Assessing Brazil’s potential as a global logistics hub: a comparative analysis of logistics performance and transport infrastructure

Zbigniew Bentyn; Sylwia Konecka; Ana Flávia  Santos

doi:10.61089/aot2026.h5ft6594

Authors

Zbigniew Bentyn Department of Logistics, Institute of International Business and Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2061-2616
Sylwia Konecka Department of Logistics, Institute of International Business and Economics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2061-2616
Ana Flávia Santos Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande - MS, Brazil Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-3176

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2026.h5ft6594

Keywords:

Brazil, logistics performance, logistics hub, Entropy Weight Method, TOPSIS

Abstract

The reconfiguration of global supply chains has increased the strategic importance of economies capable of combining substantial transport capacity with efficient and reliable logistics systems. This study assesses Brazil’s potential to develop global logistics-hub functions by explicitly distinguishing between national logistics performance and physical logistics capacity. Rather than applying a binary hub/no-hub classification, logistics-hub potential is operationalised as the degree to which substantial physical cargo-handling activity is accompanied by strong institutional and operational logistics performance. Brazil is compared with Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Türkiye using the six components of the 2023 World Bank Logistics Performance Index: customs, infrastructure, international shipments, logistics competence and quality, tracking and tracing, and timeliness. Objective criterion weights are determined using the Entropy Weight Method, while the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) establishes each economy’s relative position in relation to an ideal logistics-performance profile. Infrastructure receives the highest Entropy weight (0.2232), followed by international shipments (0.2017) and tracking and tracing (0.1897). The TOPSIS results rank South Africa first, followed by Türkiye, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Brazil obtains a relative closeness coefficient of 0.3629, indicating an intermediate logistics-performance position within the benchmark sample. However, comparison with physical cargo activity reveals a different pattern. Brazil records the highest container port throughput within the sample, reaching approximately 13.9 million TEU in 2024. The divergence between the logistics-performance ranking and physical cargo scale indicates that Brazil already possesses a substantial logistics base but does not yet achieve a corresponding level of institutional and operational performance. Comparison with the Brazilian National Logistics Plan 2035 indicates strong direct alignment with infrastructure-related weaknesses, indirect alignment with international shipment organisation, digitalisation, tracking, and modal-integration requirements, and more limited alignment with the identified customs gap. Equal-weight TOPSIS and comparison with the overall LPI ranking confirm the stability of Brazil’s third position. The scientific novelty lies in the two-layer diagnostic design rather than in the Entropy-TOPSIS algorithm itself: disaggregated LPI diagnostics are combined with an independent physical-capacity measure and policy mapping to reveal a logistics performance–capacity gap that cannot be identified from the overall LPI ranking alone.

References

Arvis, J.-F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., & Wiederer, C. (2023). Connecting to compete 2023: Trade logistics in an uncertain global economy – The Logistics Performance Index and its indicators. World Bank. https://lpi.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/LPI_2023_report_with_layout.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2026.

2. Bugarčić, F. Ž., Stanišić, N., & Marinković, V. (2024). Assessing the effects of logistics performance on export and competitiveness using SEM methodology: Evidence from firm-level data. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 35(6), 1847–1866. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-07-2023-0289

3. Costa, W., Soares-Filho, B., & Nóbrega, R. (2022). Can the Brazilian National Logistics Plan induce port competitiveness by reshaping the port service areas? Sustainability, 14(21), 14567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114567

4. da Costa, G. A. A., Mendes, A. B., & da Cruz, J. P. G. (2025). Brazilian maritime containerized cabotage competitiveness assessment based on a multimodal super network. Journal of Transport Geography, 122, 104062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.104062

5. Delfin-Ortega, O. (2025). Maritime logistics and economic growth in the context of APEC: A two-stage data envelopment analysis study. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 10, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-024-00191-y

6. Empresa de Planejamento e Logística & Ministério da Infraestrutura. (2021). Plano Nacional de Logística 2035. Brasília, Brazil. https://www.gov.br/transportes/pt-br/assuntos/planejamento-integrado-de-transportes/politica-e-planejamento/RelatorioExecutivoPNL_2035final.pdf. Accessed September 16, 2026.

7. Gani, A. (2017). The logistics performance effect in international trade. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.012

8. Haralambides, H. (2023). The state-of-play in maritime economics and logistics research (2017–2023). Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25, 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00265-x

9. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-Verlag.

10. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Özekenci, E. K., Simic, V., Bentyn, Z., Kazancoglu, Y., & Pamucar, D. (2026). Green innovation performance assessment in European Countries: A quartile-based decision support framework. Technology in Society, 89, 103543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103543

11. Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A DEA-logistics performance index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30008-9

12. Martí, L., Puertas, R., & García, L. (2014). The importance of the Logistics Performance Index in international trade. Applied Economics, 46(24), 2982–2992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394

13. Martínez-Moya, J., Vanelslander, T., Feo-Valero, M., & Debón, A. (2025). Transhipment port competitiveness assessment: The importance of port location. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 24, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-025-00372-x

14. Ministério de Portos e Aeroportos. (2025, February 18). Portos brasileiros registram maior movimentação da história com 1,32 bilhão de toneladas em 2024. Governo Federal do Brasil. https://www.gov.br/portos-e-aeroportos/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2025/02/portos-brasileiros-registram-maior-movimentacao-da-historia-com-132-bilhao-de-toneladas-em-2024. Accessed September 16, 2026.

15. Nayak, N., Pant, P., Sarmah, S. P., & Tulshan, R. (2024). Development of in-country logistics performance index for emerging economies: A case of Indian states. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(9), 2926–2950. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2023-0122

16. Pehlivan, P., Aslan, A. I., David, S., & Bacalum, S. (2024). Determination of logistics performance of G20 countries using quantitative decision-making techniques. Sustainability, 16(5), 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051852

17. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy, 68, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007

18. See, K. F., Guo, Y., & Yu, M.-M. (2024). Enhancing logistics performance measurement: An effectiveness-based hierarchical data envelopment analysis approach. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 62(3), 449–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.2024.2309420

19. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

20. Stević, Ž., Ersoy, N., Başar, E. E., & Baydaş, M. (2024). Addressing the global Logistics Performance Index rankings with methodological insights and an innovative decision support framework. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10334. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210334

21. Wang, Z., Martha, G. B., Jr., Liu, J., Lima, C. Z., & Hertel, T. W. (2024). Planned expansion of transportation infrastructure in Brazil has implications for the pattern of agricultural production and carbon emissions. Science of the Total Environment, 928, 172434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172434

22. World Bank. (n.d.). World Development Indicators: Container port traffic (TEU: 20 foot equivalent units), indicator IS.SHP.GOOD.TU. Data source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/IS.SHP.GOOD.TU. Accessed September 16, 2026.

23. Zaninović, P. A., & Bugarčić, F. Ž. (2023). The effects of international logistics in global value chain trade. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 24(5), 841–856. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20443