Germany: The logistics industry is extending payment terms. Small transport companies are under liquidity pressure.

The latest business intelligence survey Creditreform, based on the analysis of nearly four million invoices, sheds a disturbing light on the financial health of the German transport and logistics sector. In the first half of 2026, the average payment term in business-to-business (B2B) transactions increased to over 32 days—and while this number may seem small, it carries significant consequences for the financial liquidity of thousands of companies across the supply chain. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) acting as subcontractors for logistics giants are particularly vulnerable.

Systematic extension of payment terms - hard data

According to Creditreform data, in the first half of 2026 the average payment term for invoices was 32,21 daysThis is an increase of almost one full day compared to the same period a year earlier and more than two days compared to the data from 2023. The trend is therefore clear and consistent – ​​the market is gradually but inexorably shifting the burden of financing to service providers.

To an outside observer, a difference of one or two days may seem like a minor detail. However, for a transport company operating on margins of several percent and bearing fixed, daily operating costs—fuel, driver salaries, highway tolls (MAUT), and insurance—every additional day of waiting for a transfer from a contractor represents a real drain on cash flow. Over the course of a month and a year, this translates into a cash shortage of millions for the sector as a whole.

It's worth emphasizing that this trend isn't an isolated phenomenon or specific to logistics. Creditreform has noted similar developments in retail and the consumer goods segment. Nevertheless, the transportation and logistics sector appears to be one of the most vulnerable due to its cost structure, low margins, and the hierarchy of bargaining power among market participants.

Macroeconomic backdrop: cost pressures drive changes in payment terms

Extending payment terms is not a decision made in a vacuum. It is a market response to a number of unfavorable macroeconomic phenomena that have been shaping the realities of doing business in Central Europe for several years.

Among the key driving factors, experts mention primarily:

• Rising fuel and energy prices — the persistent volatility of diesel prices directly affects the operating budgets of carriers and forces them to look for savings or shift costs to other elements of the financial chain.
• Increase in prices of materials and spare parts — maintaining and operating a fleet is becoming increasingly expensive, which increases companies' need for cash in the short term.
• Rising employment costs — The shortage of qualified drivers in Germany and across Europe is maintaining upward pressure on wages, which is further weighing on the income statement.
• Road tolls and regulations — expansion of the Maut system and new requirementsrodoswis generate additional administrative and financial burdens, particularly felt by smaller operators.
• General economic downturn — the economic slowdown in Germany and more broadly in the eurozone results in a reduction in transport volumes and pressure on the prices of transport services.

Faced with these challenges, many service providers are opting to extend payment terms for their key clients as a conscious strategy to maintain business relationships. In theory, this solution is mutually beneficial—the client gains time to pay, and the supplier retains the contract. In practice, however, this mechanism creates significant systemic tensions, primarily affecting the weaker links in the supply chain.

Market asymmetry: who gains, who loses?

One of the most alarming conclusions from the Creditreform analysis is the clear asymmetry in payment terms depends on the size of the company. The rule is simple and straightforward: the larger the company, the more time it has to settle its obligations.

Large corporations employing more than 250 people have such a strong negotiating position that they can force their suppliers to pay on average longer terms. 35 daysThey benefit from economies of scale, long-term framework agreements, and—quite frankly—the fact that for many smaller suppliers, losing a contract with a major player would mean dramatic consequences for their business.

At the other end of the spectrum are micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises employing up to 50 employees. These companies—often the backbone of a logistics subcontracting network—are forced to settle their own liabilities much more quickly. They lack the negotiating power or financial buffer to calmly await receipts from large contractors.

The effect is paradoxical and deeply unfair: small transport companies de facto finance the activities of logistics giantsThey issue invoices, wait 35 or more days for payment, and meanwhile, they have to pay fuel, drivers, and tractor leases on an ongoing basis. The difference between the receipt of payments and the moment the costs are incurred is precisely this liquidity gap, which is becoming unbearable for many small subcontractors.

Liquidity gap - mechanism and consequences

The liquidity squeeze phenomenon is particularly destructive in the transport industry due to the specific cost structure of this sector.

Transportation services are inherently cost-intensive and require immediate financial outlaysBefore the driver reaches their destination and before an invoice is issued, the company must pay for:

• diesel fuel - usually billed on a weekly or bi-weekly basis,
• drivers' salaries - paid monthly, regardless of the date of receipt of the payment from the client,
• motorway and ferry tolls – collected in advance or in a very short billing cycle,
• leasing installments for vehicles and trailers – paid regularly, regardless of the condition of the order portfolio,
• Third party liability, comprehensive and cargo insurance - requiring regular premiums.

When invoice receipts are due over 30 days and operating costs must be paid almost immediately, a dangerous financial gap appears. Although the company performs the service and has a receivable recorded on the asset side, there are insufficient funds in the current account to cover further operating costs.

For experienced risk managers, this is a wake-up call. The history of the transportation industry is replete with cases where companies were profitable on paper—they had a portfolio of orders, issued invoices, and generated revenue—yet declared insolvency because they were unable to synchronize revenues with expenses. Financial liquidity is more important than profit in transport — and the Creditreform study confirms that this balance is currently seriously disturbed.

Supply Chain Risk – A Systems Perspective

This phenomenon ceases to be a problem for individual companies when viewed through the lens of the entire supply chain. In the logistics industry, subcontracting structures are extremely complex—a large logistics operator handles orders with the participation of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of smaller carriers and freight forwarders. Each of them serves as a separate financial link.

If a liquidity gap begins to appear simultaneously for many small subcontractors, the risk of cascading problems becomes real. The insolvency of a single subcontractor could:

• disrupt the execution of contracts by the main operator,
• create a domino effect among related subcontractors,
• increase in operating costs of the entire supply chain due to the sudden need to acquire alternative contractors,
• lead to delivery delays, contractual penalties and loss of customers by the main client.

It is worth noting that such crises tend to materialize at the least expected moments – usually when additional external factors occur, such as an increase in fuel prices, a seasonal transport peak or unforeseen random events (breakdowns, accidents, route closures).

Industry context: logistics compared to other sectors

To better understand the scale of the problem, it's worth placing the data from the transportation sector in a broader industry context. The absolute record holder in terms of payment terms remains chemical and plastics sector — where the average exceeds 40 days. However, importantly, this industry has recently seen a slight reduction in average lead times.

Logistics and transportation fall slightly below this figure, but their situation is structurally more difficult. The chemical industry typically operates on higher margins and can afford longer settlement cycles. The transportation sector, operating with margins often not exceeding a few percent, is significantly less resilient to any liquidity disruption. Extended payment terms have a disproportionately large impact on the financial condition of companies.

In this sense, the Creditreform study indicates not so much the absolute values ​​of payment terms, but rather relative risk — and this risk is assessed in logistics as one of the highest on the market.

What does this mean for risk managers and business owners?

From a business risk management perspective, the trends described generate several specific challenges and recommendations that are worth considering when assessing potential business partners and designing your own credit policy.

Verification of contractors

In the wedrodoin a market where liquidity pressure is increasing and payment deadlines are extending, thorough verification of trading partners becomes crucialA company that paid its debts on time a year ago may now be under significant financial stress—not because it's operating unprofitably, but because its own customers are late with payments. Risk spreads throughout the supply chain.

It is worth monitoring regularly:

• payment history of potential and current contractors,
• changes in the ownership and staff structure of partner companies,
• information on restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings in the sector,
• early warning signals, such as longer invoice response times or a change of the servicing bank.

Active receivables management

Passively waiting for payment is a high-risk strategy in the current environment. Companies should implement active receivables management processes, including systematic monitoring of timely payments, quick response to initial delays and readiness to escalate – first through reminders and, if necessary, through formal debt collection activities.

External financing tools

The growing liquidity gap makes instruments such as factoring, receivables insurance or credit lines secured by invoices are no longer a luxury, but a tool for operational management. Especially for small and medium-sized transport companies that don't have large cash reserves, external working capital financing can be the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Factoring—both full (with the factor assuming the risk) and non-recourse—allows for immediate cashing of issued invoices, eliminating the wait for payment. In an industry with such a unique cost structure as transportation, this solution is worth serious consideration.

Terms and Conditions Policy

Transport companies should also review their trade credit policies. While agreeing to very long payment terms for large customers may be strategically justified, it requires conscious risk management on the part of the supplier. It's worth considering:

• the length of the payment period depends on the contractor's payment history,
• using advance payments or partial payments for new customers,
• introducing compensation mechanisms – e.g. discounts for early payment (discount),
• insurance of receivables from large contractors, even if they seem reliable.

Outlook for the coming months

Given the current trajectory of change, there is no reason to expect a quick improvement in the situation. Cost pressure in transport will persist at least until the end of 2026—and may intensify in a scenario of a deepening economic slowdown in Germany. This means that the trend of extending payment terms will likely continue, and the asymmetry between large and small entities may deepen even further.

In this context, an increase in the number of restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings can be expected in the sector of small carriers and logistics subcontractors – both in Germany and among companies from other European countries, including Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania, which provide transport services on the German market.

For European risk managers, this is a signal to pay closer attention to the financial condition of partners operating in this segment – ​​and not to treat the history of cooperation as a sufficient guarantee of timely payments in the future.

Summary: Liquidity as the New Risk Barometer

The Creditreform study serves as an important benchmark for all participants in the European transport and logistics market. Its key message is clear: liquidity management becomes a central element of the survival strategy — not only in times of crisis, but as a sustainable standard of operation in a demanding, low-margin worldrodosence of logistics.

Extended payment terms, deepening asymmetry between large and small entities and rising operating costs create arodoa situation in which even financially healthy companies can suddenly find themselves in serious trouble. Liquidity risk is today just as important—perhaps even more important—than the risk of counterparty insolvency in the traditional sense.

Risk managers, transport company owners, and trade credit specialists should use Creditreform's data as a signal to review and update their receivables management procedures and partner risk assessment policies. In an industry where margins are paper-thin and operating costs are rapidly flowing, every day—and every transfer—counts.