The Concern
A third-party logistics (3PL) provider managed warehousing and distribution for several large consumer brands. Read More
What We Did
Defined the question. With the CEO, the head of operations and legal counsel, we agreed what needed answering. Read More
What We Found
The shortages were neither random nor operational. Read More
The Outcome
Losses stopped: Shortages on the affected routes fell to [X%] within [three months]. Read More
The Concern
A third-party logistics (3PL) provider managed warehousing and distribution for several large consumer brands. It moved goods from [X] warehouses to retailers and distributors across [X] states, using its own fleet alongside subcontracted transporters.
Small shortages between dispatch and delivery had always been settled as transit loss. Each one was minor and within contractual tolerances.
Over [12 months], though, client claims rose steadily. Two of the provider’s largest clients raised the issue at review meetings, and one began to ask whether it should take its business elsewhere. That made it a question of trust rather than cost, and the provider’s business depended on that trust.
The shortages crossed several boundaries: the provider’s warehouses, its fleet, its subcontracted transporters and its clients’ receiving points. Each party saw only its own part. An internal review would have relied on the same teams and records it needed to examine, and clients who were already sceptical would have given it little weight. Leadership needed an independent investigation that could follow consignments end to end, discreetly and without disrupting deliveries.
What We Did
- Defined the question. With the CEO, the head of operations and legal counsel, we agreed what needed answering. Were the losses random or patterned? If they were patterned, where were they happening, who was involved, and which controls had failed? Only a small group knew about the engagement.
- Followed the data. We analysed [two years] of dispatch records, seal numbers, weighbridge readings, fleet telematics and proof-of-delivery records.
- Mapped the losses. We plotted shortages by route, vehicle, transporter, warehouse and shift to see whether they formed a pattern.
- Verified on the ground. Through lawful field inquiries and a review of warehouse procedures, we tested how consignments were actually loaded, sealed, checked and signed for.
- Made it actionable. Leadership and legal counsel received a structured report that kept confirmed findings separate from open questions, documented every source, and set out options for recovery, contractual action and changes to controls. Before the findings were finalised, the individuals involved were given a fair opportunity to respond.
What We Found
The shortages were neither random nor operational.
- Losses were concentrated. More than [60%] of losses came from a small number of routes run by [two] subcontracted transporters.
- They clustered around specific shifts. Shortages lined up with particular loading and receiving shifts at [three] locations.
- Intact seals didn’t mean intact loads. Weight differences appeared on consignments whose seals had been recorded as intact.
- Some checks existed only on paper. On certain shifts, verification steps were recorded but not actually carried out.
- The pattern was coordinated. The evidence pointed to coordination between crews from the two transporters and loading staff on specific warehouse shifts. Goods were removed in transit, and the gap was hidden by checks that existed only on paper.
No single consignment showed the pattern. It only became visible when the data was analysed across the whole network.
The Outcome
- Losses stopped: Shortages on the affected routes fell to [X%] within [three months].
- Costs recovered: The provider recovered [₹X crore] under the liability clauses in its subcontractor agreements and ended its contracts with the transporters involved.
- Client relationships protected: The provider shared the findings and its new controls with its clients, and kept both key accounts.
- Stronger controls: On our recommendation, the provider introduced independent seal verification, weighbridge reconciliation at loading and delivery, shift rotation for loading staff, stricter subcontractor onboarding and monthly route-level loss analysis.