Updated on: April 16th, 2026
Nearly ten years after the SOLAS Verified Gross Mass (VGM) requirement came into force, the regulation itself is no longer new. Yet for many shippers, the operational and financial impact of VGM is still very real.
The issue today is not simply compliance. It is execution.
Shippers need to be confident that their containers will make it onto the stowage plan and onto the vessel without delays, extra handling, or unexpected charges. In principle, the VGM process is straightforward: the verified gross mass must be submitted accurately and on time so that the carrier and terminal can use it in planning and loading. In practice, however, the process often remains fragmented, manual, and slower than it should be.
That is where the real cost of VGM continues to surface.
It is no longer just about weighing the container or generating a certificate. The bigger cost often lies in the workflow around it: collecting the right data, formatting it correctly, sending it through the right channel, validating that it has been received, and resolving exceptions quickly enough to avoid disruption.
For many shippers, the hidden costs include:
manual administration and data entry
reliance on email, portals, or disconnected systems
delays in sending VGM data to the right party at the right time
limited visibility into whether the VGM was received and accepted
additional handling fees charged by service providers
operational delays that can lead to storage, demurrage, or missed loading
In other words, the cost of VGM in 2026 is often less about the regulation itself and more about the friction created by poor data exchange.
This is especially relevant in supply chains where multiple parties are involved. Shippers, forwarders, carriers, and terminal operators may all work in different systems, using different message formats and communication methods. As a result, even a relatively simple compliance requirement can become an inefficient, high-touch process.
Responsibility still matters as well. Even when a forwarder or another service provider helps create or transmit the VGM, the consequences of inaccurate or delayed data can still fall back on the shipper. If the information is wrong, incomplete, or late, the shipment may not proceed as planned, and the resulting disruption can affect far more than a single container move.
For ocean carriers and logistics providers, this remains a challenge too. Many still have to manage a mix of legacy integrations, manual interventions, customer-specific processes, and varying submission methods. That creates unnecessary complexity on both sides of the connection.
This is why VGM should no longer be viewed as just a compliance message. It should be treated as part of a broader data connectivity strategy.
When VGM data can be created, validated, and transmitted automatically between systems, the process becomes faster, more reliable, and far less resource-intensive. Instead of chasing messages, rekeying data, or resolving avoidable exceptions, teams can focus on execution and customer service.
In 2026, the question is no longer whether shippers can comply with SOLAS VGM. Most already can.
The real question is how much they are still paying for outdated, manual, and disconnected processes around it.
For companies that want to reduce operational overhead, improve reliability, and move faster, the opportunity is clear: make VGM part of a seamless digital workflow, not a last-minute compliance task