Chinese low-value and e-commerce exports to the European Union fell by 65% year-on-year in August 2026, providing one of the clearest indications yet that Europe's new customs regime is fundamentally changing cross-border e-commerce flows. The decline follows the EU's introduction of a temporary €3 customs duty on low-value imports and comes after China-to-EU shipments had already fallen 54% year-on-year in July.

The figures, reported by The Loadstar and based on data from Trade and Transport Group, show how rapidly the economics of direct-to-consumer shipping from China are changing. For marketplaces and sellers that built their European operations around inexpensive individual parcels shipped directly from China, the removal of the EU's long-standing customs duty exemption for consignments below €150 has introduced a new cost into a business model heavily dependent on extremely low prices and enormous shipment volumes.

Chinese e-commerce shipments to Europe fall sharply

According to Trade and Transport Group managing director Frederic Horst, Chinese low-value and e-commerce exports to the EU dropped 65% year-on-year in August. The contraction accelerated from the already substantial 54% decline recorded in July, suggesting that the disruption is becoming more pronounced rather than representing a temporary adjustment immediately following the introduction of the new rules.

Separate data from Aevean points in the same direction. Its latest figures indicate that China's overall e-commerce exports fell approximately 16% year-on-year in August, the largest decline recorded so far. Europe was the main contributor to that contraction, with Chinese e-commerce exports to the region falling approximately 40%.

The discrepancy between the 40% and 65% figures reflects differences in datasets and measurement methodologies, but both show an exceptionally sharp deterioration in China-Europe e-commerce traffic. Other regions experienced much smaller reductions, while Africa was an important exception, with Chinese e-commerce exports reportedly increasing 71% from a comparatively small base.

The EU's €3 customs duty changes the economics of cheap parcels

The turning point came on 1 July 2026, when the European Union abolished the customs duty exemption previously available for consignments valued at €150 or less. A temporary flat customs duty of €3 now applies to qualifying low-value imported goods and is scheduled to remain in place until July 2028, when the EU expects its broader customs reform and Customs Data Hub to become operational.

Although frequently described as a €3 "parcel tax", the mechanism is more nuanced. The duty is calculated according to the different categories of goods contained within a shipment and their tariff classification. A parcel containing several products belonging to the same relevant category may therefore attract €3, while a shipment containing products falling under several different tariff classifications can generate multiple €3 charges.

For ultra-low-cost e-commerce, even a relatively small absolute charge can substantially change the economics of a transaction. The impact is particularly significant for products costing only a few euros, where customs costs represent a much larger percentage of the total purchase price. This directly challenges the economics that helped Chinese marketplaces build enormous European businesses around inexpensive products shipped individually to consumers.

Europe processed 5.9 billion low-value e-commerce items in 2025

The EU's decision follows years of extraordinary growth in direct e-commerce imports. According to the European Commission, approximately 5.9 billion low-value e-commerce items entered the European Union during 2025, around four times the volume recorded in 2022.

European authorities argued that the previous €150 customs exemption had become increasingly unsuitable for an e-commerce market handling billions of individual items. The Commission has also raised concerns about undervaluation, customs fraud, product safety and the competitive difference between European retailers importing merchandise commercially and overseas sellers sending products directly to individual customers.

The temporary €3 duty therefore represents only one component of a much broader overhaul of European customs rules. From November 2026, additional Product Identifier requirements are also scheduled to become mandatory for relevant import distance sales, giving customs authorities more information to identify products and detect potentially unsafe or non-compliant goods.

Temu, Shein and AliExpress face a changing European market

The change is particularly important for Chinese marketplaces such as Temu, Shein and AliExpress, whose international expansion has been closely associated with direct cross-border fulfillment. Trade and Transport Group previously estimated that China accounts for more than 80% of global cross-border e-commerce revenue, with Temu, Shein and AliExpress responsible for the overwhelming majority of Chinese e-commerce exports.

Direct fulfillment from China offered several advantages. Sellers could maintain centralized inventory, avoid duplicating stock across European markets and offer enormous product catalogues without placing every SKU in regional warehouses. Air freight and highly optimized parcel networks then connected Chinese suppliers directly with European consumers.

Europe's new customs environment weakens some of those advantages. The alternative is increasingly to move products into Europe in bulk, clear them through customs before individual orders are placed and fulfill purchases domestically or regionally. This does not eliminate customs costs, but it changes how those costs, inventory and compliance obligations are managed.

Chinese marketplaces could accelerate European warehousing

The decline in direct parcel traffic does not necessarily mean European demand for Chinese products will disappear. Instead, the regulatory changes could accelerate a transition already underway: moving inventory closer to European consumers.

Chinese marketplaces have increasingly experimented with local seller programs, European warehouses and hybrid fulfillment structures. Under this model, products can be imported in larger commercial shipments, stored within the EU and subsequently delivered as domestic or intra-European orders.

This would represent a fundamental change to the logistics architecture behind Chinese cross-border e-commerce. The competitive battleground would move partially away from ultra-cheap China-to-consumer parcel delivery toward inventory positioning, European fulfillment capacity, last-mile delivery and increasingly sophisticated demand forecasting.

For European fulfillment companies and logistics providers, that transition could create significant opportunities. Marketplace volumes that previously moved directly through airports and postal or parcel networks may increasingly require warehousing, pick-and-pack operations, returns processing and domestic delivery inside Europe.

European retailers are already reporting an impact

There are also early signs that European retailers may be benefiting from the changes. Polish fashion group LPP, owner of the Sinsay brand, has linked stronger online growth to the EU's new treatment of low-value imports. Sinsay's online sales reportedly began growing between 20% and 30% from mid-August, with the company pointing to the new import regime as one factor affecting competition from Chinese platforms.

Polish marketplace Allegro has similarly cited reduced competitive pressure from Chinese sellers among the factors supporting stronger domestic performance. The company recently increased its 2026 outlook, including raising its expected Polish gross merchandise value growth to between 11% and 13%.

The situation remains complex, however. Chinese marketplaces are unlikely to simply withdraw from Europe. Their scale, supplier networks, technology and ability to modify logistics models mean that the current decline in direct shipments could eventually be followed by a different type of expansion based on localized inventory and European fulfillment.

Air cargo could be one of the biggest losers

The consequences extend far beyond marketplaces and retailers. Cross-border e-commerce has become an important source of global air cargo demand, particularly on routes connecting China with Europe and North America.

Trade and Transport Group estimated earlier this year that cross-border e-commerce represented almost 18% of intercontinental air cargo traffic in 2025 despite accounting for only around 6% of global online sales. The disproportionate impact reflects the industry's reliance on air transport to deliver inexpensive Chinese products to international consumers within competitive delivery windows.

A sustained reduction in direct China-to-Europe parcel traffic could therefore affect freighter demand, airport volumes and airfreight capacity allocation. Major European cargo gateways that developed significant e-commerce operations over the past decade could be particularly exposed to changes in the direct parcel model.

The industry is already adapting. Senior executives from logistics companies including DSV and DHL have highlighted the need for greater flexibility as regulation, geopolitical disruptions and changing e-commerce patterns repeatedly alter global cargo flows. Rather than assuming that established gateways and routes will continue handling the same volumes, logistics companies are increasingly building networks capable of shifting capacity between markets.

The UK is proving more resilient

The European picture is also not uniform. Chinese e-commerce exports to the United Kingdom declined considerably less than shipments into the EU, according to Trade and Transport Group data.

Volumes to the UK fell approximately 13% year-on-year in August after declining only 5% in July. While still negative, the figures are substantially less dramatic than the 54% and 65% declines recorded for the European Union during the same months.

The divergence provides another indication that regulation is playing an important role in changing shipment patterns. The UK operates outside the EU customs system and is therefore not directly subject to the bloc's new €3 low-value import duty.

The US shows how quickly e-commerce flows can change

The United States provides another example of the ability of Chinese e-commerce networks to adapt to regulatory disruption. Direct low-value shipments from China to the US have reportedly been expanding again since May, although rolling 12-month volumes remain at only around 65% of the levels recorded before May 2025.

The pattern demonstrates how quickly cross-border e-commerce flows can be redirected or reorganized when governments change customs rules. Marketplaces can alter sourcing, consolidate shipments, move inventory into destination markets or develop alternative fulfillment structures.

Europe may now be entering a similar adjustment period.

What happens next to China-EU e-commerce?

The 65% decline in August should therefore not necessarily be interpreted as a 65% collapse in European consumer demand for Chinese products. It primarily measures a dramatic contraction in a particular cross-border logistics model: low-value products moving directly from China into the EU.

The distinction is critical. If Chinese marketplaces respond by moving more inventory into European warehouses, some of the lost direct airfreight volume could reappear as bulk freight, ocean shipments or alternative logistics flows. At the same time, local fulfillment would place Chinese marketplaces in more direct competition with European retailers on delivery speed, warehousing efficiency and returns management rather than primarily on cross-border parcel economics.

More regulatory changes are also approaching. The €3 duty is a transitional mechanism expected to operate until July 2028, after which the EU intends to apply normal customs tariffs through its reformed customs infrastructure. New product identification requirements and a planned handling fee will further increase the regulatory and operational requirements associated with selling low-value products into Europe.

A structural change in cross-border e-commerce

Two consecutive months of exceptionally steep declines provide the first substantial evidence that Europe's customs reforms are already influencing international e-commerce flows. A 54% year-on-year contraction in July followed by a 65% decline in August suggests that the impact extends beyond an initial period of implementation.

For Chinese marketplaces, the challenge will be preserving the price advantages that drove their European expansion while adapting to an environment where direct low-value imports no longer receive the same customs treatment. For European retailers, the rules could reduce part of the structural cost difference between locally stocked merchandise and individual products shipped directly from outside the EU.

For logistics companies, meanwhile, the transformation may be even more significant. The extraordinary growth of Chinese cross-border e-commerce helped reshape global air cargo during the first half of the decade. If Europe continues moving away from the direct-parcel model, the next phase of that transformation could increasingly take place inside European warehouses, fulfillment centers and domestic delivery networks.

The 65% decline is therefore more than an e-commerce sales indicator. It may be an early sign that one of the defining logistics models of global e-commerce is being rewritten.

The post China-to-EU E-commerce Shipments Plunge 65% as New Customs Rules Reshape Cross-Border Trade appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

A major strategic divide is emerging over the future of agentic commerce. Shopify is opening its merchant ecosystem to Meta’s new AI shopping agent, Muse, while Amazon has taken the opposite approach and blocked the same agent from shopping on Amazon.com. The contrast reveals two very different visions of how AI should interact with online retail. Shopify appears willing to let third-party agents become a new commerce channel, while Amazon is defending tighter control over its marketplace, customer experience and commercial infrastructure.

On one side, Shopify is working with Meta so Muse can help users discover products and complete purchases across Shopify-powered stores using Shop Pay. On the other, Amazon says Meta did not obtain permission for Muse to access its marketplace and has blocked the agent from shopping on behalf of customers. The dispute raises a wider question for the entire e-commerce industry: should AI agents be welcomed as a new layer of distribution and checkout, or treated as external intermediaries that could weaken retailer control over customers, data and monetization?

Shopify embraces Meta’s Muse as an AI commerce channel

Shopify has chosen the more open approach. The company is partnering with Meta to integrate Shop Pay agentic checkout into Muse, allowing the AI assistant to facilitate purchases from merchants operating on Shopify. Shopify had already started preparing for this shift earlier in September by adding Meta as an AI channel inside Shopify Admin. Merchants can manage whether product catalogs are shared with Meta, control direct checkout access and monitor performance from within Shopify’s agentic-commerce settings.

This is significant because Shopify is not merely allowing Muse to browse merchant websites. It is connecting Meta to structured commerce infrastructure, giving the AI cleaner access to product data, availability and checkout functionality. That reduces the need for the agent to interpret conventional websites designed for humans. Instead, Shopify can act as the commerce layer beneath the AI interface, providing the product and transaction infrastructure while Meta controls the consumer-facing experience.

Shop Pay becomes the transaction layer

The partnership also highlights the strategic value of Shop Pay. Muse users will be able to complete purchases through Shopify’s accelerated checkout infrastructure across participating stores. That means the customer may begin and remain inside Meta’s AI environment while the transaction itself still flows through Shopify’s commerce stack. For Shopify, the loss of the traditional storefront as the primary interface does not necessarily mean losing the economic value of the transaction.

This is a critical distinction in the emerging agentic-commerce model. Shopify does not primarily depend on consumers visiting Shopify.com, because its business is built around providing infrastructure to merchants wherever commerce happens. If discovery increasingly moves into AI assistants, Shopify can still capture value through product feeds, checkout, payments and merchant operations. Its strategy therefore appears less focused on protecting the storefront and more focused on becoming indispensable infrastructure underneath AI-driven commerce.

Amazon takes the opposite approach

Amazon has chosen a far more restrictive position. The company blocked Muse from shopping on Amazon.com after Meta reportedly declined Amazon’s request to exclude its marketplace from the agent’s shopping capabilities. Users attempting to shop on Amazon through Muse began seeing a message stating that continued access by an unauthorized AI agent violated Amazon’s Conditions of Use. Amazon says the issue centers on authorization, transparency and how third-party agents interact with its platform.

According to Amazon, Meta did not provide advance notice that Muse would shop on Amazon.com, the agent does not adequately identify itself while browsing, and the company has concerns around customer credentials and account access. Amazon argues that third-party applications making purchases on behalf of users should operate transparently and respect whether a service provider wants to participate. The company’s position is that consumer permission alone is not enough; the merchant platform should also be able to decide whether an external agent can access and transact through its systems.

Meta disputes the credential-risk concern

Meta has said Muse does not directly see users’ passwords or payment credentials. According to the company, credentials are stored securely and can be used by the AI without being exposed to the model itself. Muse operates inside a virtual machine and can use a browser to interact with services when a public API is not available. Meta also says the agent seeks confirmation before taking sensitive actions such as sending messages or completing purchases.

This difference in interpretation is central to the dispute. Meta views the consumer as authorizing the agent to act on their behalf, while Amazon argues that the platform being accessed also needs to consent. That tension could become one of the most important legal and commercial questions in agentic commerce. It effectively asks whether an AI agent should be treated like a user-controlled browser, an automated bot, a commercial intermediary, or something entirely new.

Amazon wants AI agents to identify themselves

Amazon’s position is also closely linked to transparency and identity. The company argues that an external AI agent entering customer accounts, browsing product pages and initiating transactions should clearly identify itself to the retailer. This reflects a broader issue emerging across e-commerce and payments: merchants increasingly want to know which agent is acting, who authorized it, what permissions it has, whether it is operating within those limits and who is responsible if something goes wrong.

These are no longer theoretical questions. Payment networks including Mastercard and Visa are already developing identification and authorization layers specifically for AI agents. Amazon is effectively applying the same logic at the marketplace level. If agentic commerce is to scale, retailers may demand a standardized way to recognize trusted agents, verify user intent and establish accountability before allowing automated systems to interact deeply with their commerce infrastructure.

Shopify sees AI agents as another distribution channel

Shopify’s strategy appears fundamentally different. Rather than requiring consumers to begin every transaction within a Shopify-controlled environment, the company is treating AI assistants as another sales and distribution channel. This resembles the way Shopify already connects merchants with Google, social networks, marketplaces, mobile commerce and point-of-sale systems. Agentic platforms now become another route through which merchants can reach potential customers.

That approach fits Shopify’s architecture particularly well. Its value lies in powering merchants across multiple channels rather than owning a single consumer destination. If an AI platform becomes the place where shoppers discover and compare products, Shopify can still remain the system handling structured catalog data, merchant operations, payments and checkout. In that model, losing control of the interface does not necessarily mean losing control of the transaction infrastructure.

Amazon has more to lose from external agents

Amazon’s incentives are very different because its marketplace is not simply a transaction engine. The company controls product discovery, search, advertising, reviews, recommendations, checkout, fulfillment and customer service inside one highly integrated environment. External AI agents could bypass several of those layers by searching, comparing and selecting products on behalf of users without presenting Amazon’s traditional marketplace interface.

This matters because Amazon has built a huge advertising business around product discovery. Sponsored placements, search positioning and marketplace visibility are all tied to shoppers navigating Amazon directly. If an AI agent evaluates products based mainly on price, reviews, availability and delivery terms, some of the commercial value of those interfaces could be reduced. Amazon therefore has more strategic incentive than Shopify to preserve control over how shoppers discover and select products.

The fight is about who controls product discovery

This is why the Shopify-Amazon split matters beyond Muse itself. Agentic commerce is changing where product discovery happens. Today, shoppers typically search, browse, compare products, open listings, add items to a cart and complete checkout. An AI agent could compress that process into a single instruction such as: “Find me the best stroller under €500, with strong reviews and delivery before Friday.”

The agent could then search across multiple merchants, evaluate the available options and complete the transaction according to the user’s preferences. If that behavior becomes common, the center of gravity in e-commerce may move away from individual marketplace interfaces and toward AI platforms. The strategic question then becomes less about who owns the product listing and more about who owns the interface between shopper and merchant.

Shopify is betting on infrastructure, Amazon on ecosystem control

The two companies are effectively making different bets on the next phase of e-commerce. Shopify is betting that infrastructure remains valuable even if another company controls the consumer interface. Its role can still include catalog data, merchant operations, payments, checkout and order management. Amazon appears more determined to preserve control over both the infrastructure and the customer-facing environment, including search, advertising, recommendations and transaction flow.

Neither position is necessarily permanent. Amazon could eventually negotiate access agreements with selected AI platforms, while Shopify could impose stricter controls if agentic commerce creates problems for merchants. But the current split exposes two competing models. One is open and infrastructure-led, while the other is more closed and ecosystem-driven. Those models could shape how retailers interact with AI agents over the next several years.

Amazon is already challenging other AI shopping agents

Muse is not the first AI shopping agent Amazon has opposed. The company has also attempted to restrict access by agents from Perplexity, Google and OpenAI. Its dispute with Perplexity has already moved into the courts, where Amazon initially secured a preliminary injunction before a US appeals court later rejected part of its argument under federal anti-hacking law. Contractual claims based on terms of service remain a separate issue.

That legal background helps explain the language Amazon is now using with Muse. The company is framing the dispute around authorization and contractual access rather than purely around cybersecurity. This suggests Amazon is trying to establish a broader principle: AI agents should not assume unrestricted access to its commercial environment simply because an individual user authorizes them to act.

Amazon itself uses agentic shopping technology

Amazon is not opposed to AI shopping agents in principle. The company has developed its own agentic-commerce capabilities, including Buy for Me, which can help customers purchase products from external merchant sites, and Alexa for Shopping, which can research products and provide recommendations. Amazon argues that the difference lies in transparency and merchant consent.

According to Amazon, Buy for Me identifies itself when interacting with external merchants and allows businesses to opt out. That distinction reinforces the company’s central argument: the problem is not autonomous shopping itself, but how external agents enter and use another company’s commerce environment. In other words, Amazon supports agentic commerce when the rules of access are negotiated and visible to all participants.

Muse is gaining traction quickly

The dispute matters partly because Muse is already attracting significant attention. Meta launched the personal AI agent on September 8, positioning it as a system capable of handling multi-step tasks including shopping, appointment booking, email management and other everyday activities. Shortly after launch, Muse climbed rapidly through Apple’s US App Store rankings, indicating strong early consumer interest.

Growing adoption increases the urgency for retailers and commerce platforms to decide how they want to interact with these agents. For Shopify merchants, Meta represents a potential new source of product discovery and checkout. For Amazon, Muse currently represents an unauthorized intermediary operating inside a commercial environment Amazon has spent decades building and monetizing.

Agentic commerce could disrupt e-commerce advertising

Advertising may become one of the areas most affected by this shift. Traditional marketplaces monetize shopper attention by selling visibility within search results and product pages. Retailers pay to move products higher in rankings or increase exposure across marketplace interfaces. AI agents may operate differently, especially if they prioritize objective criteria such as price, delivery speed, return policies and product specifications.

If consumers increasingly delegate purchasing decisions to agents, traditional sponsored placement could become less influential. An AI may not respond to the same visual hierarchy and advertising formats as a human shopper. That creates a potential challenge not only for Amazon but also for Google and other platforms whose commercial models depend heavily on monetizing search and product discovery.

Merchants face their own strategic decision

Retailers will also need to decide how open they want to be to AI agents. Participation could bring significant benefits by creating new channels for product discovery, customer acquisition, conversion and cross-border sales. At the same time, merchants may lose some control over brand presentation, customer relationships, upselling and the overall shopping journey.

A consumer who shops entirely through Muse may never see the merchant’s homepage, marketing funnel or carefully designed product pages. Competition could therefore shift toward machine-readable factors such as price, stock availability, delivery speed, product attributes and returns. That would change how retailers think about optimization and could make structured product data increasingly important.

Structured commerce data becomes more valuable

Shopify’s role demonstrates this shift clearly. When Shopify shares catalog data directly with Meta, Muse does not need to scrape and interpret every merchant website independently. Instead, the agent can access standardized commerce information such as product descriptions, variants, prices, stock levels and checkout capabilities.

That gives Shopify an important strategic position in the agentic ecosystem. The company already sits between merchants and numerous external sales channels, and AI assistants can become another distribution layer connected to that infrastructure. As more shopping moves through agents, the platforms controlling high-quality structured commerce data may become increasingly valuable.

The future could split into open and closed commerce ecosystems

The Shopify-Amazon divide may point toward a broader fragmentation of agentic commerce. Some platforms may operate as open commerce infrastructure, allowing multiple AI agents to access catalogs and transactions through standardized integrations. Others may remain more closed, allowing only approved agents or proprietary AI experiences to participate.

The result could resemble earlier battles over mobile operating systems, app stores and platform APIs. Retailers and marketplaces may have to choose between reach and control, while AI companies may need to negotiate access to the largest commerce ecosystems rather than assuming they can browse and transact freely.

A defining battle over the next e-commerce interface

The dispute between Shopify, Amazon and Meta ultimately comes down to control. Meta wants Muse to become an interface through which consumers can complete everyday tasks, including shopping. Shopify sees an opportunity to make its merchant ecosystem accessible through that interface. Amazon sees an external agent entering a shopping environment it has spent decades building, optimizing and monetizing.

All three positions are commercially rational, but they point toward very different futures for e-commerce. Shopify’s model says the consumer can shop anywhere while Shopify provides the infrastructure underneath. Amazon’s model says the shopping environment itself remains strategically important and should not be accessed by third-party agents without permission. As AI shopping agents become more capable, the next major battle in e-commerce may not be over assortment or delivery speed, but over which AI is allowed to stand between the shopper and the store.

The post Shopify Opens Its Stores to Meta’s Muse While Amazon Blocks the AI Shopping Agent appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Salesupply has expanded its international logistics network by opening a new fulfillment center and returns hub in Switzerland. Located in Embrach, in the canton of Zurich, the facility lets international e-commerce brands store inventory, fulfill domestic Swiss orders, and process returns without repeatedly moving goods across the Swiss-EU border.

The location is situated close to Zurich Airport and the surrounding customs infrastructure, positioning the facility to support both domestic distribution and international inventory flows. For Salesupply, Switzerland becomes the latest node in a fulfillment network that already covers multiple markets across Europe, North America, and other international regions.

The expansion is particularly relevant for cross-border merchants because Switzerland is not part of the European Union or the EU customs union. Consequently, an e-commerce shipment entering Switzerland from an EU member state is treated as an import and must comply with Swiss customs and VAT requirements.

Local fulfillment could simplify selling into Switzerland

For European online retailers, Switzerland represents an attractive but operationally distinct e-commerce market. Unlike shipments moving between EU member states, goods entering Switzerland are subject to customs procedures and potentially import VAT.

Switzerland currently applies a standard VAT rate of 8.1%, while certain categories of goods qualify for the reduced 2.6% rate. Import VAT can therefore become an important part of the customer experience when retailers sell into the country from warehouses located elsewhere in Europe.

Depending on the shipping and customs arrangement the merchant uses, customers may face additional charges for taxation, customs processing, or carrier handling when their parcel enters Switzerland. These additional steps can make the buying experience less predictable compared with a purely domestic transaction.

By placing inventory in Switzerland before fulfilling individual customer orders, merchants can ship subsequent orders domestically. Salesupply argues this can provide customers with clearer pricing while reducing the customs administration associated with individual cross-border parcels.

Salesupply targets the cost of cross-border returns

Returns are another area where the Swiss border can add complexity.

When a product originally shipped into Switzerland is subsequently returned to a warehouse in the European Union, the parcel crosses a customs border again. Depending on how the process is structured and documented, merchants can face customs-clearance requirements and additional administrative costs.

For categories with relatively high return rates, these costs can matter more. Fashion, footwear and consumer electronics retailers, for example, may need to manage substantial volumes of merchandise moving back through their supply chains.

Salesupply's new Swiss returns hub is intended to keep returned merchandise in the country. Products can be received and processed locally before the retailer decides whether they should be restocked, consolidated or otherwise handled.

The model effectively separates consumer returns from international inventory movement. Rather than sending every individual return back across the border, merchants can manage the return locally and potentially consolidate subsequent international movements.

Embrach facility supports domestic Swiss fulfillment

The new center in Embrach gives Salesupply customers the option to hold stock directly in Switzerland and fulfill orders through domestic delivery networks. For international brands, this approach can help create a customer experience that more closely resembles purchasing from a Swiss-based retailer. Inventory is already in the country, customer orders don't need to complete an individual import process, and returns can be directed to a domestic location.

Local inventory can also become more valuable as consumers expect shorter, more predictable delivery windows. Cross-border shipping can add variables, including customs processing, documentation requirements, and potential border delays. A Swiss fulfillment operation removes the international customs process from the final delivery leg once inventory has entered the country.

Swiss fulfillment can support marketplace sellers

The new operation may also be relevant to brands selling through Swiss marketplaces, particularly Digitec Galaxus.

Switzerland's largest e-commerce platforms place significant emphasis on product availability, delivery performance, and reliable after-sales processes. Sellers operating internationally therefore need logistics infrastructure that meets Swiss consumer expectations while complying with individual marketplace requirements.

Salesupply specifically highlighted Galaxus when announcing the new facility, noting that delivery speed, availability and returns infrastructure can influence marketplace operations. The company says that sellers on the platform require access to a Swiss returns address.

For brands entering Switzerland through marketplace channels, combining local inventory with a domestic returns operation can therefore provide both logistical and commercial advantages.

Instead of treating Switzerland simply as another European destination served from an EU warehouse, merchants can operate with a dedicated local logistics setup.

Switzerland remains a distinct cross-border e-commerce market

Switzerland represents an unusual opportunity for European e-commerce businesses. Geographically, it sits at the center of Western Europe and borders major EU economies including Germany, France, Italy and Austria. From a customs perspective, however, it remains a separate market.

This distinction means that fulfillment strategies commonly used across the European Union do not necessarily produce the same results in Switzerland. A retailer can, for example, serve customers in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and many other EU markets from a single European warehouse without customs declarations for every intra-EU consumer shipment. Sending the same product into Switzerland creates a formal import. That difference makes inventory positioning especially important.

Moving goods into Switzerland in larger inventory shipments and then fulfilling consumer orders domestically can shift customs processing from the individual customer transaction to the retailer's supply-chain operation. For companies generating sufficient Swiss order volumes, local fulfillment can therefore become increasingly attractive.

One integration across Salesupply's fulfillment network

Salesupply says the Swiss facility will operate using the same infrastructure as its other international fulfillment locations. Customers using multiple Salesupply warehouses can manage operations through a single IT integration and a real-time inventory dashboard. The company also monitors the network through its Fulfillment Control Tower, which oversees operations and identifies potential disruptions across fulfillment locations.

The objective is to allow existing Salesupply customers to add Switzerland to their fulfillment footprint without establishing an entirely separate logistics system.

For brands entering the country for the first time, the company says the service combines local inventory management, domestic order fulfillment, returns processing and support with Swiss VAT and customs operations.

Salesupply continues expanding its international fulfillment footprint

The launch in Switzerland is part of Salesupply's wider strategy to help online retailers position inventory closer to consumers in individual markets. The Dutch e-commerce service provider offers international fulfillment, customer service and returns solutions. According to the company, more than 500 online brands and retailers use its services, including Carhartt, Segway Ninebot and Panasonic.

Salesupply also provides customer service in more than 25 languages across three time zones and operates fulfillment infrastructure designed to help merchants expand internationally while delivering locally. The company is headquartered in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and operates across markets including the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Italy, and the Nordic region.

Adding Switzerland gives Salesupply another strategically important European fulfillment location while addressing a key challenge of Swiss cross-border e-commerce: the customs border separating the country from the European Union. For retailers with meaningful sales volumes in Switzerland, local fulfillment could reduce customs interactions affecting individual customer orders while creating a more predictable domestic delivery and returns experience.

The post Salesupply opens fulfillment center and returns hub in Switzerland appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Is it cheaper—and ultimately more profitable—to employ someone working from home or sitting in an office? The answer is more complicated than simply comparing salaries or office rent. Profitability depends on at least four variables: how much an employee produces, how much it costs to provide their workplace, how likely they are to leave, and how effectively the company can recruit the people it needs.

A growing body of research from Stanford University, Harvard, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the OECD, Nature, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides enough data to start putting numbers behind the debate.

And the numbers vary enormously. In controlled studies, working from home has produced results ranging from an 18% productivity decline to a 13% productivity increase. A newer study found a 10% increase. Hybrid work, meanwhile, has produced essentially no measurable productivity penalty while reducing employee departures by 33%.

Perhaps the most commercially interesting finding arrived in 2026: researchers found that bringing fully remote employees into an office only one day per month generated enough productivity and retention improvements to produce an estimated benefit-cost ratio of approximately 5:1.

So which model actually makes more money?

Remote vs office work by the numbers

The research provides some strikingly different results depending on the type of work being performed.

These numbers immediately reveal something important. No universal productivity premium is associated with either the home or the office. The economic advantage depends heavily on the type of employee, the type of task, and how remote work is organized.

The famous Stanford experiment: home workers produced 13% more

One of the best-known experiments was conducted by Stanford researchers at Chinese travel company Ctrip. The company employed approximately 16,000 people and randomly assigned eligible call-center workers either to work from home or remain in the office for nine months. The home workers produced 13% more output.

That gain had two components. Around 9 percentage points came from employees working more minutes during their shifts because they took fewer breaks and sick days.

Another 4 percentage points came from employees processing more calls per minute, which researchers linked partly to the quieter home environment.

Employee turnover also fell by approximately 50%. Then something even more interesting happened. After the experiment, Ctrip allowed employees to choose whether they wanted to work from home or return to the office.

More than half changed their original working arrangement. Once employees had sorted themselves into the environment they preferred, the measured productivity advantage of homeworking increased from 13% to approximately 22%.

That suggests an important profitability factor companies sometimes overlook: The most productive workplace may not be the same for every employee.

Another experiment found remote productivity 10% higher

A newer NBER study published in 2025 examined a large call center in Turkey after it shifted to fully remote work. Researchers found that workforce productivity increased by 10%.

Remote employees completed calls faster, with the researchers again pointing to the quieter home environment as one explanation. But there was another economic advantage.

Going remote allowed the company to recruit from smaller towns, rural locations, and demographic groups with lower labor-force participation. As a result, the share of university graduates employed by the company increased by 14% without increasing wages.

From a profitability perspective, this is potentially as significant as the productivity result. Remote work did not merely change where existing employees performed their jobs. It changed the company's available labor market.

But another randomized experiment found home workers 18% less productive

The case for remote work becomes much less straightforward when looking at another randomized controlled trial. Researchers studying data-entry employees in Chennai, India randomly assigned workers to either home or office environments.

Employees working from home were 18% less productive. Approximately two-thirds of the productivity difference appeared immediately. The remainder developed over time because office workers learned faster.

Even more surprisingly, employees who actually preferred working from home experienced particularly large productivity losses when doing so. Workers who preferred WFH were about 27% less productive at home than in the office, compared with a 13% reduction among workers who preferred office work. This provides an important counterweight to the Ctrip findings.

Homeworking can produce a double-digit productivity gain in one workplace and a double-digit loss in another.

Another Fortune 500 study found an 8–12% remote productivity gap

Research published in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics examined call-center operations at a Fortune 500 company. Before COVID-19, employees working remotely handled approximately 12% fewer calls per hour than employees based on site.

When office closures forced everyone to work remotely, part of the difference disappeared. However, an approximately 8% productivity difference remained between employees who had originally selected remote jobs and those originally hired into office positions.

The researchers concluded that savings from lower turnover and office rent could offset the direct productivity disadvantage of remote work—but not necessarily the cost of attracting less productive workers into remote positions.

This introduces yet another variable into the profitability equation:

Who applies for the job can matter almost as much as where the job is performed.

Hybrid working may solve much of the productivity problem

The clearest evidence in favor of hybrid work comes from another randomized controlled trial involving Trip.com. Researchers followed 1,612 engineers, marketing employees and finance professionals.

One group continued working in the office five days a week. The other worked from home two days a week and went to the office three. The result? There was no significant difference in performance ratings. Promotions did not decrease measurably.

Software engineers did not produce less code. Yet employee attrition dropped from 7.2% to 4.8%. That is a reduction of 2.4 percentage points, or approximately 33% relative to the office-only group. For profitability, that difference matters enormously.

What does a 33% reduction in turnover actually mean in money?

Trip.com estimated that replacing an employee cost around $20,000 in recruitment and training.

Consider a hypothetical company with 1,000 employees experiencing the same turnover rates found in the experiment.

Under the office model: 

• 7.2% × 1,000 = 72 departures

Under the hybrid model:

• 4.8% × 1,000 = 48 departures

Difference: 24 fewer employees leaving over six months

At $20,000 per replacement: 24 × $20,000 = $480,000

So the hybrid organization would save approximately:

• $480,000 per 1,000 employees over six months purely through lower recruitment and training costs.

A simple annualized extrapolation would be:

$960,000 per 1,000 employees per year

However, that annual figure should be treated as an illustrative extrapolation rather than a measured result because the experiment itself measured the relevant attrition difference over six months.

More importantly, this calculation includes zero office-space savings. It includes zero energy savings. It includes zero commuting effects.

And it assumes zero productivity advantage for hybrid employees. The economic gain comes almost entirely from retaining more workers.

Employees themselves value homeworking at approximately 5% of salary

Another large international NBER study covering workers in 27 countries provides a different way to quantify the value of remote work.

Researchers asked employees to place a monetary value on working from home.

On average, workers valued the ability to work from home two or three days per week at approximately 5% of their salary.

Consider an employee earning €50,000.

Five percent of their salary is:

• €2,500 per year

For someone earning €70,000:

• €3,500 per year

At €100,000:

• €5,000 per year

This does not mean employers can automatically cut salaries by 5%.

But economically, it means flexibility functions partly like a non-cash employment benefit.

For a company competing for workers, the ability to offer hybrid work can therefore carry considerable recruitment value without appearing on the salary line of the P&L.

Other Harvard-linked research also found that 21% of workers would accept a pay reduction greater than 10% in exchange for retaining the ability to work remotely, although the median teleworkable employee was not willing to sacrifice compensation.

Homeworking saves an average of 72 minutes per day

Time provides another measurable economic benefit.

Researchers examining workers in 27 countries calculated that employees save an average of 72 minutes every day they work from home by eliminating their commute.

But employees do not use all 72 minutes for leisure.

Approximately 40% of the saved commuting time is reallocated to work.

That equals:

72 × 40% = 28.8 minutes

of additional work-related time for every homeworking day.

For an employee working remotely two days per week:

28.8 × 2 = 57.6 additional minutes per week

Across 50 working weeks:

57.6 × 50 = 2,880 minutes

or approximately:

48 additional hours per year

That is roughly six eight-hour working days of time redirected towards work.

Again, this should not automatically be interpreted as six additional days of productive output. But it illustrates why commuting time is economically relevant when comparing home and office work.

The U.S. government data also points towards lower operating costs

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics examined the relationship between remote working and productivity across 61 private-sector industries.

Its findings are particularly useful because they consider not just labour productivity but the broader combination of inputs required to generate output.

After accounting for pre-pandemic productivity trends, a one-percentage-point increase in remote workers was associated with approximately 0.05 percentage points higher total-factor-productivity growth.

The cost effects were even more interesting.

Every one-percentage-point increase in remote working was associated with approximately:

–0.10 percentage points in unit labour-cost growth

–0.27 percentage points in unit capital-cost growth

–0.18 percentage points in unit energy-cost growth

–0.16 percentage points in unit materials-cost growth

–0.20 percentage points in unit services-cost growth

and approximately:

–0.38 percentage points in unit office-building-cost growth.

These are industry-level statistical associations rather than proof that each percentage point of remote working directly causes an equivalent cost reduction.

Nevertheless, the pattern is notable.

Industries where remote working expanded more tended to experience slower growth in multiple categories of business cost.

Offices can cost thousands per employee per year

Real-world property data helps put the office component into perspective.

The UK Crown Prosecution Service reported £33.1 million in annual estate running costs in its 2025–26 property plan.

The organization had approximately 7,240 full-time-equivalent employees and 3,900 workstations.

That equates to roughly:

£4,572 in annual property running costs per employee

while providing only:

0.54 physical workstations per employee.

This is not directly transferable to a private company, but it demonstrates how hybrid working can fundamentally change the economics of office capacity.

Instead of requiring:

1 employee = 1 desk

the CPS operates at approximately:

1 employee = 0.54 desks

In another UK government example, an independent review calculated that the IOPC's Canary Wharf office cost approximately £7,428 per FTE per year.

At actual average attendance, however, the effective cost per occupied desk rose above £56,000 per year because so much space was unused.

Underutilized office space can therefore become extraordinarily expensive.

Madrid prime office rent has reached €45 per square metre per month

The office-cost argument is particularly relevant in expensive European cities.

JLL reported that prime Madrid office rents reached approximately:

€45/m²/month

by the second quarter of 2026.

For comparison, the UK central government office estate reported average space utilization of approximately:

7.2 m² per FTE

in 2024–25.

Using those figures purely as an illustrative scenario:

7.2 m² × €45 × 12 months = €3,888

That represents approximately €3,888 of prime annual rent per employee, before service charges, electricity, cleaning, furniture, security, insurance, IT infrastructure and other workplace costs.

For 1,000 workers:

€3.89 million per year

in illustrative rent alone.

Again, this is not a market-wide employer average: it combines a prime Madrid rental benchmark with a public-sector office-space benchmark simply to demonstrate the scale of the property variable.

Fully remote work may still carry an average productivity penalty

Despite the positive examples, Stanford researchers reviewing the wider evidence estimate that fully remote work is approximately 10% less productive than fully in-person work on average.

The researchers identify communication difficulties, weaker mentoring, company culture and motivation among the likely reasons.

But their economic conclusion is particularly important.

They argue that the cost savings from fully remote work—especially office-space savings and access to lower-cost global talent—can be larger than the productivity loss.

That distinction is central to the profitability question.

Imagine that an office worker produces €100 of economic output at a cost of €80.

Profit contribution:

€20

Suppose moving the job remotely reduces output by 10%:

€90 output

But employment and infrastructure costs fall from €80 to €65.

Profit contribution becomes:

€25

The employee is now less productive but more profitable.

This is only an illustrative example, but it demonstrates why productivity statistics alone cannot answer the remote-work profitability question.

Office work has measurable economic advantages too

Physical offices are not simply an expense.

They can generate productive interactions.

A major Microsoft study examining communication patterns among 61,182 employees found that company-wide remote work made collaboration networks more static and siloed.

Employees developed fewer connections between different parts of the organization and shifted from synchronous communication towards more asynchronous communication.

Another recent study of software engineers found that physical proximity to teammates increased coding feedback by 18.3% and improved code quality.

The gains were particularly concentrated among younger and less-experienced employees.

But proximity also imposed a cost: experienced engineers produced less code when sitting near colleagues because some of their time was effectively being transferred into helping others.

From an organizational perspective, that may still be profitable.

The senior engineer produces less today, but the junior engineer becomes better tomorrow.

This type of knowledge transfer is extremely difficult to capture in conventional productivity statistics.

What if remote workers only came to the office once a month?

Perhaps the most interesting recent experiment was published by the NBER in June 2026.

Researchers randomly divided 248 fully remote customer-service employees into two groups.

One remained fully remote.

The second group came into the office together just:

one day per month.

The results were surprisingly large.

Employees attending the monthly office day eventually handled:

7.8% more calls per hour.

They also spent:

36 additional minutes communicating with colleagues

during the week after attending the office.

Workers randomly seated next to each other were:

11 percentage points more likely to communicate afterwards.

And employee attrition fell by approximately:

one-third.

Researchers calculated that the combined productivity and retention gains generated an estimated:

5:1 benefit-cost ratio.

That means approximately $5 of economic benefit for every $1 spent implementing the coordinated monthly office day in that particular setting.

This result changes the remote-versus-office question considerably.

The optimum arrangement may not require choosing between zero office days and five office days.

In some organizations, the economic value of an office may be concentrated into a surprisingly small number of strategically coordinated interactions.

The OECD reaches a similar conclusion: two to three remote days

The OECD surveyed managers and workers across 25 countries and found that both groups generally viewed teleworking positively.

But neither extreme emerged as the preferred model.

The estimated ideal was approximately:

2–3 remote days per week.

The OECD describes the relationship as an inverted U.

At low levels of remote work, employees gain from reduced commuting, fewer distractions and greater autonomy.

As remote intensity becomes very high, however, communication and knowledge flows begin deteriorating.

The highest efficiency may therefore occur somewhere between the two extremes.

Interestingly, OECD managers estimated that approximately 42% of the workforce should have teleworking arrangements, while only around 5% should work completely from home.

A hypothetical 1,000-worker profitability calculation

Consider a knowledge-based company employing 1,000 people.

Assume that its workforce behaves similarly to the employees in the Trip.com hybrid experiment.

Moving from five office days to two home days produces:

Measured productivity effect: approximately 0%

Turnover reduction: approximately 33%

Six-month departures avoided: approximately 24

Replacement cost per employee: $20,000

Result:

$480,000 saved every six months

or an annualized theoretical figure of:

$960,000

before property savings.

Now assume each employee values hybrid working at approximately 5% of salary, consistent with the international NBER research.

At an average €60,000 salary:

€60,000 × 5% = €3,000

of perceived annual flexibility value per worker.

Across 1,000 workers:

€3 million of employee-perceived benefit

without necessarily adding €3 million to payroll.

Finally, two remote days each week generate approximately:

48 hours of commuting time annually redirected towards work per employee

using the international commuting study's averages.

Across 1,000 employees:

approximately 48,000 hours per year.

Not every one of those hours converts directly into saleable output, so it would be incorrect to add them mechanically to profit.

But together, the numbers show why hybrid work can have a powerful economic proposition even when measured employee productivity remains exactly the same.

So what is actually more profitable: home or office?

The evidence increasingly suggests that asking whether “home” or “office” is more profitable is the wrong binary question.

Fully remote work can generate impressive savings and, in some jobs, productivity increases of 10–22%.

But other controlled experiments have found homeworking productivity losses reaching 18%.

Full-time office work can improve learning, mentoring and cross-team knowledge transfer, yet companies pay substantially more property and commuting-related costs to maintain it.

Hybrid work currently produces the most consistent economic evidence.

One of the strongest randomized studies found:

0% meaningful productivity loss

combined with:

33% lower employee attrition.

International research suggests employees value that flexibility at approximately:

5% of salary.

OECD research suggests the optimum is around:

2–3 remote days per week.

And the newest randomized experiment suggests that even predominantly remote organizations may capture substantial office benefits through coordinated physical interaction as infrequent as:

one day per month

with researchers calculating a:

~5:1 benefit-cost ratio.

The emerging economic argument is therefore not that the office has become unnecessary.

It is that companies may need considerably less office than they once assumed.

For many knowledge businesses, the most profitable model may be one in which employees perform concentration-heavy individual work remotely while offices are deliberately used for the activities where physical proximity produces the greatest return: collaboration, training, mentoring, innovation and relationship building.

In other words, the financially relevant question may no longer be:

“Are home workers or office workers more productive?”

It may be:

“How many office days does a company actually need to pay for in order to capture the economic benefits of being together?”

Current experimental evidence increasingly suggests that the answer may be considerably fewer than five.

The post Homeworking vs Office Work: Which Is More Profitable for Employers? appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Mollie has completed its acquisition of GoCardless, creating a combined European payments and financial services group serving more than 350,000 businesses across over 30 markets.

The deal, originally announced in December 2025, brings together Mollie’s card payments, local payment methods, business accounts and financing capabilities with GoCardless’ expertise in Direct Debit, Pay by Bank and recurring bank payments.

Mollie CEO Koen Köppen will lead the combined group, while GoCardless will continue operating under the name “GoCardless, a Mollie company” and remain under the leadership of co-founder Hiroki Takeuchi. Mollie says maintaining the GoCardless brand reflects the strategic importance of both its existing customer base and its Pay by Bank technology.

Mollie CEO Koen Köppen will lead the combined group, while GoCardless will continue operating under the name “GoCardless, a Mollie company” and remain under the leadership of co-founder Hiroki Takeuchi. Mollie says maintaining the GoCardless brand reflects the strategic importance of both its existing customer base and its Pay by Bank technology.

The completion of the acquisition marks an important step in Mollie’s attempt to build a broader European financial platform capable of handling multiple payment methods, banking services and business financing through a single provider.

Mollie and GoCardless create a broader European payments platform

The strategic logic behind the acquisition is largely based on the complementary nature of the two companies.

Mollie has traditionally focused strongly on merchant acquiring, card payments and local European payment methods.

GoCardless, meanwhile, has built its business around bank-based payments, particularly Direct Debit and open banking-enabled Pay by Bank solutions.

Combining the two creates a platform capable of supporting:card payments,local European payment methods,Direct Debit,Pay by Bank,recurring payments,business accounts,and financing.

When the deal was first announced in December 2025, the companies said the objective was to create a single provider capable of reducing the fragmentation many businesses face when operating several payment and financial platforms simultaneously.

This fragmentation is particularly relevant for international e-commerce businesses.

A merchant expanding across Europe may use one provider for cards, another for local payment methods, another for bank transfers and a separate banking partner for accounts and financing.

Each additional provider can create more integrations, reconciliation work and operational complexity.

More than 350,000 businesses across 30+ markets

The combined group now serves more than 350,000 businesses across more than 30 markets.

That gives the new organisation significant scale across Europe while also expanding its reach internationally.

Mollie has built much of its business around a highly localised European strategy, supporting market-specific payment methods, onboarding requirements and merchant needs.

The post Mollie Completes GoCardless Acquisition, Creating European Payments Group Serving 350,000 Businesses appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

SHIP.com has launched two artificial intelligence tools designed to bring agentic commerce into one of the most operationally complex areas of e-commerce: shipping and fulfillment.

The company announced SHIP AI, an AI-powered shipping manager for online sellers, and SHIP MCP, a Model Context Protocol integration that exposes more than 35 shipping capabilities to Claude and other AI applications.

Together, the tools automate tasks such as order analysis, rate comparison, address correction, label preparation, and tracking. They also allow developers to connect AI agents directly to shipping infrastructure. The announcement is significant because much of the recent discussion around agentic commerce has focused on product discovery and payments. SHIP.com is extending the same concept deeper into the physical fulfillment layer.

That means AI agents are moving closer to handling not only what consumers buy and how they pay, but also how those purchases are shipped.

What Is SHIP AI?

SHIP AI is designed to function more like a digital shipping manager than a traditional chatbot. Instead of simply responding to questions, the system can analyze incoming orders and prepare fulfillment work before the seller begins processing shipments.

According to SHIP.com, the system can determine package details, compare shipping options, correct addresses, flag inconsistencies, and prepare multiple orders for shipment simultaneously. Users can also ask the system to update dashboards, run reports and analyze variables such as shipping costs and delivery times.

Joe DiSorbo, founder and CEO of SHIP.com, described the distinction by saying that a general chatbot provides answers, while SHIP AI is designed to perform operational work. The goal is to move sellers away from manually processing every order and toward reviewing work AI has already prepared.

From Manual Processing to AI-Assisted Fulfillment

Shipping remains one of the most repetitive and time-consuming areas of online retail operations. A merchant processing multiple orders may need to verify addresses, calculate package dimensions, compare rates, select carriers, purchase labels and update order information.

SHIP.com says SHIP AI can automate much of that preparation. The company gives the example of a 20-order batch that could take around 25 minutes to process manually. Depending on the level of automation enabled, SHIP.com says the same batch could potentially be prepared in less than a minute with SHIP AI.

That claim is based on the company's own testing and should therefore be treated as a vendor-reported performance example rather than an independent benchmark.

Nevertheless, the broader operational shift matters. The merchant's role shifts from performing each shipping action manually to supervising and approving AI-generated decisions.

Sellers Retain Control Over Financial Decisions

SHIP.com is not presenting SHIP AI as completely autonomous by default. Financial transactions remain under the merchant's control. Purchasing shipping labels, adding insurance or reloading an account balance normally requires seller approval, and the relevant costs are displayed before the transaction is completed.

This human-in-the-loop approach reflects a central challenge facing agentic commerce. Businesses want AI systems to remove repetitive operational work, but financial authority introduces considerably greater risk. SHIP.com's approach lets the AI analyze and prepare decisions while merchants decide how much authority they are willing to delegate.

According to the company, sellers could gradually expand the degree of automation as they become more comfortable with the system.

Early Adoption Suggests Sellers Are Willing to Test AI Shipping

SHIP AI has been available to SHIP.com users since August 11, 2026. The company says that during the first week of beta availability, more than 30% of orders were purchased through SHIP AI.

This figure does not necessarily mean that 30% of all SHIP.com customers have adopted the technology, nor does it demonstrate long-term adoption. However, it provides an early indication that merchants are willing to experiment with AI-driven shipping workflows when those tools are integrated directly into the software they already use.

SHIP is offering the complete AI experience free to users for at least 30 days during the launch period.

SHIP MCP Brings Shipping Capabilities Directly to AI Agents

The second product may ultimately have even larger implications for agentic commerce. SHIP MCP connects SHIP.com's shipping infrastructure to AI applications through Model Context Protocol. MCP is an emerging standard that allows AI systems to connect with external tools, software and data sources.

SHIP.com says its implementation exposes more than 35 shipping capabilities that developers can integrate into AI applications. These capabilities include rating shipments, creating labels, tracking packages, processing order information and managing shipping workflows.

Rather than forcing users to leave an AI environment and manually open separate shipping software, these functions can potentially operate directly inside the AI application.

Claude Users Can Access SHIP.com Shipping Functions

SHIP MCP is available through Claude Desktop CLI and can also be found by searching for SHIP.com within Claude's connector directory. Developers can additionally access the technology directly through SHIP.com when building their own AI applications.

SHIP.com says some early customers have already embedded its capabilities into their own AI applications, enabling orders to be rated, labeled and tracked through those systems. DiSorbo described these integrations as early steps toward fully autonomous agentic commerce.

The distinction matters. SHIP AI primarily focuses on making existing merchant shipping operations more efficient, while SHIP MCP could make shipping itself a machine-accessible service that autonomous AI agents can call.

Agentic Commerce Moves Beyond Checkout

This development reflects a broader shift across e-commerce. Many of the highest-profile agentic-commerce initiatives have concentrated on the early stages of the customer journey. AI agents can increasingly discover products, compare alternatives, recommend purchases and initiate payments. Companies including Stripe, Alipay and major AI providers are already building infrastructure around these interactions.

But purchasing a physical product creates another requirement: the item still needs to leave a warehouse and reach the customer. A genuinely autonomous commerce system eventually needs access to inventory, fulfillment systems, shipping rates, carrier networks, delivery estimates, labels, tracking information, and returns processes.

SHIP.com is attempting to make part of that logistics infrastructure directly accessible to agents. The emerging agentic-commerce stack could therefore begin to resemble Discovery → Decision → Payment → Fulfillment → Delivery, rather than stopping once the transaction is authorized.

The Logistics Layer Could Become Machine-Readable

Agentic commerce also changes the way logistics technology needs to function. Most shipping platforms were originally designed for humans. A user logs into a dashboard, reviews orders, chooses a carrier, generates a label, and manages exceptions through a graphical interface.

AI agents require something different. They need structured, programmatic access to shipping capabilities so they can evaluate different options and perform actions automatically. SHIP MCP represents one approach to solving that problem. Rather than requiring an agent to navigate a human-designed web interface, the system exposes specific shipping actions through standardized tools.

That could eventually allow an AI agent to determine that a particular order needs expedited delivery, one carrier offers a better rate, an address needs correcting, or an alternative service would meet the customer's requested delivery date. The agent could then act on that information within predefined limits.

What This Could Mean for E-Commerce Sellers

For merchants, the immediate benefit is operational efficiency. Shipping teams spend a lot of time on repetitive tasks that follow predictable rules. AI systems are particularly well suited to analyzing those workflows and preparing recommended actions.

But the longer-term implications extend further. As agentic commerce develops, merchants may increasingly operate in environments where software agents communicate directly with logistics platforms.

Instead of a human seller manually selecting a shipping method, an AI system could optimize thousands of shipments based on cost, speed, service level, and delivery probability. Smaller merchants could access capabilities that previously required dedicated logistics teams, while larger businesses could use agents to manage significant order volumes and let human employees focus on exceptions and strategic decisions.

AI-Driven Shipping Still Introduces Risk

Autonomous fulfillment also introduces important limitations. SHIP.com's own terms explicitly warn that AI-generated outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or outdated and may not always reflect current carrier rules or rates.

Users are therefore responsible for reviewing and approving AI-generated outputs, including shipping labels, addresses, rate selections and customs or regulatory classifications. That is particularly important in cross-border commerce. Incorrect customs information, classifications or addresses can result in delays, additional costs or regulatory problems.

SHIP.com's terms also address automated clients such as AI assistants and autonomous agents. Actions carried out by an authorized automated client can be treated as actions taken by the user. As businesses give agents greater authority, questions of accountability will consequently become increasingly important.

Shipping Platforms Could Become Infrastructure for AI Commerce

The most important aspect of SHIP.com's announcement may not be automated label creation itself. It is the idea that AI systems can call logistics capabilities directly. That turns a shipping platform from a traditional software interface into infrastructure that autonomous commerce applications can use.

The same transformation is already occurring elsewhere in e-commerce. Payment companies are building agent-compatible payment mechanisms. Marketplaces and retailers are exposing product information to AI systems. AI platforms are creating tools that allow consumers to discover and purchase products without leaving a conversational interface. Shipping represents another piece of that puzzle.

The Next Phase of Agentic Commerce Reaches the Warehouse

Agentic commerce has often been presented primarily as a change to the shopping experience. Consumers tell an AI assistant what they want, and the assistant searches for the best option. But commerce does not end when the shopper presses, or no longer presses, the checkout button. Orders still need to be processed, packed, shipped, tracked, and delivered.

SHIP.com's new tools show how AI agents are beginning to move into that operational layer. SHIP AI focuses on automating the work merchants currently do inside shipping software. SHIP MCP goes one step further by allowing external AI applications to interact directly with shipping capabilities.

If this model expands, logistics platforms could increasingly become invisible infrastructure behind AI-driven commerce. The customer may interact with an AI assistant, the merchant may approve only exceptions, and software agents could manage much of what happens between the purchase and the doorstep.

For e-commerce, that would mark an important evolution in agentic commerce: from automating the transaction to automating its fulfillment as well.

The post SHIP.com Brings Agentic Commerce Into E-Commerce Fulfillment With New AI Shipping Tools appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Amazon has officially brought its Prime Air drone delivery service to UK customers, marking the first time the company has expanded its drone-based last-mile network outside the United States.

The service is operating from Amazon’s 465,000-square-foot fulfillment center in Darlington, England, where eligible customers within a roughly 7.5-mile (12 km) radius can have selected products delivered by autonomous MK30 drones.

Amazon says orders can arrive in 60 minutes or less, with some deliveries potentially completed in around 30 minutes. Millions of products are eligible provided they meet the drone’s size and weight restrictions. The launch is a major milestone for Amazon’s long-running Prime Air project and comes as the company also dramatically accelerates the service in the United States.

Amazon now plans to make Prime Air available across nearly 500 US cities and towns by the end of 2026, transforming what was once a limited experimental program into a potentially significant component of its last-mile network.

Darlington becomes Amazon’s first Prime Air location outside the US

Amazon first announced plans to bring Prime Air to the UK in 2023. Darlington was subsequently selected as the company's first British location, with the fulfillment center confirmed as the proposed base in January 2025.

Drone flights began from the site in early 2026, and Amazon now confirms it is delivering parcels to customers from Darlington. According to Amazon, Darlington is the first Prime Air site anywhere outside the United States. The development therefore represents more than another regional delivery experiment.

It is the first international expansion of Amazon's drone logistics model. John Boumphrey, Amazon UK Country Manager, said the launch demonstrates how the company continues to develop new ways to make deliveries faster and more convenient.

Amazon's wider strategy increasingly revolves around shortening the physical distance between inventory and consumers. Prime Air provides an additional option at the extreme end of that strategy: moving lightweight orders directly from a fulfillment center to a customer's property by air.

How Amazon Prime Air works in the UK

Prime Air deliveries in Darlington use Amazon's latest MK30 drone. The aircraft stands about five feet tall, has a wingspan of about five and a half feet, and can carry packages weighing up to five pounds, or about 2.2 kg.

To qualify, a product must also be small enough to fit inside Prime Air's specially designed packaging, roughly the size of a large shoebox. Eligible customers can select drone delivery during the normal Amazon checkout process. Amazon then uses satellite imagery, mapping technology, and AI to identify suitable delivery areas around the customer's property.

Customers currently need access to an appropriate outdoor area such as a: garden, yard, or driveway.

The customer selects the proposed delivery zone digitally without requiring a physical property inspection beforehand. Once the order reaches the Darlington facility, Amazon's existing fulfillment robotics help move the product through the warehouse before it is packed for Prime Air.

An employee then performs a pre-flight inspection, installs a charged battery and loads the package onto the drone. The aircraft subsequently completes most of the delivery autonomously.

The MK30 is designed for autonomous last-mile delivery

The MK30 represents Amazon's latest generation of delivery drone. It uses onboard perception, navigation and detect-and-avoid technology to identify aircraft, obstacles, people and other hazards while flying.

Amazon says the system allows the drone to make safety decisions independently during a mission. The drones operate using Beyond Visual Line of Sight technology, or BVLOS.

This is particularly important because large-scale drone delivery would not be practical if an operator had to maintain direct visual contact with every aircraft throughout the entire route.

The Darlington operational model envisages drones traveling from Amazon's MME1 fulfillment center toward qualifying customers while generally remaining below 400 feet above ground level. Flight planning also accounts for designated no-fly areas and outdoor concentrations of people.

The UK rollout remains closely connected to CAA trials

Although customers are already receiving packages, Prime Air's UK expansion remains closely linked to the development of Britain's regulatory framework for commercial drones.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority has selected Amazon Prime Air as one of six projects participating in trials designed to develop safe Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations.

The regulator is gathering data on areas including: detect-and-avoid capabilities, electronic visibility, interaction with other aircraft, air traffic control integration, and safe operation in shared airspace. This distinction is important.

Prime Air is already delivering parcels to real customers, but the regulatory structure that would allow these operations to be scaled routinely across Britain is still evolving.

The CAA's longer-term objective is to enable routine BVLOS drone operations in UK airspace, with its roadmap targeting broader implementation from 2027.

Amazon has received approval to operate its drones

Amazon says the MK30 has received Civil Aviation Authority approval to conduct its current operations in Darlington. The wider program nevertheless operates within a tightly controlled aviation environment.

CAA documentation shows that Amazon has been working through the regulator's sandbox process to test how unmanned aircraft can eventually transition from segregated or specially managed airspace into normal shared airspace.

Amazon's proposed operational area also includes mechanisms allowing emergency aircraft to take priority. Prime Air operations are expected to stop when emergency-service aviation, such as police helicopters or helicopter emergency medical services, requires access to the relevant airspace.

This illustrates one of the central obstacles facing drone delivery at scale. The aircraft themselves may already be technically capable of autonomous operations. The harder problem is safely integrating potentially thousands of delivery drones into airspace already used by helicopters, aircraft, emergency services and other drones.

Amazon is rapidly scaling Prime Air in the United States

The UK launch comes alongside Amazon's most aggressive Prime Air expansion to date.

The company says it intends to serve nearly 500 cities and towns in the United States by the end of 2026, compared with a relatively small number of operating locations previously.

Prime Air is already operating around cities including:

Phoenix,
Tampa,
Kansas City,
Omaha,
Baton Rouge,
Detroit,
Houston,
San Antonio,
Dallas,
and Waco.

Amazon also plans to launch operations around Chicago, Syracuse, Cleveland, Atlanta and Boise. Each Prime Air location in the US can serve about 175 square miles, according to the company.

Reuters reported that Amazon expects the service to reach approximately 500 US locations by the end of the year, a major increase from the roughly 11 operational sites existing when the latest expansion was announced. This scale-up makes the Darlington operation particularly relevant.

Prime Air is no longer simply a technological demonstration. Amazon is attempting to turn drone delivery into a repeatable logistics model.

Hundreds of thousands of drone deliveries in 2026

Amazon says Prime Air has already delivered hundreds of thousands of packages during 2026, with individual sites now completing thousands of deliveries each day. That marks a significant shift from the program's early years.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos first publicly demonstrated the Prime Air concept in 2013. For much of the following decade, commercial drone delivery remained limited by aircraft technology, aviation regulation, operational complexity and local concerns. The latest expansion suggests Amazon believes several of those barriers are beginning to fall.

Why drone delivery matters for e-commerce

The core advantage of drone delivery is speed. Conventional last-mile logistics requires packages to be consolidated into vans, driven along delivery routes and delivered sequentially to dozens or hundreds of addresses.

A drone can potentially bypass much of that route structure. Once an order is processed, the aircraft can travel directly from the fulfillment facility to the customer. For lightweight, urgent items, the resulting delivery time can approach that of a trip to a local store.

That makes drone delivery particularly relevant for products such as: small electronics, household essentials, beauty products, office supplies, health-related items, and other lightweight goods.

Amazon says millions of products are already potentially eligible for Prime Air where the service operates.

Prime Air joins Amazon's wider ultrafast delivery strategy

Drone delivery is only one element of Amazon's increasingly complex last-mile infrastructure. In the UK, Amazon has also introduced Amazon Now, an ultra-fast service offering groceries and household essentials in approximately 30 minutes or less in parts of London.

The company plans to expand Amazon Now into Manchester and Birmingham. The two services solve slightly different logistics problems. Amazon Now relies on inventory positioned in smaller urban fulfillment locations close to consumers. Prime Air instead provides extremely fast transportation for lightweight goods from larger facilities within a defined flight radius.

Amazon could therefore increasingly combine multiple fulfillment models according to: product size, customer location, urgency,
inventory availability, and delivery economics.

The ultimate objective is not necessarily to replace vans with drones. Instead, Amazon is creating additional delivery layers that can handle different types of orders.

Drone delivery still faces practical limitations

Despite its technological appeal, Prime Air has significant limitations. The UK service currently requires customers to live within approximately 12 km of the Darlington facility. Properties must have appropriate outdoor delivery areas. Products must meet strict size and weight limits. Weather conditions can also affect drone operations.

This means Prime Air cannot currently replace conventional parcel delivery for most Amazon orders. Large electronics, furniture, bulk groceries and many other products will continue to require vans or other established transport networks. Amazon's drones are instead likely to complement existing last-mile infrastructure.

Noise, privacy and safety remain concerns

Community acceptance will also determine how quickly drone delivery can scale. Drone operations have faced criticism in some US communities over issues including noise, privacy and safety.

Reuters reported that residents near some planned Prime Air sites have compared the sound of operating drones to equipment such as leaf blowers. Amazon says the latest MK30 aircraft has been specifically designed to reduce noise.

Amazon describes the MK30 as significantly quieter than earlier designs and says its noise level is comparable with conventional delivery activity. But scaling from thousands to potentially millions of flights would inevitably create a different operating environment.

Regulators and local authorities will therefore need to determine acceptable noise, safety and flight-frequency limits as drone delivery becomes more common.

Drone delivery could change last-mile economics

The long-term business case will depend on whether drones can reduce the cost of selected deliveries. Last-mile delivery remains one of the most expensive parts of the e-commerce supply chain. Traditional delivery networks require: drivers, vehicles, fuel or electricity, route planning, local depots, and significant labor.

Autonomous drones potentially reduce some of those costs for lightweight packages. However, they introduce different expenses, including aircraft acquisition, maintenance, batteries, aviation compliance, flight infrastructure and specialist staff.

The most likely future is therefore not a completely drone-based delivery network. Instead, fulfillment platforms may increasingly use algorithms to determine the most efficient delivery method for each individual order. A parcel could be assigned to a van, bike courier, locker, autonomous vehicle or drone depending on its characteristics.

Darlington could become a blueprint for European expansion

Amazon has not yet announced a broad network of Prime Air sites across Europe. Nevertheless, Darlington represents an important test case. If Amazon can demonstrate reliable, safe, and economically viable operations in the UK, the model could potentially be replicated around other fulfillment centers.

Europe's regulatory environment, dense population centers and complex airspace could make expansion more difficult than in some US suburban markets. But the strategic opportunity is substantial.

Amazon already operates an extensive network of fulfillment centers across Europe. Adding drone infrastructure to selected facilities could create ultra-fast delivery zones around those locations without requiring an entirely separate logistics network.

The UK is actively preparing for wider commercial drone operations

The British government is also investing in the wider development of commercial drones. In May 2026, the government announced £46.5 million in support to accelerate drone and advanced-air-mobility regulation, infrastructure, and security systems.

The program includes measures designed to enable commercial drone delivery while also improving systems for identifying unauthorized aircraft. The government has explicitly cited Amazon's Darlington operations when discussing the UK's transition toward more routine commercial drone use. This makes Prime Air part of a broader transformation in British aviation rather than an isolated Amazon experiment.

The last mile is becoming increasingly autonomous

Amazon's UK Prime Air launch highlights a wider trend across logistics. Warehouses are already heavily automated. Robots move inventory through fulfillment centers. Artificial intelligence predicts demand and optimizes inventory positioning. Autonomous systems increasingly manage sorting and packaging. Drone delivery extends automation beyond the warehouse doors. The potential future e-commerce journey therefore becomes increasingly automated from beginning to end:

Order placed → inventory selected → robotic fulfilment → automated sorting → autonomous transportation → customer delivery

Human workers remain central to many parts of that system, but the number of steps that can be performed autonomously continues to increase.

Prime Air enters a new phase

Amazon has spent more than a decade trying to turn drone delivery from a futuristic concept into operational infrastructure. The Darlington launch marks an important milestone in that effort. For the first time, customers outside the United States are receiving real Amazon orders through Prime Air.

At the same time, the company is preparing to scale the service across hundreds of American communities. Substantial barriers remain, including regulation, weather, noise, property suitability, package size, and public acceptance. But Prime Air is moving beyond the experimental phase.

The bigger question is no longer simply whether Amazon can deliver packages by drone. It is whether drone delivery can become reliable, affordable, and scalable enough to earn a permanent place alongside vans, lockers, same-day couriers, and traditional parcel networks. Darlington will provide one of the first major tests of that question outside the United States.

The post Amazon Prime Air Launches Drone Deliveries in the UK as Global Expansion Accelerates appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Stripe believes one of e-commerce's most familiar elements could eventually become obsolete. Will Gaybrick, Stripe’s President of Product and Business, has argued that the traditional checkout page could disappear as artificial intelligence, digital wallets, and agentic commerce increasingly collapse product discovery and payment into a single transaction.

Speaking on the A16z Show, Gaybrick said the checkout page could become unnecessary not only for AI agents, but eventually for human shoppers as well. His argument is straightforward: when payment credentials, identity and authorization are already securely available through tools such as Stripe Link, consumers should increasingly be able to purchase directly from the product or discovery interface rather than navigating several checkout screens.

The prediction offers a glimpse of how Stripe expects online commerce to change as AI agents become increasingly capable of finding products, evaluating options, and completing purchases on behalf of consumers.

From checkout page to instant transaction

The traditional e-commerce journey is familiar:

A customer discovers a product, visits a merchant website, adds it to a cart, proceeds to checkout, enters delivery information, chooses a payment method and confirms the order. Agentic commerce challenges almost every step of that model.

Stripe defines agentic commerce as online shopping in which AI agents can find, compare, and potentially purchase products on users' behalf. The shopper provides an objective — for example, finding a particular product under a certain price with delivery before a specified date — and the agent handles much of the searching and decision-making.

In this environment, the shopper may never need to navigate a conventional checkout page. Instead, product discovery, decision-making, authorization and payment could take place inside an AI assistant, search environment or other digital interface. Stripe explicitly notes that customers using an AI agent may not need to see a checkout page at all.

Why Stripe thinks checkout could disappear

Checkout disappearing doesn't mean the underlying processes vanish. Merchants would still need to calculate taxes, confirm inventory, determine shipping costs, process payments, prevent fraud, manage orders, and handle fulfillment. The difference is that those processes increasingly happen behind the interface.

Instead of presenting each step to a human shopper, commerce infrastructure could communicate directly with an AI agent. Gaybrick has pointed to systems such as Stripe Link and Shopify's Shop Pay as early examples of how stored payment credentials and accelerated checkout can already reduce the number of steps required to purchase online.

Agentic commerce takes that concept considerably further. Rather than simply speeding up a checkout page, AI could make the page unnecessary.

Stripe is already building infrastructure for agentic commerce

Stripe's prediction is closely connected to products the company has been developing over the past year. At Stripe Sessions 2026, the company expanded its Agentic Commerce Suite and announced additional partnerships with companies including Meta and Google. Stripe also introduced new ways for AI agents to pay using Link's agent wallet.

Stripe describes its Agentic Commerce Suite as infrastructure that connects businesses, agents, and buyers. Merchants can make their products available to AI agents while maintaining control over pricing, descriptions, fulfillment and the customer relationship. AI applications can then embed checkout directly inside their own interfaces.

This model represents a fundamental shift in the merchant website's role. Instead of every purchase requiring consumers to reach a retailer's checkout interface, transactions could increasingly be completed wherever the customer discovers the product.

AI agents need their own payment infrastructure

Giving an AI agent purchasing authority creates problems that conventional payment systems were never designed to solve.

An agent may need to:

• Identify the correct product;
• Confirm availability;
• Compare shipping options;
• Understand return policies;
• Operate within a spending limit;
• Prove that the consumer authorized the transaction;
• and complete payment without gaining unrestricted access to the customer's financial credentials.

Stripe has been developing infrastructure specifically for these scenarios.

Its Link wallet for agents can issue a one-time-use card or Shared Payment Token backed by payment methods already stored within Link. According to Stripe, the agent itself does not receive the user's underlying payment credentials. This allows agents to transact while preserving spending controls and payment security.

Stripe has also introduced Issuing for agents and other mechanisms designed to give autonomous software controlled purchasing power.

Machine Payments Protocol removes checkout entirely

The transformation becomes even clearer when commerce takes place between machines rather than between a human and a retailer. In March 2026, Stripe and Tempo introduced the Machine Payments Protocol (MPP), an open standard that lets AI agents transact directly with businesses and other services.

Traditional online payment flows assume that a human will visit a website, select a product, and complete a checkout form. MPP instead allows software agents to interact programmatically with paid services. Stripe says conventional financial infrastructure was built primarily for humans, meaning AI agents often struggle with tasks such as navigating pricing pages, selecting subscription tiers, creating accounts or entering payment details.

Machine-readable payment protocols are designed to remove those obstacles. If adoption grows, some forms of commerce may therefore never generate a visible checkout interface at all.

E-commerce UX could become commerce infrastructure

The implications for retailers could be substantial. For years, merchants have invested heavily in optimizing their checkout pages.

Businesses test:

• Button positioning
• Page layouts
• Payment methods
• Form length
• Guest checkout
• Upselling
• Cart recovery
• Conversion rates.

Agentic commerce could shift part of that optimization away from visible user interfaces and toward APIs, structured data, and machine-readable commercial rules. Stripe advises businesses preparing for agentic commerce to expose structured product information and build checkout flows that can function without a human directly interacting with them.

That means an AI agent needs reliable access to information including:

• Product availability
• Pricing
• Shipping times
• Returns policies
• Taxes
• Merchant identity
• Fulfillment guarantees.

In other words, the checkout experience increasingly becomes an infrastructure problem rather than purely a web-design problem.

Product discovery and checkout could merge

One of the biggest changes could be eliminating the boundary between discovering something and buying it. Today, discovery often happens outside the retailer's website.

Consumers may discover products through:

• Google
• Social media
• Marketplaces
• Influencers
• Comparison services
• Increasingly, AI assistants.

Historically, shoppers had to leave that environment and visit a merchant's checkout. Agentic commerce lets the transaction stay inside the discovery layer.

Stripe has already worked with OpenAI on the Agentic Commerce Protocol, designed to allow businesses to sell through AI interfaces while maintaining control over their transactions. Stripe said the protocol's first real-world implementation supported Instant Checkout inside ChatGPT.

The company is also working with AI and technology platforms including Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic, Perplexity, Vercel and others as it develops infrastructure for agent-driven commerce.

Merchants risk becoming invisible to AI agents

The change could also create a new form of competitive pressure. Traditional SEO focuses on ensuring that search engines can discover and understand a merchant. Agentic commerce introduces another audience: machines that are actively choosing which merchant should receive a transaction.

Stripe argues that businesses need structured product catalogs, clean APIs, transparent policies and real-time availability if they want AI agents to transact with them successfully. A retailer that is difficult for an AI agent to understand could theoretically become less competitive even if its consumer-facing website remains excellent.

The industry may therefore see the emergence of what could effectively become agent optimization alongside traditional SEO and conversion-rate optimization.

Trust remains the biggest challenge

Despite rapid technological development, agentic commerce still faces substantial barriers. Consumers must trust AI systems enough to allow them to spend money. Businesses must also distinguish legitimate AI agents from malicious automated systems.

Traditional fraud tools rely heavily on signals associated with human behavior, devices and payment credentials. Agent-initiated transactions can change those patterns. Stripe has acknowledged that agentic commerce challenges many assumptions built into existing permission and fraud systems.

Its Shared Payment Tokens, Link agent wallet and Stripe Radar infrastructure are designed partly to address this problem by attaching authorization and risk information to agent transactions. Human approval is also likely to remain important for many purchases, particularly expensive or sensitive transactions.

Agentic commerce therefore does not necessarily imply giving autonomous software unlimited purchasing authority. Instead, the emerging model relies on controlled delegation.

The checkout page may disappear, but checkout will not

Stripe's prediction should therefore be understood carefully. Commerce will still require authorization, payment processing, taxes, fraud prevention, shipping and fulfillment. What could disappear is the visible page where those processes traditionally come together.

For consumers, that could mean fewer forms, fewer redirects, and fewer abandoned carts. For merchants, however, it could require substantial behind-the-scenes changes. Retailers may increasingly need commerce systems that can communicate directly with AI agents while preserving pricing control, customer data, brand identity, payment security and fulfillment rules.

Stripe is betting that this transition will happen quickly. The company said during Stripe Sessions 2026 that it expects AI agents eventually to account for a significant share of online transactions and is positioning its payments infrastructure accordingly.

E-commerce is moving beyond the website

The broader significance of Gaybrick's comments is not simply that checkout pages may become shorter or more convenient.

They suggest that the website itself could gradually lose its position as the central interface of digital commerce.

In an agentic-commerce environment, consumers may increasingly interact with AI assistants rather than individual retailer websites. Those agents could search across merchants, evaluate products, negotiate constraints and complete transactions without reproducing the traditional browsing journey.

The merchant remains responsible for the product, pricing, payment and fulfillment. But the interface connecting the merchant to the consumer may belong to someone else. That makes Stripe's prediction about the death of the checkout page part of a much larger transformation. The next era of e-commerce may not be defined by better checkout pages. It may be defined by commerce that no longer needs them.

The post Stripe says traditional checkout pages could disappear in the Agentic Commerce Era appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Walmart’s U.S. e-commerce business continued to outpace its traditional retail operations in the second quarter of fiscal 2027, with online sales increasing 24% year over year as the retailer leaned further into store-based fulfilment, marketplace expansion and faster delivery.

The performance reinforces Walmart’s transformation from a predominantly store-led retailer into a broader omnichannel commerce platform. While comparable U.S. sales increased at a much more modest pace during the quarter, digital channels remained one of the strongest areas of the business.

According to Walmart’s Q2 FY27 results, global e-commerce sales increased 23%, while Walmart U.S. e-commerce grew 24%. Online sales now account for approximately 23% of Walmart U.S. sales, illustrating how central digital commerce has become to the company’s overall retail model.

Fast delivery becomes central to Walmart’s e-commerce strategy

One of the key drivers of Walmart’s e-commerce growth is its growing use of physical stores as fulfillment hubs. Walmart said store-fulfilled delivery increased 40% during the quarter. Rather than depending exclusively on large regional fulfillment centers, the company is increasingly using inventory already located in its thousands of stores to fulfill online orders closer to the end customer.

The approach gives Walmart an important structural advantage in last-mile delivery. Stores historically designed primarily for in-person shopping can increasingly perform multiple roles simultaneously: retail location, pickup point, fulfillment node, and local delivery hub.

This distributed model can shorten the distance between inventory and consumers, allowing Walmart to expand same-day and rapid delivery services while making greater use of an existing physical network. Walmart described strong demand for convenient and fast delivery as one of the principal drivers of its global digital growth during the quarter.

Walmart's physical stores become e-commerce infrastructure

The growing importance of store fulfillment reflects a broader shift across retail logistics. Traditionally, large e-commerce operations concentrated inventory inside dedicated warehouses positioned strategically around a country or region. Walmart is increasingly combining this model with a vast network of stores already located close to population centers.

This creates a distributed fulfillment network. For customers, the visible result is faster delivery. Behind the scenes, however, the model requires much deeper integration between inventory management, order orchestration, store operations and last-mile logistics. Walmart needs to determine in real time whether an online order should be fulfilled from a store, distribution center or another part of its network while simultaneously preserving enough inventory for customers shopping physically.

Successfully coordinating these channels is becoming one of the defining logistical challenges of large-scale omnichannel retail.

Marketplace sales climb more than 50%

Walmart is also seeing strong momentum from its third-party marketplace. The company reported that Walmart U.S. marketplace net sales increased by more than 50% during Q2 FY27. Nearly half of Walmart's marketplace business globally now flows through the company's fulfillment services.

That combination is strategically important. A marketplace lets Walmart expand its product assortment without owning all the inventory being sold. Fulfillment services, meanwhile, enable the company to generate additional revenue by storing, processing and delivering products on behalf of third-party merchants.

The model increasingly resembles the ecosystem strategy that has helped Amazon expand beyond direct retail. Rather than generating revenue only from the final product sale, a marketplace operator can earn revenue across several layers of the transaction, including seller commissions, fulfillment, advertising and membership services.

E-commerce is becoming more important to Walmart's business model

Walmart's digital growth is increasingly connected to several of the company's other strategic priorities. Its Q2 results showed global advertising revenue increasing 38%, while Walmart Connect in the United States grew 43% excluding Vizio. The company has been expanding advertising alongside marketplace, membership and fulfillment services as it seeks to generate more revenue from each customer and merchant interaction.

These businesses are particularly important because many of them can carry higher margins than traditional retail. The result is a commerce ecosystem in which a marketplace transaction can potentially generate revenue from the seller, fulfillment, advertising, and the customer relationship, in addition to the underlying retail transaction.

Walmart highlighted marketplace, fulfillment services, membership, advertising, and other commerce solutions as businesses strengthening the company's economics.

Digital growth stands out amid slower comparable sales

The e-commerce performance was particularly notable because Walmart's broader U.S. retail growth was considerably slower. U.S. comparable sales excluding fuel increased 2.6% during the quarter. Reuters reported that this represented Walmart's slowest comparable-sales growth in approximately six years and fell below market expectations.

Walmart nevertheless raised its full-year sales and profit outlook. The contrasting results underline a key shift within the company: digital commerce is expanding much faster than the traditional store business.

Walmart U.S. e-commerce grew 24%, compared with 2.6% comparable sales growth, while Sam's Club U.S. e-commerce sales increased 26%. Walmart International e-commerce increased another 19%.

The divergence suggests that consumers are not necessarily abandoning Walmart's physical infrastructure. Instead, they are increasingly accessing the same inventory through digital channels.

Walmart continues closing the e-commerce gap with Amazon

Amazon remains the dominant e-commerce operator in the United States, but Walmart possesses an asset that is difficult for digital-native competitors to replicate: an enormous network of stores already positioned close to consumers. Walmart has increasingly treated those locations as logistics infrastructure.

That strategy changes the competitive equation around delivery. Instead of trying to reproduce Amazon's fulfillment network exactly, Walmart can combine dedicated e-commerce facilities with thousands of existing retail locations that can support pickup and local delivery.

The company is therefore competing not only through product pricing and assortment but increasingly through fulfillment speed and convenience. Its continued investment in automation, digital platforms and fulfillment technology is designed to make that network more productive while reducing the cost of serving increasingly demanding online customers.

The economics of rapid delivery remain the key challenge

Fast delivery can improve customer loyalty and conversion, but it also creates significant cost pressures. Picking individual orders from stores, coordinating delivery drivers, and transporting smaller baskets directly to homes can become expensive if order density is insufficient.

Scale is therefore crucial. The more orders Walmart can consolidate within the same geographic area, the easier it becomes to improve route density and spread delivery costs across more transactions. Marketplace growth can help by bringing more products and order volume into Walmart's logistics ecosystem.

Fulfillment services provide another layer of scale by encouraging marketplace sellers to place inventory within Walmart's distribution network. The objective is ultimately not simply to grow online sales, but to make those transactions increasingly profitable.

Walmart noted that its international operating-income growth benefited from improving e-commerce economics, particularly in China, India and Canada, suggesting that digital profitability remains a major focus across the group.

Omnichannel retail increasingly becomes a logistics competition

Walmart's results also illustrate a broader shift within global e-commerce. Competition between major retailers is increasingly determined by logistics capabilities rather than simply website traffic, product selection or pricing.

Consumers now expect accurate inventory visibility, multiple fulfillment options, convenient returns and increasingly rapid delivery. Meeting those expectations requires retailers to connect stores, warehouses, marketplaces and delivery networks into a single fulfillment system.

For retailers with large physical networks, this creates an opportunity. Stores can become strategic assets rather than liabilities in the age of e-commerce, provided their inventory and operations are integrated effectively with digital ordering systems. Walmart's 24% U.S. e-commerce growth suggests that this strategy is gaining momentum.

Walmart is building a broader commerce ecosystem

The longer-term significance of Walmart's digital growth extends beyond online retail sales. The company increasingly resembles a commerce infrastructure provider connecting consumers, merchants, advertisers and logistics services.

Its marketplace provides access to additional assortment. Walmart Fulfillment Services allows merchants to outsource logistics. Walmart Connect monetizes shopper traffic through advertising. Membership programs increase customer loyalty, while its store network provides local fulfillment capacity.

Together, these businesses create an increasingly interconnected commercial ecosystem. Amazon pioneered a similar model in which retail, marketplace services, fulfillment, advertising, and subscriptions reinforce each other. Walmart's advantage is that it can combine those digital capabilities with one of the world's largest physical retail networks.

What Walmart's 24% e-commerce growth means for retailers

Walmart's latest results reinforce one of the most important trends shaping modern retail: the distinction between physical commerce and e-commerce continues to disappear. The company's stores are increasingly becoming components of its digital fulfillment infrastructure, while its online marketplace feeds additional volume into logistics, advertising and fulfillment businesses.

For other retailers, the lesson may be less about matching Walmart's scale than about integrating channels more effectively. Inventory visibility, flexible fulfillment and delivery speed are becoming increasingly important competitive factors.

Walmart's Q2 FY27 results suggest that retailers that can turn physical locations into distributed e-commerce infrastructure may have a significant advantage as consumers increasingly prioritize convenience and faster delivery. For Walmart, the 24% increase in U.S. e-commerce sales is therefore more than another strong digital quarter.

It is further evidence that logistics and fulfillment are becoming central to the company's strategy for competing in the next phase of global e-commerce.

The post Walmart U.S. E-Commerce Sales Jump 24% as Fast Delivery Drives Growth appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

By fulfilmentcrowd - International commerce creates an interesting conundrum for fulfilment providers. Customers want global reach, but logistics expertise remains inherently local. For a start, warehouses need to be positioned in the right markets, and carrier and delivery requirements differ by region. And, as brands grow, adding new warehouses and logistics providers can quickly lead to a fragmented supply chain.

One answer is to own more infrastructure. Another is to scale reach through partnerships. The latter sits at the heart of the business model of fulfilmentcrowd – a global fulfilment provider that injects its technology across a range of partner-owned sites worldwide. Importantly, this isn't a traditional outsourced model where independent partners are simply handed responsibility for fulfilment. 

Each Fulfilment Network Partner (FNP) operates within fulfilmentcrowd's established processes, technology and service standards, with performance and SLAs centrally managed and monitored by fulfilmentcrowd’s dedicated Network Team.

It means the physical operation can benefit from local expertise, while customers retain the consistency and control of a single fulfilment model.

Using this controlled network of FNPs, fulfilmentcrowd allows its customers to rapidly expand into new regions and put products wherever demand takes them. One of these FNPs is GDB Logistics, the Netherlands-based logistics specialists that provide forwarding, transport, warehousing, fulfilment and supply chain solutions.

Building a network, not warehouses

The traditional route of expanding a fulfilment network is relatively linear: identify a market, find a site, invest in infrastructure, recruit a team, establish an operation. It works, but it can be expensive and slow. So, instead of building warehouses from scratch, fulfilmentcrowd deploys its in-house platform and operating model within existing infrastructure.

Crucially, joining the network means adopting fulfilmentcrowd's operating processes, rather than continuing to operate as a disconnected third-party provider. FNP teams work within the same framework, with agreed service levels and processes providing a consistent operational standard across the network.

The physical warehouse space may be operated by a local partner, but from the customer’s perspective, it forms part of the same connected fulfilment network. Global orders, inventory and performance remain visible through a single platform, allowing brands to expand internationally without assembling and managing a different technology stack for every market.

This also means expansion doesn't require brands to surrender visibility or control as their fulfilment footprint grows. The network may extend across different operators and countries, but the technology and oversight remain consistent. For growing retailers, it removes a lot of the operational headaches associated with global expansion.

The local knowledge behind international growth

Technology can connect different fulfilment centres, but it’s the local expertise that delivers on the logistical side. This is where fulfilmentcrowd’s FNPs become particularly valuable. A strong network partner already understands its local market: compliance, location, operational knowledge, relationships.

GDB Logistics is a great example of this. The family-owned European logistics provider has more than 85 years of industry experience and operates across many areas of the typical supply chain.

Through the partnership, GDB facilitates fulfilmentcrowd operations in Born (Netherlands) and Leipzig (Germany), helping brands put products closer to their customers throughout the EU. Where fulfilmentcrowd provides the technology and the customer base, GDB concentrates on the physical logistics operation.

Rather than attempting to duplicate one another’s expertise, the partnership is built around knowing what each organisation does best. For fulfilmentcrowd’s customers, the GDB partnership means quick access to strategically important European hubs, reducing delivery times and supporting more competitive cross-border trading.

For GDB, the collaboration provides opportunities with fulfilmentcrowd’s international customer base, allowing the business to extend its reach beyond its traditional operational footprint. “What stands out with GDB Logistics is how closely aligned we are as teams,” says Paul Taylor, fulfilmentcrowd’s Managing Director.

“There’s a shared mindset around performance and continuous improvement, which makes for a natural, effective partnership. It’s a genuinely collaborative working relationship, and that shines through in the service provided to customers on both sides.”

Consistency through a shared operating model

One of the biggest challenges in any multi-partner fulfilment network is ensuring consistency across different locations worldwide.

The fulfilmentcrowd and GDB relationship addresses this through a shared operating framework, underpinned by fulfilmentcrowd’s platform. Across all of its international locations, the fulfilmentcrowd platform provides real-time visibility of inventory, orders and performance – regardless of where fulfilment takes place.

Rather than operating as separate entities, both organisations work within a connected system that standardises processes while still allowing GDB to apply its local expertise in day-to-day warehouse and transport operations.

The technology provides visibility, but control extends beyond the platform itself. Processes, service levels and operational performance are continually managed to ensure the customer receives a consistent fulfilmentcrowd experience – regardless of which network location is handling an order.

This balance is important. Brands benefit from the efficiency and scale of a wider network, while still receiving the reliability and operational quality expected from an experienced local logistics provider.

It also reinforces a key principle of the fulfilmentcrowd model: partnerships aren't about outsourcing isolated functions, but about integrating trusted operators into a unified fulfilment ecosystem.

“fulfilmentcrowd handles the system, brings in customers and does the customer service side. With this setup, it allows us to focus fully on the logistics part,” adds Danny de Koning, Head of Warehousing at GDB Logistics.

Enabling faster, more flexible European growth

For eCommerce brands, the practical impact of this type of partnership is speed and flexibility.

Instead of investing heavily in new infrastructure or managing multiple third-party providers across different countries, brands can scale into European markets through a connected network that already has established operational capability. 

Put simply, brands grow across regions using the same tech they started with.

As demand shifts or grows in new regions, stock can be reallocated within the network without requiring a complete overhaul of fulfilment operations. This creates a more responsive approach to international expansion, where logistics can adapt alongside commercial growth.

In effect, the partnership allows brands to treat Europe less as a collection of separate fulfilment challenges, and more as a single, connected trading environment supported by local execution.

A practical route into European growth

As cross-border eCommerce continues to grow, the ability to enter new markets quickly and efficiently is becoming a key competitive advantage. fulfilmentcrowd and GDB’s partnership demonstrates how this can be achieved in practice. 

By combining established European logistics infrastructure with a connected fulfilment platform, brands can scale into new territories without the traditional barriers of fragmented operations and duplicated systems. For many retailers, this approach offers a more sustainable path to international growth: one that prioritises flexibility, local expertise and operational visibility over heavy upfront investment.

It’s this combination that makes the model particularly relevant for brands looking to expand across Europe in a controlled and scalable way. For a closer look at how the partnership works in practice, read the full story behind the fulfilmentcrowd and GDB Logistics collaboration.

The post Global scale, local expertise: The partnership-led business model that’s changing cross-border fulfilment appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.