Two cargo-crime datasets were published within days of each other this summer, and read together they say something more useful than “cargo theft is rising”. They describe two different failure modes — and those failure modes need different controls.
What the latest datasets show
EMEA — TAPA EMEA, June 2026. TAPA EMEA recorded 2,181 supply-chain crime incidents across 56 countries in June 2026, an increase of 641 on the previous month, while the total loss value it was able to record fell from EUR 23.82m in May to EUR 11.45m in June. Germany, Italy and Spain again accounted for the largest share of reported incidents. More incidents, lower recorded value: the average loss per reported incident was small.
North America — Verisk CargoNet, Q2 2026. CargoNet documented 677 supply-chain theft reports in Q2 2026, down 26% year on year, with estimated losses of $304.6m and an average reported shipment value of $564,009. Fewer reports, far higher value each. CargoNet’s own commentary cautions that a single quarterly fall is not yet a trend.
Two things to keep straight. These are separate datasets covering separate regions and periods, collected by separate methods — they should not be added together into a single global figure, and neither should be read as a worldwide trend. And both are counts of reported incidents from participating members and contributors, so they describe what gets reported, not the total volume of cargo crime.
Why the numbers describe different security problems
A high count with low average value is consistent with interference, pilferage and shortage: a case taken from a pallet, a carton opened and re-closed, contents removed from an outer that still travels on and still scans. A low count with very high average value is consistent with whole-load theft: the trailer, container or full consignment leaves.
Those are not the same problem. Whole-load theft is addressed by physical security, secure parking, carrier vetting, access control, telematics and recovery. Interference is rarely caught by any of those, because the vehicle arrives, the paperwork matches and the load is delivered. The loss is discovered later, often by the customer, and usually cannot be pinned to a point in the journey.
The handover problem
Most goods change hands several times: loading bay, linehaul, cross-dock, final-mile, goods-in. At each handover someone signs for something. In practice the check is a count of pallets or cartons against a note, done under time pressure. If an outer has been opened and closed again with ordinary tape, or a pallet has been unwrapped and re-wrapped, nothing in that check registers it. The goods leave, and the load still looks intact.
That is the gap tamper evidence addresses: not preventing access, but making access visible at the next point where somebody is already looking.
What tamper evidence can do
- Show that a pallet, container door, outer carton or reusable tote has been disturbed since it was sealed.
- Give a handover inspection something objective to check in seconds, rather than relying on a count alone.
- Carry a serial number or barcode, so a specific seal can be recorded against a specific load, journey or delivery note.
- Narrow where interference happened, by sealing at more than one level — if the pallet seal is intact but an inner pack’s seal is not, the picture is different from the reverse.
What it cannot do
- It cannot stop organised vehicle or whole-load theft. A seal is evidence, not a lock.
- It does not replace secure parking or site security.
- It does not replace carrier vetting or driver checks.
- It does not replace access control, GPS tracking or surveillance.
- It does not identify who opened something, and it does not authenticate the contents — that requires a record, not a seal.
Used honestly, tamper evidence is one layer that reports on a specific event: the pack was opened between these two points.
Where to apply the evidence
Pallet. Seals or tape applied across the wrap and, where useful, across the load edges, so unwrapping and re-wrapping shows. Suits full-pallet moves through cross-docks. See pallet security tamper-evident tapes.
Outer carton or container. Tape or void labels across the closure, or a labelled seal across a container door. Where a numbered mechanical seal is already used, a label-based seal records opening on surfaces a bolt seal cannot cover — the two do different jobs. See tamper-evident labels for shipping containers.
Reusable tote. Where the container comes back and is re-used, removal behaviour matters more than anything else: the seal must evidence opening without leaving residue that builds up cycle after cycle.
Individual high-value pack. Where a single unit is the target, sealing at the outer level tells you nothing useful. The evidence has to sit on the item’s own pack.
What to specify
- Surface. Stretch wrap, corrugated board, painted metal, powder-coated or recycled substrates all bond differently, and the surface at application temperature is what matters.
- Environment. Chilled and frozen stages, outdoor yards, humidity, vibration and long transit times all affect whether a seal still reads correctly at goods-in.
- Removal behaviour. Permanent, where the evidence should stay on the pack, or non-residue, where the container is re-used and must come back clean.
- Numbering and identification. Sequential numbers, barcodes or datamatrix where a seal needs to be recorded against a load or delivery.
- Handover workflow. Who checks, what they check against, and what happens when a seal reads as disturbed. A seal nobody is asked to inspect changes nothing.
Practical conclusion
Layer the controls according to the loss mode you actually have. If the exposure is whole-load theft, the money belongs in parking, routing, vetting and tracking. If the exposure is interference, shortage and disputed deliveries, the money belongs in making opening visible at the levels where goods change hands, and in a handover check that acts on it. Most operations have some of both, in different proportions on different lanes — which is why the same specification rarely fits the whole network.
Wider context on where pallet-level evidence fits sits in our guide to pallet security in international freight and our logistics applications.
Not sure which layer you need?
If you know where losses are appearing but not which level to seal, that is a specification question rather than a product question. Send us the pack and the problem — surface, journey, temperatures and where the handover check happens — and we will help work out where the evidence belongs: The Security Lab.
Sources
- TAPA EMEA June 2026 figures for the EMEA region — 2,181 reported incidents across 56 countries, recorded losses down from EUR 23.82m in May to EUR 11.45m in June, as reported by trans.info (3 August 2026).
- Verisk CargoNet Q2 2026 figures for North America — 677 reported thefts, down 26% year on year, estimated losses $304.6m, average reported shipment value $564,009: Verisk newsroom and FreightWaves (7 August 2026).
Both datasets count reported incidents only, cover different regions and reporting periods, and are not directly comparable with each other.