digitalisation

Nicolette van der Jagt (CLECAT) and Raoul Wintjes (DSLV)

There is currently a great deal of discussion about the digitalisation of transport and logistics. Europe is rapidly digitalising transport, but without common standards, shared digital identities and agreed governance structures, we risk replacing paper silos with digital ones. Initiatives such as eFTI, eCMR, digital customs processes and various data-sharing platforms are often presented as key building blocks of a more efficient supply chain. However, the debate frequently focuses on digitalising documents rather than addressing the underlying IT infrastructure required to make digitalisation work across borders and transport modes.

There are companies which have built successful businesses around this problem. Their role is not to create standards but to act as a translation layer between the many systems used by different actors in the supply chain. Through APIs and data mapping tools, they enable transport management systems, customs systems, warehouse systems, shipping platforms and customer interfaces to exchange information despite using different data formats and structures. These solutions provide clear operational benefits, particularly for logistics providers and 4PL operators that need multiple systems to communicate with each other. These integration providers play a valuable role as a pragmatic bridge in today's fragmented landscape. However, they are ultimately a second-best solution: they can mitigate fragmentation, but they cannot replace the need for shared standards. Instead of solving the underlying issue of fragmentation, they create additional layers of translation and integration that companies must buy and maintain.

The root problem remains the absence of widely adopted common multimodal standards. While organisations such as UN/CEFACT have developed standards and data models, including work on multimodal transport, implementation remains uneven. Each transport mode continues to develop its own frameworks and datasets. Maritime transport is advancing through the work of the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), aviation through IATA One Record, while rail and road follow different approaches. As a result, fundamental concepts such as the definition of a "consignment", milestones, status messages and transport events are often interpreted differently across modes. The industry continues to struggle with basic interoperability.

Several European initiatives have attempted to address this challenge. Projects such as FENIX and FEDERATED have explored federated data-sharing models, demonstrating that information can remain in different systems while still being exchanged through common interfaces. However, governance questions remain largely unresolved.

The implementation of the eFTI Regulation illustrates some of these challenges. While eFTI aims to facilitate electronic exchange of freight transport information between businesses and authorities (B2A), it does not create a common contractual framework between private parties. The distinction between business-to-authority (B2A) and business-to-business (B2B) processes is crucial: while eFTI focuses on the exchange of information between businesses and authorities, the largest efficiency gains lie in interoperable data exchange between private actors (B2B), which is still only partially addressed. Unlike eCMR, eFTI does not require qualified electronic signatures or electronic seals for transport documents. This simplifies implementation but also limits its use as eFTI alone does not create a full contractual framework between private parties. Many stakeholders therefore question whether eFTI alone can become the foundation for fully digital transport processes.

Digitalisation is not only about data exchange. Trust and identity are equally important. A recurring obstacle is the lack of a widely recognised European digital identity frame/work that can be used consistently across Member States. Despite the existing European framework for electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS/eIDAS 2.0), the lack of consistent implementation and mutual recognition means that companies still face national barriers when trying to use digital identities across borders. Questions such as who may sign a document, how identity is verified, and whether electronic signatures are recognised across borders continue to create barriers.

Spain provides a useful illustration of the challenges that arise when digitalisation advances faster than interoperability and meets regulatory requirements. The country has introduced mandatory electronic transport documentation from October 2026. To provide transport information electronically during roadside inspections, operators must currently register with the Spanish transport authority's platform. Registration requires a Spanish qualified electronic certificate, which in turn requires obtaining a Spanish tax identification number (NIF). Other European electronic identities are not yet recognised by the system. As a result, the challenge is no longer the transport document itself, but the ability of operators to establish a recognised digital identity and gain access to the platform. What works reasonably well for national operators becomes disproportionately complex for international hauliers, precisely because digital identities are not yet recognised across borders in a consistent way. While this may be manageable for Spanish operators and companies engaged in cabotage operations within Spain, it creates considerable difficulties for international road transport operators established in other Member States. CLECAT has raised these issues with the Spanish authorities, and as a result the current system has effectively been designed around national transport and cabotage operations rather than international road transport. Until foreign operators can access the system through recognised European electronic identities, the digital framework remains difficult to use for cross-border transport operations.

The Spanish example highlights a broader European challenge. Digitalisation is often presented as a question of replacing paper documents with electronic ones. In reality, the more fundamental issue is whether companies can rely on common digital identities, interoperable standards and mutually recognised trust services across the European Union. Without these foundations, digitalisation risks creating a patchwork of national systems that are digital in form but not truly interoperable in practice.

This is where the current European debate remains incomplete. Significant attention is devoted to digital transport documents, while much less attention is paid to the foundations that allow those documents to function seamlessly across Europe and beyond. The lesson from Spain is clear: before discussing new platforms and new reporting requirements, Europe must ensure that companies can use a common digital identity, exchange information through interoperable standards, and access public systems without facing national barriers. Otherwise, digitalisation risks creating a patchwork of national solutions rather than a genuine European Single Market for transport data.

The risk is that, without greater convergence, logistics will increasingly resemble a "digital Babylon" in which numerous platforms, data models and interfaces coexist without true interoperability. Integration providers can bridge these gaps, but they cannot replace the need for common standards.

The key policy question is therefore not whether additional digital platforms are needed, but whether policy makers, standard-setting bodies and industry stakeholders can agree on a common foundation for data, identity and governance. Without such a foundation, digitalisation may continue to generate complexity rather than reducing it. The priority should not be to create yet another platform, but to establish common European and international standards for data, digital identity and governance that allow existing platforms and systems to communicate seamlessly. To make this concrete, three actions are needed:

• Adopt and promote common multimodal data models based on existing work, in particular UN/CEFACT, as a shared reference across all transport modes;
• Make interoperability and open, standardised interfaces a mandatory requirement for all EU-funded platforms and digital infrastructure projects;
• Ensure that European digital identities and trust services can be used seamlessly across Member States for transport-related processes, without national additional registration requirements acting as barriers.

This is where DG CONNECT, DG MOVE, UN/CEFACT and industry standard-setting bodies need to work much more closely together.