Newsletters

Following the recent publication of the European Parliament’s draft resolution on subcontracting in various sectors, the debate around the structure and functioning of logistics supply chains has intensified across Europe. While the concerns raised by certain road carriers are legitimate, including issues such as late payments, non-payment of waiting times, it is important to recognise that freight forwarders also face the consequences of these same dysfunctions within the market. The draft report of MEP Johan Danielsson, now under consideration in the European Parliament’s EMPL Committee, calls for EU-wide limits on subcontracting chains, joint and several liability provisions, and new licensing obligations for intermediaries.

The narrative reflected in the Parliament’s resolution risks being misleading or at least demonstrates the misunderstanding of the complexity of modern supply chains. By framing subcontracting chains as inherently problematic, the text risks targeting freight forwarders as if their business model were the root cause of abuses, when the vast majority of operators comply with contractual and legal obligations. While the aim of safeguarding workers’ rights is legitimate and fully supported, such a simplified approach could undermine well-functioning supply chains and penalise legitimate business practices, for the sake of addressing the misconduct of a few who disregard the rules and contradicting the EU’s own policy of strengthening enforcement under the Mobility Package.

Sector associations at both national and European level have a constructive role to play in developing general terms and conditions, ensuring transparency, and promoting mechanisms for dispute resolution. That is the way to restore trust and balance, not by attacking the very actors who ensure that supply chains function.

What problem are we solving?

Before considering new rules, policymakers should ask: what exactly do we want to solve, and with which instrument? If the objective is to guarantee that drivers are paid fairly, then subcontracting restrictions are not the correct tool. Issues of non-payment or insolvency are matters of contract law, enforcement, and in some cases criminal law. They will not be solved by cutting supply chains short on paper.

National examples underline different approaches. Finland has a well-functioning act on (sub)contractors’ obligations and liability, which works for domestic transactions but becomes extremely complicated when subcontractors from other Member States are involved. 

Interestingly, Spain’s competition authority has explicitly concluded that subcontracting is good for competitiveness and consumers, as it enables more efficient use of transport capacity and helps balance the market. This perspective, focusing not only on workers, but also on clients and consumers, is crucial. Subcontracting allows shippers and freight forwarders to respond quickly to fluctuating demand, manage peaks, and avoid empty runs, all of which keep logistics costs down for European industry and consumers.

Risks for international supply chains

Rigid limits on subcontracting levels would make cross-border supply chains, for example in medical logistics, dangerous goods, or high-value trade lanes, difficult to manage. In reality, international trade can only function by enabling the interaction of the multiple stakeholders that facilitate the transit of goods through the borders : delivery agents, customs representatives, handlers and dockers, logistics services providers, shippers, etc. all activities that can be subcontracted to by the freight forwarder to respond to regulatory requests, language barriers, client request. A Dutch forwarder may subcontract to an Italian forwarder for its knowledge of local rules and economic environment, or a global operator may rely on specialised SMEs for customs or last-mile services. Cutting off these links would not resolve abuses but would dismantle the flexibility and specialisation that make logistics work.

Limiting subcontracting is essentially incompatible with the way international supply chains function. Platforms for transport exchange also show that subcontracting is not imposed top-down by forwarders but is actively used by hauliers themselves to trade capacity. Attempts to artificially cap the number of contractual layers would therefore be unworkable in practice and would disrupt a system that is already functioning, albeit imperfectly, at European scale.

Existing safeguards and the way forward

It is important to stress that safeguards already exist. The CMR Convention and national civil codes make the first contractor responsible for the execution of the contract, meaning liability already flows up the chain. Several Member States, including France and the Netherlands, have additional labour law provisions ensuring that workers can claim wages from higher levels in the chain if their direct employer fails. On the EU level, the Mobility Package has equipped authorities with stronger enforcement tools, including digital tachographs and digital posting declarations, to address abuses where they occur.

The real focus should therefore remain on consistent enforcement of existing rules and on supporting companies to comply through digital, efficient, and less resource-intensive solutions. This is also aligned with the Commission’s forthcoming Quality Jobs Roadmap, which should aim at better working conditions without undermining the functioning of international supply chains.

Europe’s logistics sector is too important to be shaped by one-size-fits-all legislation. Subcontracting is an essential feature of competitive, resilient supply chains. The real challenge is not how many steps there are in the chain, but how to ensure fair contracts, timely payment, and effective enforcement of labour standards. CLECAT reminds stakeholders involved in the discussions that freight forwarders are not a burden on the system; but the integrators that make complex European and global supply chains work.