Aaron Döhring
Junior Consultant
Read time
4 min read
Date
8/10/2026
.svg)
Europe’s port data supports that direction of travel. Eurostat says the main EU ports handled 100.9 million TEU in 2024, a record level, and that empty-container handling grew by 5.5%, faster than the 4.1% growth for loaded containers. That matters because it shows the issue is not just more cargo flowing through Europe; it is also a faster increase in boxes that still need to be stored, repositioned, and moved through the system without carrying revenue-generating cargo.
The structural reason is straightforward: Europe is receiving more than it is sending back on key deep-sea trades. Container Trades Statistics said Europe’s imports from the Far East rose 9% in 2025, pushing the Far East–Europe import-export imbalance from 2.9:1 in 2024 to 3.3:1 by the end of 2025. In practical terms, that means more full boxes arriving into Europe and more empties that must later be repositioned out of Europe. The imbalance is no longer a temporary distortion; it is becoming part of the operating environment.
The major European gateways are already describing that pressure in exactly those terms. The Port of Rotterdam said that between 2020 and 2025, the gap between imports and exports widened by 1.47 million TEU, explicitly increasing the number of empty containers circulating in the system. Port of Antwerp-Bruges reported that in 2025, imports from China rose 3.8% while exports to China fell 3.3%, further widening inbound-outbound imbalance and reinforcing the need to reposition empties. Earlier in 2025, Antwerp-Bruges had already flagged the operational symptom clearly: exports of full containers fell 2.8%, while exports of empty containers rose 15.6%.
For terminals, this changes the game in at least four ways. First, empties consume scarce yard slots without delivering the same value as laden cargo. Second, they generate additional rehandles, shifting, and stack reshuffles that dilute crane, equipment, and labour productivity. Third, they put pressure on gate, barge, and rail interfaces because terminals still need inland capacity to evacuate empties even when those flows create limited direct value. Fourth, they reduce resilience: when yard occupancy is already high, a terminal loses flexibility to absorb disruptions, peaks, or off-schedule calls. Those effects are amplified in Europe’s congested gateways, where physical space is limited and inland coordination is already difficult.
This also raises a broader network question: should all of these empty containers remain within the main terminal at all? Where volumes justify it, dedicated empty depots can separate empty-container handling from higher-value laden flows and relieve pressure on scarce terminal capacity. Increasing levels of automation could make such depots particularly interesting, as empty-container flows are comparatively repetitive and may therefore offer opportunities for standardized handling, automated stacking and more predictable equipment utilisation.
This is why the empty-container issue should not be treated as a shipping-line problem alone. It is increasingly a terminal operating model problem. A terminal can appear busy and productive on paper while a growing share of its moves is actually tied to imbalance management rather than productive cargo flow. That distorts performance indicators, complicates berth and yard planning, and can easily hide where operational value is really being lost. In that sense, empty containers are not just taking space; they are taking optionality out of the terminal.
The wider market context makes this even harder to manage. UNCTAD said maritime trade growth was set to slow to 0.5% in 2025, while route instability and geopolitical disruption continued to reshape vessel patterns. By May 2025, tonnage through the Suez Canal was still 70% below 2023 levels, and Drewry reported 59 blank sailings over the next five weeks as of 17 April 2026, with Asia–Europe/Med among the affected trades. For terminals, that means empty flows are not arriving in a stable rhythm. They are interacting with bunching, schedule changes, and uneven inland release patterns, which makes yard planning more volatile.
From our perspective, the implication is clear: terminals need a more deliberate empty-container strategy. That starts with treating empties as a distinct flow with their own rules, thresholds, and operating logic rather than allowing them to compete with laden units on equal terms. Stack design, dwell-time discipline, carrier coordination, and inland evacuation planning remain essential, but terminals should also assess whether growing empty volumes need to remain inside the main terminal at all. Dedicated empty depots can help separate lower-value empty flows from capacity that is required for laden containers, while reducing unnecessary rehandles and protecting operational flexibility. Where volumes, land availability, and the business case support it, automation can further strengthen this model by enabling more standardized handling, predictable equipment utilisation, and efficient high-density storage. Better visibility is still essential, but visibility alone is not enough; terminals need clear trigger points for when empty intake is restricted, when containers should be transferred to an external depot, when evacuation must be accelerated, and when scarce handling capacity must be protected for laden cargo. The terminals that cope best will therefore not necessarily be those with the most yard area, but those that make the fastest and clearest decisions about where empties should be stored, when they should be moved, and which parts of the empty-container flow can be automated.
That is the real message behind the 41% headline. Even if the figure is a global distance-weighted metric rather than a Europe-only port-handling share, it points to the same underlying truth: the container system is spending more effort moving imbalance. In Europe, terminals are where that imbalance becomes physical — in stacks, in rehandles, in waiting times, and in lost flexibility. As long as imports continue to outpace exports on key trades, empty containers will remain a strategic terminal issue rather than a background inefficiency.
