Tive survey links active cargo monitoring with better recovery after theft

A new survey from shipment-visibility supplier Tive links active monitoring with stronger reported cargo-theft recovery. Released on 21 October, the research concerns what happens while freight is moving, when a shipment's route or condition can provide evidence that something has gone wrong.

Tive surveyed 442 supply-chain, transport, operations, security and executive leaders across North America, Europe and Latin America. Its company-issued research announcement says 45% of organisations using active monitoring reported recovering more than half of stolen cargo, compared with 30% relying on passive monitoring.

Among active-monitoring users, 72% reported typically responding to an alert or theft indicator within an hour, compared with 55% in the passive group. Tive also found stronger reported recovery among users of route-deviation alerts. The company sells monitoring technology and services, which is relevant context for its findings.

An association is not a controlled test

The figures describe responses from organisations using different security arrangements. They do not establish that installing a tracker by itself causes the recovery improvement. Businesses using active monitoring may also have larger security teams, different freight profiles or more established incident procedures.

The recovery statistic also needs careful reading. It concerns the proportion of organisations reporting recovery of more than half of stolen cargo. It is not a claim that 45% of all stolen shipments were recovered, nor an estimate of the average value recovered across the wider transport industry.

For wholesalers, those distinctions matter when a supplier uses survey results to support a service proposal. The figures offer a reason to examine active response arrangements. They are not a forecast of the loss reduction any particular buyer will achieve.

The service includes the response to the alert

A location signal becomes operationally useful when a responsible team can assess and act on it. A route change might indicate theft, but it might also reflect congestion, a permitted diversion or a revised delivery instruction. The monitoring arrangement needs an escalation process that distinguishes those possibilities.

The shipper and logistics provider can establish approved contact routes, operating hours, event thresholds and responsibilities before the first monitored load moves. That allows the team to verify a deviation with the contracted carrier through known contacts and escalate a credible incident appropriately.

After-hours coverage is a significant part of that service. A transport operation running overnight needs to know who receives an alert, what information is available and how quickly a response is expected. A dashboard and a staffed monitoring service provide different levels of support.

Compare offers against the freight actually at risk

A distributor moving compact electronics faces a different exposure from one shipping bulky low-value goods. Shipment value, routes, transfer points and the consequences of non-delivery all affect the economics of additional monitoring. The comparison should use the actual load profile.

Ask what records the service retains and how they can be shared with the carrier, investigators and insurer when appropriate. Sensor coverage, reporting intervals and the handling of a lost signal should be explicit. These determine how complete the incident history will be.

A trial should test the agreed response process using authorised simulations, as well as confirm that the device reports reliably on the intended route. It can reveal delayed notifications or missing contact details without exposing staff to an actual theft.

Tive's findings put useful attention on the link between information and intervention. For wholesale shippers, the commercial issue is whether a proposed monitoring arrangement provides a workable response to the risks of their own freight, with clear evidence of what the service will deliver.