AI in Logistics Statistics 2026
By Axis Intelligence Research
Co-author: Mia Scarlett | Last updated: October 26, 2026 | License: CC BY 4.0
C.H. Robinson moved 1.5% more North American truckload and less-than-truckload freight in Q2 2026 with 11.6% fewer people on average, a Logistics Productivity Decoupling Ratio of 114.8, an Axis Intelligence Research calculation from the company’s filing. Expeditors’ ocean business scored 96.5 and J.B. Hunt’s brokerage unit 94.8.
Quick Answer
AI use in logistics more than doubled in a year: 43% of logistics organizations were active AI adopters in 2026, up from 16% in 2025, per the 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends. Trust lags: 7% rate AI outputs highly. Axis Intelligence Research finds only 2 of 10 listed logistics majors put a number on AI productivity in their latest results.
Key Findings
- Axis Intelligence Research’s Logistics Productivity Decoupling Ratio (LPDR) puts C.H. Robinson’s Global Forwarding ocean desk at 121.1 for Q2 2026: 1.0% more ocean shipments handled by 16.6% fewer average employees, per the company’s July 29, 2026 release.
- C.H. Robinson had 11,388 employees on June 30, 2026, against 17,399 on December 31, 2022, a 34.5% reduction over a period in which the company credits its “Lean AI” strategy with productivity gains of more than 60%.
- The U.S. logistics office is changing shape: there were 31.3 logisticians and transportation, storage and distribution managers per 100 freight-desk clerks in May 2025, up from 24.2 in May 2022, an Axis Intelligence Research calculation from Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational data.
- Only 2 of 10 large listed logistics companies quantified an AI-linked productivity gain in their latest results documents, and only Kuehne+Nagel attached a currency value (CHF 100–150 million), according to the Axis Intelligence Research Logistics AI Transparency Score (LATS).
- 65% of logistics and transportation professionals used AI at work in 2026, up from 45% in 2025, but only 7% expressed high or very high trust in its outputs, per the 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends (September 2026).
How Many Logistics Companies Use AI in 2026?
About four in ten supply chain organizations use AI in operations today, and about seven in ten either use it or have a specific AI use case planned within two years, according to the 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report. Every 2026 survey of logistics professionals shows a jump from 2025.
AI adoption in logistics: the 2026 survey readings
| Measure | 2025 | 2026 | Base | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistics professionals using AI at work (with or without approval) | 45% | 65% | U.S. logistics and transportation professionals | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Organizations that are active AI adopters (“optimizers” or “pioneers”) | 16% | 43% | Logistics organizations | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| AI use with manager or organization approval | 16% | 47% | Logistics professionals | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Organizations with no formal position on AI | 55% | 32% | Logistics organizations | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Organizations with AI in use today | 30% | 41% | 500+ global supply chain professionals | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report (2025 value as stated by MHI’s CEO at MODEX 2026) |
| Organizations planning to adopt AI within five years (not yet using) | — | 47% | 500+ global supply chain professionals | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Organizations not leveraging AI now or in a planned use case within two years | — | 28% | 500+ global supply chain professionals | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
The 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends, published by Logistics Management on September 1, 2026 with researchers from Mississippi State University, Georgia College and State University and the University of Central Arkansas, found that the share of organizations taking an active approach to AI rose 27 percentage points in one year, from 16% to 43%. Passive adopters fell from 64% to 30%.
The governance shift is the larger move. Sanctioned use, meaning AI use with a manager’s or the organization’s approval, rose from 16% to 47% of respondents, a 31-point gain. Organizations with no formal AI position fell from 55% to 32%.
Do the MHI adoption figures contradict each other?
No, although they are often reported as if they did. Axis Intelligence Research read the full 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report, produced by MHI and Deloitte from a late-2025 survey of more than 500 supply chain professionals. The 41% and the 28% come from two different questions:
- Technology adoption: 41% of organizations have AI in use today, and a further 47% expect to adopt it within five years. Those two together make the 88% “within five years” figure that circulates in press coverage.
- AI use cases: asked about current or predicted uses of AI within two years, 28% of respondents said they are not leveraging AI technologies. The other 72% named at least one use case, current or planned.
So 41% is today’s installed base and 72% is today plus the two-year plan. Neither number says how deeply AI runs inside an operation; the use-case figures below show how thinly it is spread.
Which supply chain technologies are in use today?
| Technology | In use today | Expected within 5 years (not yet in use) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence | 41% | 47% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Advanced analytics | 38% | 48% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Robotics and automation | 35% | 38% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Autonomous vehicles and drones | 16% | 34% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Humanoid robotics | 4% | 28% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
In the same survey, 70% of respondents said AI has the potential to disrupt the industry. The respondent base is weighted toward senior decision-makers: 60% are executives, department heads or managers, 75% work for companies with sales above $50 million and 18% for companies with sales of $1 billion or more.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: Read the survey tables the way you would read an adjusted earnings line: ask what was excluded to make the number. The 65% employee-use figure includes people using AI without permission. The 47% sanctioned-use figure is the one that changes cost lines, because it means a process owner signed off. For a 3PL (third-party logistics provider), the useful question is not whether staff open a chatbot, but whether quote-to-cash steps have been re-engineered around it. Very few results documents answer that, which is why the rest of this page goes to the filings.
Is AI Reducing Headcount at Freight Brokers and Forwarders?
At C.H. Robinson, the filings point that way. DSV’s deeper cuts come from a merger, and elsewhere headcount is not falling yet. Axis Intelligence Research built the Logistics Productivity Decoupling Ratio (LPDR) to test the claim against filings rather than press statements. LPDR = (1 + volume change) ÷ (1 + headcount change) × 100, using the volume and headcount a company reports for the same business and the same period.
An LPDR of 100 means freight volume and staff moved in step. Above 100, each employee handled more freight than a year earlier. Below 100, headcount grew faster than volume.
Logistics Productivity Decoupling Ratio, latest reported quarter
| Company and business | Period | Volume change | Headcount change | LPDR | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.H. Robinson, Global Forwarding (ocean shipments) | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | +1.0% | −16.6% (average) | 121.1 | C.H. Robinson Q2 2026 release |
| C.H. Robinson, NAST (truckload + LTL) | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | +1.5% | −11.6% (average) | 114.8 | C.H. Robinson Q2 2026 release |
| C.H. Robinson, Global Forwarding (air metric tons) | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | −7.5% | −16.6% (average) | 110.9 | C.H. Robinson Q2 2026 release |
| Expeditors, airfreight (tonnage) | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | +14% | +3.7% (FTE at June 30) | 110.0 | Expeditors Q2 2026 release |
| Expeditors, ocean (containers) | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | 0% | +3.7% (FTE at June 30) | 96.5 | Expeditors Q2 2026 release |
| J.B. Hunt, Integrated Capacity Solutions (loads) | Q3 2026 vs Q3 2025 | +21.5% | +28.2% (end of period) | 94.8 | J.B. Hunt Q3 2026 release (SEC) |
| DSV, Air & Sea (air tonnes)† | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | +9.8% | −17.8% (FTE at June 30) | 133.5 | DSV H1 2026 results presentation |
| DSV, Air & Sea (sea TEU)† | Q2 2026 vs Q2 2025 | +6.0% | −17.8% (FTE at June 30) | 129.0 | DSV H1 2026 results presentation |
LPDR calculated by Axis Intelligence Research from company-reported figures. NAST is C.H. Robinson’s North American Surface Transportation segment; LTL is less-than-truckload; TEU is twenty-foot equivalent unit. Expeditors reports company-wide FTE (full-time equivalents), so both Expeditors rows share one headcount denominator. † Acquisition-affected: DSV completed its purchase of Schenker at the end of April 2025, so its Q2 2025 volume includes Schenker for only part of the quarter, and its headcount fall includes merger synergies.
Among business lines not affected by an acquisition, 26.3 points separate C.H. Robinson’s ocean desk (121.1) from J.B. Hunt’s brokerage (94.8). The freight market cannot explain it on its own. C.H. Robinson’s NAST volume rose 1.5% while the Cass Freight Shipment Index fell 3.3% over the same quarter, as cited in the company’s release, so the company gained volume in a shrinking market while cutting its average headcount.
How much more does each C.H. Robinson employee generate?
C.H. Robinson’s adjusted gross profit per average employee rose 19.3% year over year in Q2 2026, to an annualized $257,300 from $215,700, Axis Intelligence Research calculates from the company’s segment table ($737.97 million ÷ 11,471 average employees, × 4). In NAST alone, adjusted gross profit per average employee rose 22.8%.
Adjusted gross profit is what remains of revenue after paying carriers and suppliers (C.H. Robinson also adds back amortization of internally developed software), so it measures what a broker’s people and systems earn rather than freight rates passing through.
C.H. Robinson headcount since the end of 2022
| Date | Employees | Source |
|---|---|---|
| December 31, 2022 | 17,399 | C.H. Robinson Form 10-K, fiscal 2022 |
| December 31, 2024 | 13,781 | C.H. Robinson Q4 2025 release |
| June 30, 2025 | 12,803 | C.H. Robinson Q2 2026 release |
| December 31, 2025 | 11,855 | C.H. Robinson Q4 2025 release |
| June 30, 2026 | 11,388 | C.H. Robinson Q2 2026 release |
Over three and a half years, C.H. Robinson’s workforce fell by 6,011 people, or 34.5%. Part of that decline is the Europe Surface Transportation business, divested on February 1, 2025, which was inside the 2022 count. The company itself attributes “evergreen productivity improvements of over 60% since the end of 2022” in both NAST and Global Forwarding to its Lean AI strategy; that figure is company-reported and its calculation is not disclosed.
Why does J.B. Hunt’s brokerage score below 100?
J.B. Hunt’s Integrated Capacity Solutions (ICS) unit handled 164,462 loads in Q3 2026 with 722 employees at quarter-end, against 135,309 loads and 563 employees a year earlier. Axis Intelligence Research calculates 227.8 loads per employee, down from 240.3. Revenue per load rose 29.2%, to $2,638 from $2,042, so the unit is earning more per load while staffing ahead of volume. The release does not mention AI.
Is the highest LPDR an AI story?
No. DSV’s Air & Sea division posts the highest readings in the sample, 133.5 for air and 129.0 for sea, but the driver is the Schenker merger. DSV reports a reduction of more than 8,000 white-collar FTE since the integration began and expects about DKK 9 billion in annual synergies, with full impact in 2027, per its Interim Financial Report H1 2026. Part of the volume gain is also arithmetic: Schenker was inside DSV’s network for only part of Q2 2025.
DSV says it is applying AI to labor-intensive processes such as quoting, booking and customs in Air & Sea, and to bookings, route planning and quotations in Road, but it attaches no figure to AI on its own. Group-wide, DSV had 147,222 FTE on June 30, 2026, down 7.2% from 158,692 a year earlier.
That is the clearest demonstration of what the LPDR does and does not measure. It shows freight per employee; consolidation, divestment, outsourcing or software can each move it.
What is happening at Expeditors?
Expeditors is a different case. Its FTE count rose 3.7%, but the company took a $25 million restructuring charge in Q2 2026 for its Global Technology team and said the headcount reduction “will primarily be realized in the third quarter,” targeting about $50 million in annual savings. The Q3 headcount will show whether its ocean LPDR crosses 100.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: A falling headcount is not proof of an AI dividend; a broker can also shed people because volume collapsed. That is why the ratio pairs headcount with volume from the same filing. C.H. Robinson is the only company in the sample that cut staff by double digits while its tracked volume rose without an acquisition in the comparison, and it did so during the 15th straight quarter of year-over-year decline in the Cass shipment index. Two things would weaken the reading: a quarter where volume falls faster than headcount, or evidence that the cuts moved work to contractors rather than to software. The Q3 release on October 29 tests the first.
What Do AI Agents Actually Do in Freight Brokerage?
They quote, build orders and book appointments, mostly on the email-and-phone work that freight brokerage has always run on. C.H. Robinson is the only large broker that publishes task-level metrics for its agents, all company-reported.
C.H. Robinson AI agent metrics (company-reported, March 2026)
| Task | Reported result | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Truckload price quote | Delivered in 32 seconds | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| Order entry | Processed in 90 seconds | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| Dock appointment scheduling | Automated across 42,000 locations | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| Unnecessary return trips from missed pickups | Reduced 42% | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| On-time pickups | Improved 7% on average, up to 35% | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| Speed to market | Up to 11% faster on average, as much as 23% | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
| AI-recommended loads | Booked four times faster | C.H. Robinson newsroom |
The on-time and speed-to-market figures come from a C.H. Robinson analysis of truckload shipments between January 2024 and January 2026 covering two of its agents. The company describes “hundreds” of connected agents but gives no exact count.
RXO grew brokerage volume 2% in Q2 2026, including 2% in truckload and 3% in LTL, per its August 6, 2026 release. The release itself gives no headcount or AI figures, so RXO cannot be scored on the LPDR.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: A 32-second quote matters less for its speed than for what it replaces: an inbound email that a rep would otherwise read, price and answer. In a brokerage, quoting volume is the top of the funnel, and the win rate on spot quotes is what moves gross profit per load. The missing number across the industry is the denominator: how many quotes, orders and appointments now run without a person touching them, as a share of the total. Until a broker publishes that touchless rate, the agent metrics describe capability, not the cost line.
Are Logistics Office Jobs Shrinking in the U.S.?
The clerical freight desk is flat to slightly down while planning roles are growing fast. Between May 2022 and May 2025, U.S. employment of logisticians rose 23.7% and of transportation, storage and distribution managers 30.2%, while shipping, receiving and inventory clerks fell 3.7% and dispatchers 1.7%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS). Total U.S. employment grew 5.1% over the same period.
U.S. logistics occupations, May 2022 vs May 2025
| Occupation (SOC code) | May 2022 | May 2025 | Change | Annual mean wage, May 2025 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logisticians (13-1081) | 202,970 | 251,040 | +23.7% | $89,730 | BLS OEWS |
| Transportation, storage and distribution managers (11-3071) | 169,910 | 221,180 | +30.2% | $121,600 | BLS OEWS |
| Cargo and freight agents (43-5011) | 93,480 | 97,670 | +4.5% | $57,230 | BLS OEWS |
| Dispatchers, except police, fire and ambulance (43-5032) | 206,370 | 202,810 | −1.7% | $54,740 | BLS OEWS |
| Production, planning and expediting clerks (43-5061) | 389,920 | 390,160 | +0.1% | $62,150 | BLS OEWS |
| Shipping, receiving and inventory clerks (43-5071) | 848,240 | 816,870 | −3.7% | $46,810 | BLS OEWS |
| Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers (53-3032) | 1,984,180 | 2,062,040 | +3.9% | $59,710 | BLS OEWS |
| Laborers and freight, stock and material movers, hand (53-7062) | 2,934,050 | 2,950,280 | +0.6% | $42,260 | BLS OEWS |
| All occupations | 147,886,000 | 155,495,730 | +5.1% | $69,770 | BLS OEWS |
SOC is the Standard Occupational Classification. Changes calculated by Axis Intelligence Research from the BLS national files for May 2022 and May 2025.
How many planners does the logistics office have per clerk?
Axis Intelligence Research groups the four clerical freight-desk occupations above (cargo and freight agents; dispatchers; production, planning and expediting clerks; shipping, receiving and inventory clerks) and compares them with the two planning and management occupations (logisticians; transportation, storage and distribution managers).
The clerical group fell 2.0%, from 1,538,010 to 1,507,510 jobs. The planning group rose 26.6%, from 372,880 to 472,220. That puts the ratio at 31.3 planners and managers per 100 clerks in May 2025, up from 24.2 in May 2022.
Wages moved the same way. The annual mean wage for cargo and freight agents rose 15.1% to $57,230, and for logisticians 10.5% to $89,730, against 12.7% for all occupations.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: The occupational data cannot tell you why the mix shifted; e-commerce network growth, reshoring and tariff complexity all add planning work. What it does tell you is where the replaceable work sits. The shrinking roles are the ones C.H. Robinson’s agents target by name: keying orders, booking dock appointments, chasing tracking updates. The growing roles are the ones that decide which carrier, which lane, which inventory position. If brokers keep cutting desk staff at the rate their filings show, the May 2026 and May 2027 OEWS releases are where it should become visible at national scale.
Which Logistics Companies Report the Financial Impact of AI?
Few do. Axis Intelligence Research scored the latest results document from 10 large listed logistics companies with the Logistics AI Transparency Score (LATS), one point for each of four disclosures:
- A. The document names an AI program or AI investment in its body text (risk-factor boilerplate does not count).
- B. It quantifies a productivity or efficiency gain linked to AI.
- C. It attaches a currency value to the AI benefit.
- D. It reports headcount with a prior-year comparison, which lets an outsider check the claim against volume.
Logistics AI Transparency Score, as of October 26, 2026
| Company | Document scored | A | B | C | D | LATS (of 4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.H. Robinson | Q2 2026 earnings release | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Kuehne+Nagel | H1 2026 analyst presentation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Expeditors | Q2 2026 earnings release | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| DSV | Interim Financial Report H1 2026 (Company Announcement No. 1170) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| J.B. Hunt | Q3 2026 earnings release | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FedEx | Q4 FY26 earnings presentation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GXO Logistics | Q2 2026 results release | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| RXO | Q2 2026 press release | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UPS | Q2 2026 earnings release | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DHL Group | H1 2026 press release | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Scores by Axis Intelligence Research from the documents linked in the dataset. Sources: FedEx Q4 FY26 presentation, GXO Q2 2026 release, DHL Group H1 2026 release, UPS Q2 2026 release (SEC), DSV Company Announcement No. 1170.
Seven of the 10 mention AI in the body of their results materials. Two quantify an AI-linked gain. One puts a currency figure on it. Across the sample, companies earned 13 of 40 possible points, an average LATS of 1.3.
The scores are not a ranking of AI capability. GXO says its GXO IQ platform “moved from platform launch to scaled deployment” in Q2 2026, and FedEx says it is embedding AI into its DRIVE cost program; neither attaches a figure. UPS’s Q2 2026 release describes automation within its Network of the Future program without mentioning AI, and DHL Group’s H1 2026 release does not mention AI at all.
Does Kuehne+Nagel’s AI target add up?
Kuehne+Nagel projects an AI-driven productivity benefit of 5% across more than 25,000 white-collar full-time equivalents in Sea Logistics, Air Logistics and functional units, worth an estimated CHF 100–150 million in annualized uplift in 2027, per its H1 2026 analyst presentation. The KPIs it names are orders per FTE and cost per order.
The arithmetic does not close on the 5% alone. Five percent of the CHF 1.7 billion white-collar cost base is CHF 85 million. The CHF 100–150 million target equals 5.9% to 8.8% of that base, Axis Intelligence Research calculates. The presentation also expects “significantly higher output” from IT engineers, which may account for the difference, but it does not split the target between the two.
That addressable white-collar group is about a quarter of the roughly 100,000 FTE in the presentation’s scope (excluding the IMC and Apex units) and CHF 1.7 billion of a CHF 4.6 billion cost base. About 15% of those white-collar FTE already work in global service centers.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: Kuehne+Nagel did the thing almost nobody else in the sample did: it named a base, a percentage, a currency value, a year and the KPI it will be judged on. That makes the claim falsifiable, which is the point. The CHF 15–65 million that sits above a plain 5% of the cost base is the line to watch in the 2027 accounts. On the other end of the table, a company that never names a number can never miss one. Investors pricing an AI margin story into a forwarder should weight disclosure accordingly.
Do Logistics Teams Trust AI Recommendations?
Mostly not yet. Only 7% of logistics and transportation professionals expressed high or very high trust in AI outputs in 2026, 55% moderate trust and 38% low or no trust, per the 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends. Respondents ranked AI last of the seven data and information sources the study evaluated.
Fraud and security concerns in logistics, 2026
| Threat | Very or extremely concerned | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Phishing and cyberattacks | 62% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| AI-generated or fabricated documents | 53% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Double brokering | 47% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Carrier identity fraud | 45% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Phantom loads | 43% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
| Invoice or billing fraud | 42% | 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends |
Double brokering is the illegal re-brokering of a load to another carrier without the shipper’s knowledge; a phantom load is a fake load posting used to extract payment or information. More respondents worry about AI-fabricated documents (53%) than about either. Only 15% describe their organization as very well prepared, with clear strategies and resources in place.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: The trust gap and the fraud table belong together. Freight brokerage settles on documents: rate confirmations, bills of lading, proof of delivery, carrier insurance certificates. The same tools that let a broker answer a quote in seconds let a fraudster produce a clean-looking certificate in seconds. So the 7% figure is not timidity; it is a control environment adjusting. Expect verification spend, not just automation spend, to show up in brokers’ operating expenses through 2027.
How Much Are Supply Chains Spending on AI?
More than half of supply chain organizations plan seven-figure innovation budgets. In the 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report, 56% of organizations expect to increase supply chain innovation spending, 52% plan to spend over $1 million and 17% over $10 million, according to MHI.
The money is not the main brake. In the same survey, the most common primary barrier to AI adoption is building a clear business case (20% of respondents), ahead of lack of understanding (19%) and lack of adequate talent (12%). Talent and workforce issues affect 90% of organizations, and managing cyber risk is a challenge for 88%.
Spending on planning is already large. Gartner found that 83% of organizations it surveyed had spent at least $3 million on supply chain planning automation, including AI, and 51% between $3 million and $10 million, in a survey of 243 senior leaders at companies with revenue of $500 million or more, fielded November 11 to December 18, 2025, per its September 24, 2026 release.
Where supply chain organizations use or plan to use AI
| AI use case (current or planned within two years) | Share of organizations | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Enhancing demand and inventory optimization | 33% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Improving predictive maintenance and equipment reliability | 30% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Automating decision-making in operations | 27% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Optimizing logistics and transportation routes | 26% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Streamlining supplier and procurement processes | 24% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Detecting and mitigating risk in real time | 23% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Personalizing customer experiences and order fulfillment | 23% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
| Accelerating design and prototyping with digital twins | 20% | 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report |
No single use case reaches more than a third of organizations, even counting two years of plans.
Will AI run supply chain planning by 2030?
Not at most companies. Gartner estimates that by 2030 only 5% of organizations using supply chain planning automation will make at least 10% of their planning decisions autonomously. Read with the spending figures, the forecast says companies are buying decision support far faster than they are handing over decisions.
MHI’s survey points the same way from the opposite side: 48% of respondents rate AI’s disruptive impact as significant or greater, up 25 percentage points from the 2025 report, and 24% call it transformational. Asked about AI’s future impact on supply chains and material handling, 62% expect it to be significant or transformational and 6% expect limited or minimal impact.
Mia Scarlett, analysis: A $3 million planning system that recommends but never decides is a cost line without its matching saving, because a planner still signs each output. That is the same gap the trust survey shows from the user’s chair. The companies that will report real productivity, in the sense of orders per FTE, are the ones that pick a narrow decision class (a replenishment order below a value threshold, a spot quote on a standard lane) and let the system execute it. Gartner’s 5% forecast is a measure of how rarely that happens.
Methodology
Axis Intelligence Research assembled this dataset on October 26, 2026, from company earnings releases, SEC filings, investor presentations, company newsrooms, Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational data and three industry surveys. Every figure was retrieved from the organization that produced it, except MHI’s prior-year AI adoption reading (30%), which is attributed to the outlet that reported MHI’s keynote. The full 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report and DSV’s full interim report were read in PDF form.
Logistics Productivity Decoupling Ratio (LPDR). LPDR = (1 + volume change) ÷ (1 + headcount change) × 100. Both inputs must come from the same company, the same business unit where segment data exists, and the same period. Volume is the unit the company itself reports for that business: truckload and LTL shipments, ocean shipments or containers, air tonnage, or loads. Headcount is average headcount where reported (C.H. Robinson), otherwise period-end employees or FTE (Expeditors, J.B. Hunt, DSV). Readings that span an acquisition (DSV, whose Q2 2025 base includes Schenker for part of the quarter) are published but flagged. Where a company reports only company-wide headcount, every business line of that company shares the same denominator. Companies that report volume but not headcount for the same period (RXO, Kuehne+Nagel, UPS) are not scored. LPDR measures freight handled per employee; it does not by itself attribute the change to AI.
Logistics AI Transparency Score (LATS). One point each for four disclosures in the company’s most recent results release or results presentation available on October 26, 2026: (A) AI named in body text, (B) an AI-linked productivity figure, (C) a currency value for the AI benefit, (D) headcount with a prior-year comparison. Newsroom posts, conference remarks and annual reports are not scored, so a company can disclose more elsewhere than its LATS shows. The sample covers 10 large listed logistics providers across brokerage, forwarding, parcel and contract logistics.
Occupational data. U.S. employment and wages come from the BLS OEWS national files for May 2022 and May 2025 (cross-industry, all ownerships). OEWS estimates are built from three years of survey panels and BLS does not design them as a year-to-year time series, so the 2022–2025 changes describe the direction and size of the shift rather than an exact annual count. The planners-per-100-clerks ratio is the sum of SOC 13-1081 and 11-3071 divided by the sum of SOC 43-5011, 43-5032, 43-5061 and 43-5071, times 100.
Other calculations. C.H. Robinson’s adjusted gross profit per employee divides quarterly adjusted gross profit by average headcount for the same quarter and annualizes it by four. Kuehne+Nagel’s implied percentage divides its stated CHF 100–150 million benefit by its stated CHF 1.7 billion white-collar cost base. The C.H. Robinson headcount change from 2022 compares period-end employee counts and includes a business divested in February 2025.
Market-size forecasts for “AI in logistics” are not included: the reports in circulation do not publish methods that would allow their figures to be reproduced.
About This Dataset
The file ai-in-logistics-statistics.csv holds every number on this page: 264 rows, one observation per row, with value, unit, as-of date, reference period, company, segment, geography, source organization, source document, source URL, retrieval date, a primary-source flag, an Axis-calculated flag and the formula for each calculated row. All LPDR and LATS readings are included with their inputs.
The dataset is released under CC BY 4.0 and mirrored on Hugging Face, Kaggle and GitHub. Cite it as: Axis Intelligence Research, AI in Logistics Statistics 2026, 2026.
This page is updated when its inputs change, not on a calendar. The next scheduled triggers are C.H. Robinson’s Q3 2026 results (October 29, 2026), Expeditors’ Q3 2026 results, which will show its restructuring-driven headcount change, the Q3 2026 results of RXO, Kuehne+Nagel and DSV, and the BLS May 2026 OEWS release.
How to Cite This Page
APA
Axis Intelligence Research, & Scarlett, M. (2026, October 26). AI in logistics statistics 2026: Who is moving more freight with fewer people. Axis Intelligence. https://axis-intelligence.com/ai-in-logistics-statistics/
MLA
Axis Intelligence Research, and Mia Scarlett. "AI in Logistics Statistics 2026: Who Is Moving More Freight With Fewer People." Axis Intelligence, 26 Oct. 2026, axis-intelligence.com/ai-in-logistics-statistics/.
Chicago
Axis Intelligence Research, and Mia Scarlett. "AI in Logistics Statistics 2026: Who Is Moving More Freight With Fewer People." Axis Intelligence, October 26, 2026. https://axis-intelligence.com/ai-in-logistics-statistics/.
Questions Logistics Leaders Are Asking About AI
Are freight brokers replacing staff with AI agents?
At C.H. Robinson, headcount fell 34.5% between December 2022 and June 2026, to 11,388 employees, while the company credits its Lean AI strategy with more than 60% productivity gains. Its Q2 2026 LPDR of 114.8 in North American truckload and LTL shows volume rising as staff fell. J.B. Hunt’s brokerage did the opposite in Q3 2026, adding staff faster than loads (LPDR 94.8).
How fast can an AI agent quote a truckload shipment?
C.H. Robinson reports that its quoting agent delivers a truckload price quote in 32 seconds and processes orders in 90 seconds, per a March 2026 company newsroom post. Both figures are company-reported. No other large broker publishes comparable task-level timings.
How is AI productivity measured in a 3PL?
The working metrics are volume per employee and cost per order. Kuehne+Nagel names orders per FTE and cost per order as the KPIs for its AI program. Axis Intelligence Research’s LPDR applies the same logic from public filings: reported volume change divided by reported headcount change, with 100 meaning no change in freight per employee.
Why don’t logistics teams trust AI recommendations?
Only 7% of logistics professionals had high or very high trust in AI outputs in 2026, and AI ranked last of seven information sources, per the 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends. Document fraud is part of the reason: 53% are very or extremely concerned about AI-generated or fabricated documents.
Which logistics companies disclose the savings from AI?
Kuehne+Nagel is the only company in Axis Intelligence Research’s 10-company LATS sample to attach a currency value: CHF 100–150 million in annualized benefit in 2027. C.H. Robinson quantifies productivity (more than 60% since end-2022) but not savings. UPS, DHL Group and RXO give no AI figures in their latest results releases.
Is AI making freight fraud worse?
Logistics professionals think it is a growing risk. In 2026, 53% were very or extremely concerned about AI-generated or fabricated documents, more than the 47% concerned about double brokering and the 43% concerned about phantom loads, per the 35th Annual Study of Logistics and Transportation Trends.
Will supply chain planning be autonomous by 2030?
Gartner forecasts that only 5% of organizations using planning automation will make at least 10% of planning decisions autonomously by 2030, even though 83% of those it surveyed had already spent at least $3 million on planning automation, including AI (September 24, 2026).
What share of supply chain companies use AI for route optimization?
26% of supply chain organizations use or plan within two years to use AI to optimize logistics and transportation routes, behind demand and inventory optimization (33%) and predictive maintenance (30%), according to the 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report by MHI and Deloitte, based on a late-2025 survey of more than 500 professionals.
Are freight dispatcher and logistics clerk jobs disappearing?
Not yet at national scale, but the mix is shifting. U.S. employment of shipping, receiving and inventory clerks fell 3.7% and dispatchers 1.7% between May 2022 and May 2025, while logisticians rose 23.7%, per BLS data. Axis Intelligence Research calculates 31.3 planners and managers per 100 logistics clerks in 2025, up from 24.2.
What percentage of supply chain companies use AI today?
41% of supply chain organizations had AI in use today and a further 47% expected to adopt it within five years, according to the 2026 MHI Annual Industry Report. The often-quoted 28% “not leveraging AI” comes from a separate question on current or planned use cases within two years.
Related Axis Intelligence Research pages: AI in transportation statistics (EU and U.S. sector adoption rates, including AI use for logistics by transport firms) · Warehouse automation statistics · AI adoption by industry · AI job displacement statistics · AI Layoff Tracker · Humanoid Robot Deployment Tracker · AI ROI Calculator