining
increasing relevance.
MARCH 2026
Digital Edition
21
