General Motors taps Maersk as integrated logistics partner across South America

General Motors has restructured its logistics model in South America around a single integrated partner, with Maersk now providing ocean, inland, warehousing, and digital services under one coordinated framework. The arrangement is designed to maintain production continuity in a region that regularly tests supply chain agility, from port congestion to weather events.

Lierson Gomes, GM's South America Supply Chain Director, discussed the relationship publicly with Thessa Tozzi, Maersk's Head of Sales for East Coast South America, in a case study published by Maersk on July 9, 2026. Gomes described the shift from viewing Maersk as a transactional supplier to treating the company as a partner embedded in GM's operational planning.

Why GM moved away from a multi-vendor logistics model

Managing separate providers for ocean freight, inland transport, and warehousing creates coordination gaps. Each handoff is a potential point of failure, and visibility often resets at every transition. For an automaker running just-in-time manufacturing, that fragmentation carries real production risk.

Gomes indicated that consolidating those functions with Maersk gave GM faster decision-making and a cleaner operational picture. When a disruption occurs, a single partner with full visibility across modes can respond faster than a network of vendors exchanging information across different systems and priorities.

The automotive sector is particularly exposure to this problem. A delayed component shipment does not just slow a warehouse, it can stop an assembly line. The operational math makes the case for integration clearly.

Visibility and proactive communication as core requirements

According to the Maersk case study, GM's requirements went beyond basic tracking. End-to-end visibility, proactive disruption communication, and rapid response capability were cited as the core performance standards Maersk is expected to meet. Those are not soft relationship qualities; they are contractual expectations that either prevent production stoppages or allow the team to respond before one occurs.

Gomes noted that the partnership has deepened over time, with both organizations now sharing more information and working jointly to identify inefficiencies. That kind of continuous improvement loop is harder to sustain across multiple vendors with competing priorities.

South America as a stress test for logistics partnerships

South America presents a concentrated set of logistical challenges: infrastructure variability, customs complexity across multiple jurisdictions, and exposure to climate disruption. Maersk's advisories published in the same period cover earthquake impact in Venezuela, Strait of Hormuz routing implications, and multiple surcharge revisions on key Latin American lanes, illustrating the operational environment GM is navigating.

For multinationals operating manufacturing in the region, logistics is not a back-office function. It is a direct input to production capacity. Gomes framed it in those terms: the logistics partner provides the confidence that allows GM's team to focus on core manufacturing operations rather than freight firefighting.

Forward-looking design, not just current-state execution

One detail from the case study that carries operational weight is the explicit expectation that the partnership must scale with GM's future needs. Gomes said the company needs partners that can grow with them and support evolving requirements, not just manage today's volumes.

That framing matters for supply chain and procurement teams evaluating logistics contracts. A partner selected purely on current-state pricing and lane coverage may not hold up when the business adds new markets, changes sourcing patterns, or responds to policy-driven trade route shifts. Building scalability and adaptability into the evaluation criteria from the start avoids a renegotiation cycle every few years.

What this means for your team

• Audit multi-vendor logistics arrangements for coordination gaps: every mode handoff where visibility resets is a production risk in time-sensitive manufacturing environments.
• When evaluating logistics partners, include disruption response protocols and proactive communication SLAs as scored criteria, not just lane pricing and transit times.
• Test whether current providers can cover integrated ocean, inland, and warehousing under one data layer before assuming consolidation requires a full re-tender.
• Build contract language around scalability and future network changes, not just current-state volumes, to avoid renegotiation friction as sourcing or trade patterns shift.