1. Introduction

Transport remit refers to the agreed terms and responsibilities between parties in a commercial transaction—typically importers and exporters—regarding the movement of goods. Central to this is the selection of Incoterms® (International Commercial Terms), standardized rules issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) that clearly define which party is responsible for transportation, insurance, customs clearance, and related costs [1]. By establishing shared expectations, Incoterms® reduce legal disputes and streamline international and domestic trade processes.

Effectively managing transport remit allows enterprises to optimize internal transport resources, supporting more strategic and cost-effective logistics operations [2,3]. This can significantly influence the structure and scale of transactional handling costs, ultimately affecting cargo pricing [4]. Moreover, transport remit decisions can offer considerable opportunities for additional revenue or cost savings, sometimes matching the importance of a firm’s core business activities [5,6]. In broader terms, transport remit management can also contribute to national strategies aimed at expanding international trade.

In Poland, a notable share of trade involves interactions with foreign entities, incorporating both imports and exports. This active international engagement holds the potential to influence the negotiation and establishment of terms related to transportation in these operations. Research from Knap [7] and Urbanyi-Popiołek [8] reveal that in certain regions of the country, numerous enterprises forego transport management in imports, opting for specific Incoterms® trade formulas like Carriage Paid To (CPT), Carriage and Insurance Paid To (CIP), Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF), and Delivered At Terminal (DAT). Similarly, in terms of exports, a substantial number of enterprises relinquish management control of transport by employing formulas such as Ex Works (EXW), Free Carrier (FCA), and Free On Board (FOB). Interestingly, the recent findings of Hajdukiewicz and Pera [9] indicate that preferred import transactions are influenced by dominant players with significant bargaining power and industry-specific considerations, utilizing formulas like Delivered At Place (DAP), FOB, and CIF. Meanwhile, the most common export formula remains EXW, followed by DAP, CIF, and FCA. These discrepancies over that past eight or nine years have been observed across different transport modes and regions of the country, underscoring the importance of researching Incoterms® practice.

Existing empirical studies in Poland are constrained to regions with proximity to seaports, potentially biasing Incoterms® formula selection. In addition, industry and geographical distinctions are often overlooked. As a result, this study seeks to comprehensively explore the extent and structure of transport remit adoption in Poland’s foreign trade, particularly in areas where it is absent or being neglected. The study aims to uncover motives behind adoption or abandonment, differentiate between adopters and non-adopters, evaluate the benefits for enterprises, identify determining factors for specific benefits, and assess the role of transport remit in contributing to the national economy’s added value. This knowledge is indispensable for importers, exporters, and logistics operators supporting their activities, facilitating a nuanced understanding of transport remit as an effective means for enhancing transport operations and financial gains in foreign trade transactions. Furthermore, this dynamic has the potential to transform the relationships between logistics operators and foreign trade enterprises, fostering mutually advantageous financial partnerships.

To guide this analysis, the following research questions are posed:

1. RQ1: What are the economic and strategic implications of transport remit management in Poland’s international trade?
2. RQ2: What factors contribute to the reluctance of Polish enterprises to assume transport remit responsibilities?
3. RQ3: How do Incoterms® usage patterns affect transaction margins and overall trade competitiveness for Polish forwarding firms?

The research is structured into three interconnected parts. It begins with a comprehensive examination of both theoretical and empirical studies on Incoterms® and transport remit. Following this, the research methodology is outlined, providing a clear framework for the study. Finally, the research concludes with a discussion of the empirical findings and offers recommendations for future research and potential improvements in business practices.

2. Literature review

Import and export play pivotal roles in all industries, where trade and production costs significantly impact competitiveness on the global stage [10]. As highlighted by Chamsuk [11], the negotiation of trade agreements is intricate and diverse. Therefore, an importer-exporter trade agreement or adherence to international terms of supply is paramount, as it delineates roles, responsibilities, transport liability, and compensation universally recognized [12]. Incoterms® serve as the standardized terms and conditions for delivering goods, constituting the international benchmark for sales contracts between buyers and sellers. These terms have been codified by the ICC and align with United Nations trade rules. The ICC [13] first published Incoterms® in 1936, featuring six terms and principles: (1) Free Alongside Ship (FAS), (2) Free Alongside Ship-Free On Board (FAS-FOB), (3) Cost and Freight (CFR), (4) CIF, (5) Ex Ship, and (6) Ex Quay. The ICC updates Incoterms® every decade, with the previous edition released in 2010 [14–17].

The latest release, Incoterms® 2020, came into effect on January 1, 2020 [1]. Notable distinctions between Incoterms® 2010 and Incoterms® 2020 encompass: the conversion of DAT to Delivered at Place Unloaded (DPU); clarifications regarding insurance points in CIF and CIP; improved transparency concerning costs and cost structures; detailed specifications outlining transport safeguards; provision allowing the use of proprietary transport instead of relying solely on third-party transport; clarifications on FCA, FOB, and waybills; and enhanced user-friendly presentation and design [18]. The selection of Incoterms® formula in sales contracts is influenced by a myriad of factors. These include the nature of the product and shipment, the characteristics of the trader, and their market power, which can be categorized as equal, dominant, or subordinate. Additionally, the complexities of the supply chain and broader macroeconomic and microeconomic considerations play pivotal roles in shaping this decision-making process.

Drawing from a comprehensive literature review, Hien et al. [19] pinpointed key factors influencing the selection of Incoterms® formulas. Their analysis underscored destination country risk as the paramount factor, with company size, resources, negotiating power, competitive advantage, regulatory measures in the target market, product attributes, and the international experience of the enterprise also making significant contributions. Subsequently, through their own survey, they ascertained that the frequency of employing Incoterms® formulas, coupled with a deep understanding of their significance, has a measurable impact on export performance. This influence extends to financial outcomes, strategic effectiveness, and managerial satisfaction with export activities. The study highlighted that firms possessing knowledge of Incoterms® formulas exhibit a heightened ability to discern environmental factors, leading to enhanced export performance. Additionally, the research established a correlation between export performance and a company’s negotiating prowess and competitive advantage in foreign markets.

Similarly, Unal and Metin [20] investigated the factors that influence the choice of Incoterms® formulas in both import and export scenarios. Their findings revealed that three overarching factors—transportation costs, cost of goods, and payment methods—resonate as equally crucial for both scenarios. Subsequently, other shared considerations included risk and custom processes (i.e., bureaucracy), indicating common concerns across both sides of the trade transaction [21]. However, divergent perspectives emerged on factors like relationships with forwarders, types of goods, transportation complexity, and distance [22]. Importers, notably, place a greater emphasis on the nature of goods, whereas exporters are more influenced by distance.

Additionally, extensive research has delved into the determinants influencing the selection of Incoterms®, particularly regarding their impact on export efficiency [23–26] and their role in negotiation and communication in logistics decision-making between sellers and buyers [27]. Specifically, Suraraksa et al. [28] conducted a study examining the factors driving decision-making regarding Incoterms® among auto parts manufacturers in Thailand. Their investigation identified criteria such as operating costs, cooperation and bargaining power, knowledge and understanding, and the duration of operations. The study concluded that FCA emerges as the most suitable Incoterms® formula for international trade among auto parts manufacturers. One reason for this preference is that FCA allows car manufacturers to retain control over the delivery of vehicle parts to the carrier, ensuring adherence to quality standards and specifications. Additionally, by maintaining control until the vehicle parts are handed over to the carrier, manufacturers can mitigate the risk of damage or loss during the initial transportation stages.

Exploring the dynamic landscape of digital logistics and supply chain management, Durdağ and Delipinar [29] put forth a compelling case for the forthcoming evolution of Incoterms® formulas, which are intricately tied to considerations of location, temporal constraints, and financial arrangements. While they foresee minimal adjustments in the forthcoming Incoterms® 2030 update, they anticipate substantial revisions in both the scope and substance of terms set to debut in 2040. Consequently, the concept of transport remit, as expounded by Neider [30], not only delineates the rights, benefits, risks, and obligations of trading partners concerning transport management (and associated cost considerations) but also represents a collaborative decision made during contract negotiations, with the potential for mutual sharing between contracting parties. As such, the benefit of having a transport remit lies in its capacity to shape the entire transport chain, as highlighted by Kotowska and Letmanski [31]. This operation wields a direct influence over various facets of the commercial transaction and the transport process, including customs clearance, determination of delivery volume and frequency, selection of transport routes, designation of loading and unloading points, choice of transport mode and type, subcontractor selection (e.g., forwarder, shipowner, and carrier), delivery timelines, cargo insurance, and document circulation. Such an enterprise is strategically positioned to secure additional financial advantages by leveraging opportunities for increased profit or realizing savings, particularly in response to fluctuations in freight prices. This is particularly evident when transport can be managed at a lower cost than initially factored into the price of the goods.

One notable advantage lies in the capacity to utilize one’s own transportation assets or negotiate favorable transport terms with established partners, i.e., usually facilitated through long-term collaboration [32]. Extensive research on international trade costs delves into multifaceted dimensions, from the intricate interplay between transport costs and trade structures [33] to the strategic adoption of Incoterms® formulas [34], and broader trade considerations [35,36]. However, assuming the role of transport remit entails significant responsibilities, necessitating detailed logistics planning and financial support. As a result, transport remit carries inherent risks, including challenges in securing specific services, efficiently coordinating transportation, and navigating price fluctuations in freight. Furthermore, the potential for non-compliance with contractual terms and delays in the transport process adds complexity [8,37].

Moreover, assessing the feasibility of running transport remit services necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of both commercial and non-commercial risks. Commercial risks encompass uncertainties in transactions, such as partner insolvency, document errors, and cargo damage or loss during transit, as well as risks associated with specific transportation modes. Conversely, non-commercial risks stem from evolving environmental factors, including natural disasters and political instability [8,32,38,39]. Additionally, exporters operating under international supply contracts face the risk of non-payment, as emphasized by Bergami [40]. As such, strategically employing international supply terms can serve as a vital tool in mitigating payment risks. Dinçer and Karakuş [41] identified exchange rate, political, and payment risk as pivotal factors in this process. Petrusheva [42] underscores the risk of payment delays, particularly when conducting sales on credit, a common practice in international trade. In addition, Kramarz et al. [43] draw attention to the risk of volatility in trade flows, as exporters often heavily depend on a limited number of major customers, leaving them susceptible to microeconomic demand shocks. Hence, it can be stated that the spectrum of risks in international trade encompasses legal, financial, and operational dimensions, prompting companies to implement robust risk management strategies to navigate potential volatility [44].

According to Urbanyi-Popiolek [8], small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often refrain from using transport remit services due to concerns about incurring transportation costs. This reluctance may stem from a lack of relevant experience, shortage of qualified employees equipped with the necessary knowledge and negotiation skills for delivery terms, unfamiliarity with the impact of assuming transport remit services on the goods’ pricing, a hesitancy to organize deliveries, and a general unfamiliarity with the forwarding and transport market. Additionally, SMEs often lack their own legal departments and do not engage law firms for support (which may incur additional legal fees). Moreover, the primary barriers to exporting vary across different contexts. In the case of Indonesian SMEs, research by Revindo [45] revealed that the types and severity of export barriers differ across export stages and industries. In China, intra-national barriers arising from local protectionism pose a significant challenge for both exporting SMEs and those looking to export [46]. Meanwhile, in the Western Balkan region, non-tariff barriers, particularly those stemming from political and ethnic disputes, significantly impede intra-regional SME trade [47]. Additionally, incomplete value added tax (VAT) refunds can function as a de facto tax on exporters’ input purchases, reducing SME exports in developing countries [38,48].

Drawing insights from a survey in Poland involving 709 exporters and non-exporters, Gawlikowska-Hueckel and Umiński [49] present a hierarchy of export barriers, ranked from the most to the least significant. These barriers encompass heightened competition on foreign markets, exposure to exchange rate risks, insufficient support for exports, limited access to information about business opportunities in foreign markets, the non-introduction of the euro currency in Poland, inadequate demand in foreign markets, difficulties in collaborating with other companies to enter foreign markets, and a lack of foreign language proficiency among company personnel. Aligning with these findings, experts from the Center for the Development of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Poland, conducted another survey among Polish exporters in 2012, identifying key barriers [50]. Exchange rate risk emerged as the predominant concern, followed by limited access to reports and analyses, weak recognition of Poland’s brand, and challenges in financing exports through internal funds. From a Polish standpoint, exporters face various challenges when venturing into international markets, including heightened competition, bureaucratic complexities, elevated risks stemming from unfamiliar markets, cultural barriers, intricate legal matters, limited demand for Polish goods, and issues related to corruption [9,51].

Surprisingly, within Poland, transportation and warehousing costs have emerged as the most influential factors in the selection of Incoterms® formulas. By contrast, aspects such as relationships with counterparties, payment methods, and modes of transportation play a less decisive role. Additionally, internal enterprise variables—such as staff expertise, access to financial or physical resources, and the overall value of the transaction—are generally of minor importance in this decision-making process [9]. Within this framework, the Authorized Economic Operators (AEO) program, introduced by the European Union (EU) in 2009, holds particular relevance. The program, which grants customs simplifications and security-related benefits to compliant EU-based importers and exporters, serves as a strategic tool for enterprises seeking to assume greater control over transport remit services. Research on AEO-certified firms across EU Member States provides key insights into operational best practices and offers a basis for tailored recommendations to encourage broader adoption of transport remit by Polish enterprises, both in domestic and international trade [52,53].

3. Materials and methods

4. Results and discussion

4.3. Added value computing

The statistical analysis of the TSL of Company X’s data revealed that, across all transactions, 64% of forwarding operations involved transport remit by Polish partners, while 36% featured foreign partners. When distinguishing between import and export transactions, a comparable pattern was observed, suggesting a slightly greater inclination to utilize transport remit services in exports than in imports (Table 1). In import transactions, FOB, CIF, and EXW formulas were predominant, constituting 90% of total transactions. Conversely, among export transactions, CFR, FOB, and CIF formulas played a prominent role, comprising 69% of total transactions.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Distribution of operations with and without transport remit in Company X versus the domestic Polish market, segmented by import and export transactions in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t001

In the context of full container load (FCL) imports, a notable divergence from the norm was observed regarding the utilization of transport remit. Nearly equal proportions were observed between operations with and without transport remit, with 46% opting not to use it and 54% choosing to utilize it. This trend extended to the container count (i.e., TEUs) handled. Conversely, FCL export operations displayed a strong preference for transport remit from Polish exporters, constituting a significant 66% of transactions and rising to 71% when measured by TEUs.

In contrast, bulk goods forwarding leaned heavily towards transactions without Polish transport remit. Notably, while bulk goods make up a small fraction of Company X’s revenues, import transactions dominate the directional flow of forwarding operations at 90%. This dominance is echoed in tonnage handled, indicating that orders managed with Polish partners tend to be larger.

Analyzing containerized general cargo, specifically less than container load (LCL), revealed a significant majority of transactions utilized transport remit services, accounting for 83% of forwarding operations. Import transactions substantially outnumbered exports, making up 82% of transactions with transport remit, while exports comprised 86%. Owing to the considerable weight variation in general cargo shipments and incomplete records in the operating system, a weight-based structural analysis was not feasible.

4.3.1. Analyzing margin disparities: Insights into transport remit impact on Company X’s operations.

The principal objective of the case research was to collect data for extrapolating the lost benefits across the economy. This extrapolation relied on highlighting the disparities in margins earned by the freight forwarder between transactions with and without transport remit on behalf of Company X. To achieve this, the average margin was examined using three distinct approaches.

First, the analysis involved assessing the margin per average transaction, both with and without transport remit, considering the overall operations (Fig 1) as well as transactions with transport remit by Polish versus foreign partners for specific transport products (Table 2). The results highlighted a notable disparity in the average shipper’s margin between transactions with and without transport remit. Importantly, transactions involving transport remit by Polish partners consistently yielded a substantially higher margin, evident in both imports and exports. This finding underscores the financial advantage associated with operations where Polish partners takes control of transport remit.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Average margin gain per forwarding transaction with transport remit for Polish and foreign partners across specific transport products by Company X in 2021, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t002

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Comparison of average margin gain in total forwarding transactions with and without transport remit by Company X in 2021, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.g001

Second, after conducting a comparative assessment of the average margin per operation, considering transactions involving transport remit from both Polish and foreign partners across specific transport products, the analysis was extended to evaluate the amount of margin per 1 TEU handling in FCL transport (Table 3). Across both metrics, transactions involving transport remit with Polish partners consistently demonstrated a significant advantage. The sole exception was observed in the importation of bulk cargo, where transactions with foreign partners outnumbered those with domestic ones.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Average margin gain per 1 TEU for FCL transport with transport remit for Polish and foreign partners by Company X in 2021, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t003

Third, the study delved into the monthly fluctuations in margin amounts per forwarding operation, encompassing both transactions with and without transport remit, as observed by Company X. The analysis revealed fluctuations in margin amounts across import and export orders, which remained steady despite the consistently higher margins in transactions utilizing transport remit. These fluctuations can be attributed to various factors, including changes in freight rates, shifts in demand for transport services, and modifications in the commercial activities of Company X.

4.3.2. Balancing margins and costs: evaluating the impact of transport remit on Company X’s profitability.

Overall, the analysis reveals that transactions handled with transport remit yield higher margins for Company X compared to those without. However, to fully evaluate Company X’s profitability, it is crucial to consider how this additional margin offsets the costs associated with increased labor and time demands. Conducting such a study using operational data poses challenges, requiring a prolonged observation period supported by tools measuring time spent on individual orders by traders and forwarders. Additionally, implementing appropriate accounting methods to allocate costs between orders with and without transport remit is necessary for accurate results.

The analysis of Company X underscores the profound influence of transport remit on various facets of its operations, encompassing the structure of transport products and directions, as well as the margin disparity between orders with and without transport remit. This study facilitated the estimation of the forgone value by the forwarder in orders without transport remit across diverse forwarding products (Table 4). It is important to acknowledge that these figures are approximations, given the rarity of transport remit services exclusively residing with Polish partners in every transaction. Additionally, it is vital to contextualize these findings within the distinctive dynamics of the container sea freight market in 2021, i.e., one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparative analysis of more typical years is anticipated to reveal a diminished magnitude of margin loss in transactions without transport remit.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Estimated margin loss for transactions without transport remit by Polish partners for Company X in 2021, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t004

4.4. Econometric model analysis

The examination of Company X, especially regarding the variations in margins between transactions with and without transport remit, served as the foundation for constructing a comprehensive econometric model. The econometric model sought to elucidate the magnitude of potential revenue losses incurred by the freight forwarding industry in Poland. By analyzing the intricate interplay between different variables, including transaction volumes, profit margins, and market dynamics, the model aimed to provide actionable insights for stakeholders within the logistics sector. Moreover, the utilization of such a robust analytical framing underscored the importance of addressing the systemic challenges associated with transport remit practices in Poland. Through a thorough examination of the data and subsequent modeling efforts, the aim was to pave the way for informed decision-making and strategic interventions aimed at optimizing the efficiency and profitability of freight forwarding operations.

4.4.1. Estimation models for assessing margin loss in import and export operations for Company X.

In analyzing the import and export operations of Company X, numerous models were constructed to assess transaction efficacy, paving the way for strategic decision-making aimed at enhancing operational performance and bolstering profitability. Central to these models is the explanatory variable, which encapsulates the outcome per operation, providing critical insights into the effectiveness and financial ramifications of each individual transaction within Company X’s import and export portfolio. These models were specifically tailored to estimate the margin loss associated with import (Table 5) and export (Table 6) transactions involving the use of transport remit services as well as the outcome per 1 kilogram per operation. Parameter estimations were conducted using a normal distribution, while the link function employed a logarithmic function to capture the nuanced relationships within the data. The findings of this analysis, encompassing estimate values, standard errors, Wald statistics, and confidence intervals at 95%, along with p-values, offer insights into the dynamics of import and export transaction performance for Company X and the broader context of Poland’s seaport operations.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Estimation model for margin loss in import operations for Company X in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t005

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Estimation model for margin loss in export operations for Company X in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t006

In the estimation model for margin loss in import operations for Company X, the findings reveal a notable decrease in the margin per operation by −0.78 for transactions conducted under Incoterms® within the grouping C/D, which do not utilize transport remit, compared to those within the grouping E/F, ceteris paribus (c.p.), holding other factors constant. The control variables, with the exclusion of distance, demonstrate statistical significance, indicating that the most favorable margins were typically achieved between September and November, whereas the least favorable were observed from April to June. As for export operations, the margin per operation increases by 0.234 for transactions executed with Incoterms® grouping C/D compared to those that did not within grouping E/F, c.p. Similarly, all control variables—weight, distance, and month—were statistically significant.

Regarding the estimation of margin loss in import and export operations per 1 kilogram, the analysis delves into transactions executed under different Incoterms® groupings to demonstrate significant variations. In import operations, transactions conducted under Incoterms® within grouping C/D exhibit a notable decrease by −1.746 compared to those executed in grouping E/F, c.p. (Table 7). Conversely, in export operations, the margin per 1 kilogram per operation increases by 0.040 for transactions executed under Incoterms® grouping C/D compared to those executed in grouping E/F, c.p. (Table 8). These results highlight how the Incoterms® groupings significantly impact the financial results of both import and export operations, providing insight into the complexities of the Polish transportation and logistics sector. Correspondingly, the statistical significance of the control variables—weight, distance, and month—in both models reinforces the robustness of the analysis, providing valuable insights for informed decision-making and strategic planning in optimizing operational efficiency and profitability in Company X’s international trade activities.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 7. Estimation model for margin loss in import operations based on performance per 1 kilogram for Company X in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t007

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 8. Estimation model for margin loss in export operations based on performance per 1 kilogram for Company X in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t008

4.4.2. Assessment of economic impact of import and export operations in 2019 and 2021 for Company X.

Based on the estimation models for assessing margin loss in import and export operations for Company X, standardized economy-wide data indicates a general recovery to pre-pandemic levels in terms of Incoterms® services. Regarding economic data for imports, Company X witnessed an increase in its total forwarding Incoterms® operations from USD 208,021,195,417 in 2019 to USD 271,607,436,786 in 2021, resulting in a net gain of USD 63,586,241,369. Upon closer examination, the Incoterms® formulas that experienced a net gain totaled USD 64,013,769,852, while those with a net loss amounted to USD 427,528,483. Notably, a total of 338,742 import transactions were documented, with roughly 56% falling under the Incoterms® grouping C/D (Table 9). Based on the models evaluating margin loss in import operations, the weighted margin deviation ratios for transactions in grouping E/F were determined to be USD 1,446,572 (+/- USD 48.00). Factoring in Company X’s average profitability, with a return on sales (ROS) of 30.16%, and the industry average profitability of USD 55.00 per TEU, the estimated margin per transaction within the C/D grouping was USD 1,921.87. Adjusting for the deviation factor, the average margin per transaction could reach USD 3,368.44. Extrapolating this to the entire economy implies an average loss of USD 643,783,737 within a confidence interval ranging from USD 634,578,188 to USD 652,989,287.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 9. Economic data for Incoterms® imports in 2019 and 2021 for Company X, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t009

For port turnover, representing 20% of Polish imports by weight, this translates to an annual revenue loss of approximately USD 128 million due to foreign outsourcing of transport remit services. Considering the Port of Gdansk’s significant share of total transshipments at around 46% in 2021, the estimated loss in revenue for Polish forwarding enterprises amounts to USD 84 million. Consequently, there are real losses for the national budget, including USD 13.4 million from VAT and USD 11.3 million from corporate income tax (CIT) and personal income tax (PIT), totaling over USD 24.8 million annually. It is important to note that these losses stem solely from lost margins.

As such, the aspect that cannot be precisely measured is the revenue loss incurred by subcontractors engaged by Polish forwarding enterprises for domestic import handling when Polish importers opt out of transport remit. The estimated revenue loss for Polish partners failing to secure orders from forwarders in import relations totals around USD 177.6 million, while for the national budget, the forfeited revenue from VAT, CIT, and PIT sums up to about USD 74.4 million.

In terms of export transactions for Company X, there was a significant uptick in the total forwarding operations of Incoterms® from USD 223,330,999,676 in 2019 to USD 285,530,032,707 in 2021, resulting in a net gain of USD 62,199,033,031. Delving deeper, Incoterms® formulas experiencing a net gain amounted to USD 62,475,754,560, while those encountering a net loss stood at USD 276,721,529. Export records tallied 150,119 transactions, with approximately 48% conducted under the Incoterms® grouping C/D, signifying operations with transport remit (Table 10). According to the margin loss assessment models for export operations, the weighted margin deviation ratios for grouping E/F transactions, i.e., excluding transport remit, were determined at USD −350,475.93 (+/- USD 29.50). Factoring in the average profitability of Company X’s ROS at 40.01% and the industry average of USD 55.00 per TEU, each transaction within grouping E/F reflected a margin of USD 5,633.78. Adjusting for the deviation factor, the average margin per transaction was recalibrated to USD 5,984.26. This translates to an average economic loss of USD 1,143,724,016, falling within the confidence interval of USD 1,138,078,969 to USD 1,149,369,063 when extrapolated to the economy as a whole.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 10. Economic data for Incoterms® exports in 2019 and 2021 for Company X, USD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.t010

For maritime transport, comprising 15% of Polish exports by weight, the loss in revenue amounts to approximately USD 171.5 million annually due to the relinquishment of transport remit services. Notably, the Port of Gdansk, with a 46% share of total Polish forwarding operations in 2021, implies lost revenue of USD 78.9 million for Polish forwarding enterprises. Consequently, there are tangible losses for the national budget, including approximately USD 18.1 million from VAT and USD 14.9 million from CIT and PIT, totaling over USD 33.6 million annually in tax losses solely from export relations. Note, these figures reflect only the losses resulting from forfeited margins for cargo forwarding through the Port of Gdansk.

Similarly, in the context of export operations, the precise revenue loss for subcontractors remains uncertain. Assuming an average margin ranging from 5% to 15% concerning total transport costs, with one-third of these costs allocated to transportation to a Polish port, the estimated loss for Polish enterprises not served amounts to USD 236.7 million. This equates to forfeited national budget revenue from VAT, CIT, and PIT standing at approximately PLN 100.8 million. Overall, to uphold the current transport remit practices would result in hypothetical losses for the Polish economy, totaling USD 1.79 billion in lost revenues for transport remit services and USD 751.9 million in lost budget revenues. This comprises USD 410.9 million attributed to VAT and USD 339.5 million allocated to CIT and PIT, resulting in an estimated cumulative loss of USD 2.54 billion to the Polish economy.

4.5. Industry-wide survey

The industry-wide survey findings from Polish TSL managers not only validated the results obtained through the quantitative analysis based on government data and the case research of Company X but also provided valuable qualitative insights. Surprisingly, only a negligible 4% of respondents claimed to be entirely unaware of the phenomenon of relinquishing transport remit among their clients. A primary reason identified for Polish enterprises not utilizing transport remit services was the perceived dominance in bargaining power wielded by foreign partners, compelling compliance with their terms (Fig 2). Additionally, respondents highlighted several other contributing factors, including the lack of experience in conducting foreign commercial transactions, the intricate formalities associated with assuming transport remit responsibilities, concerns about increased workload, and a tendency to adhere to past practices of avoiding transport remit. These insights underscore the multifaceted nature of the challenges faced by Polish enterprises in navigating foreign trade dynamics and underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address these concerns.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Reasons for Polish enterprises not to utilize transport remit services to their foreign partners in 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332126.g002

5. Conclusion

The examination of Polish forwarding enterprises presents a compelling narrative of both challenges and opportunities within the transport remit landscape. Using Company X’s operations as a case example, we uncover a notable inclination toward foreign partners assuming transport remit responsibilities, signaling a trend that warrants closer scrutiny and strategic intervention. Despite facing margin setbacks attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the imperative to grasp long-term trends and regional disparities looms large, underlining the strategic significance of informed decision-making to fortify Poland’s competitive edge in global trade. A detailed statistical analysis of Company X’s transport operations highlights the prevalent reliance on transport remit services, with a significant proportion of operations involving Polish partners. Noteworthy trends emerge in import and export transactions, with transport remit slightly more prevalent in exports. The dominance of specific Incoterms® formulas further underscores the complexity and nuances inherent in transport remit practices, with distinct preferences observed across various transaction types.

Moreover, the econometric model developed to assess the impact of transport remit practices unveils far-reaching implications, extending beyond individual companies to affect national budget revenues and subcontractors. The economic ramifications of relinquishing transport remit services, either entirely or by overly utilizing foreign partners, underscore the imperative for strategic alignment and proactive measures to mitigate losses and capitalize on untapped potential. Addressing the multifaceted challenges hindering the expansion of transport remit services among Polish importers and exporters necessitates a comprehensive approach. Efforts encompassing further research, face-to-face expert interviews, and the development of clear guidelines tailored for Polish enterprises are essential to bridge knowledge gaps, streamline processes, and foster wider adoption of transport remit services in the country. Furthermore, initiatives aimed at enhancing education, refining formal and legal systems, and mitigating costs and risks are pivotal to incentivizing Polish operators and nurturing a conducive environment for growth and development in the transport remit market.

Company X’s proactive approach exemplifies how strategic interventions can drive meaningful change. By identifying and leveraging the business benefits of managing transport responsibilities domestically, the company has begun to shift client behavior away from default reliance on foreign partners. This initiative sets a foundation for broader, long-term growth and increased competitiveness in Poland’s logistics sector. Looking ahead, while challenges remain, the potential for progress is substantial. With coordinated efforts from government, industry, and education providers, Polish enterprises can strengthen their role in global trade. Through continued innovation, strategic planning, and capacity building, Poland is well-positioned to unlock the full value of its transport remit capabilities and establish itself as a leading logistics hub in international commerce.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk, for supporting this work. We are also thankful to several faculty members who have given us advice in piecing together the manuscript and conceptual development.