Cargo Theft: The Growing Risk to Nearshoring Logistics

Mexico is undergoing one of the most pivotal moments in its recent industrial history. Nearshoring has already driven significant investment flows, supply chain relocations, and deeper integration with the United States. The narrative is clear: proximity, competitive costs, and strong manufacturing capabilities position the country as a strategic partner in the new global economic geography.

However, this narrative overlooks a critical factor that is redefining the real cost of operating in Mexico: cargo theft.

Today, cargo theft in Mexico occurs at a rate of roughly one incident every 30 minutes, totaling more than 16,000 cases annually. Total economic losses exceed US$7 billion, while the insurance sector reports cargo-related claims surpassing US$405 million. This last figure is particularly relevant because it reflects only the insured portion of the risk, excluding uninsured operations, underinsurance, and indirect losses. 

The root cause is structural: in Mexico, only 1 in 25 shipments is insured, within an estimated universe of more than 150 million cargo trips per year. The risk is not only high, it is massively unprotected. And it is not an emerging risk. It is consolidated, increasingly sophisticated in execution, frequency, and financial impact. 

The Bajío: Industrial Growth, Risk Concentration

The impact of nearshoring is not evenly distributed. It is concentrated in specific industrial corridors, and so is the risk.

According to Overhaul’s 2025 report:

• The Bajío region accounts for 31% of cargo theft nationwide
• This represents a 7% increase compared to 2024
• 94% of incidents are concentrated in:
  • Guanajuato (36%)
  • Jalisco (22%)
  • Michoacán (19%)
  • Querétaro (16%)

The most affected corridors are also the most strategic for industry:

• MEX-45D (Queretaro–Leon): 16%
• MEX-57D (Queretaro–San Luis Potosí): 10%
• MEX-80D (Guadalajara–Lagos de Moreno): 6%
• MEX-15D (Atlacomulco–Zapotlanejo): 6%

The conclusion is straightforward: Mexico’s most efficient routes are also its most vulnerable.

From State to Municipality: Precision Risk

Cargo theft has evolved into a highly targeted phenomenon. In Guanajuato, the municipalities with the highest incidence include:

• Apaseo el Grande (6.9%)
• Celaya (5.4%)
• Juventino Rosas (3.2%)
• San José Iturbide (2.9%)
• San Luis de la Paz (2.2%)

In Queretaro:

• Queretaro (4.1%)
• San Juan del Río (3.0%)
• El Marques (2.1%)
• Pedro Escobedo (2.0%)

Additional hotspots include Lagos de Moreno (Jalisco) and Morelia (Michoacan).

This level of concentration confirms a critical shift: cargo theft in Mexico is no longer random, it is geographically predictable.

How Theft Occurs: A Logistics-Driven Crime Model

The execution of cargo theft has also evolved.

In 2025:

• 64.1% occurred through in-transit interception
• 33.1% targeted stationary units
• 1.4% occurred at facilities
• 1.2% at destination
• 0.2% at origin

In the Bajío region, patterns are even more defined:

• 64% interception
• 34% following stops
• 73% of incidents occur between Tuesday and Friday

Cargo theft has adopted the logic of supply chains: it analyzes routes, timing and vulnerabilities — and executes with precision.

A Cost That Multiplies

The impact extends far beyond stolen goods.

• Logistics costs can increase by 20% to 30%
• Insurance premiums rise, alongside deductibles and exclusions
• Certain routes become difficult — or impossible — to insure
• Just-in-time models are disrupted
• Investment decisions are distorted

The effects are also reaching human capital. According to the International Road Transport Union (IRU):

• Mexico faces more than 99,000 driver vacancies
• This represents roughly 15% of the total workforce
• By 2028, the gap could exceed 106,000 positions

Insecurity is not only increasing costs, it is making operations structurally unsustainable.

Legal Liability vs Operational Reality

One often overlooked aspect is the legal responsibility of freight carriers.

Under Mexico’s Federal Roads, Bridges and Motor Transport Law (Article 66), carrier liability is limited to  15 UMA (Unidad de Medida y Actualización) per ton of cargo transported.

This fundamentally changes the risk equation. In practice, this means:

• Legal recovery for cargo owners is limited and often insufficient
• There is a significant gap between cargo value and legal compensation
• Financial risk is disproportionately transferred to the cargo owner

When this legal limitation is combined with the fact that 96% of shipments are uninsured, the result is critical: Most logistics risk in Mexico is not only exposed, it is financially uncovered.

A Silent Shift in the Risk Map

For the first time in over a decade, the geography of cargo theft has changed. The State of Mexico is no longer the top-ranked region, having been overtaken by Puebla.

This shift confirms a structural trend: crime follows logistics flows and industrial investment.

The Real Problem: Risk Management 

Mexico is not facing only a security problem. It is facing a systemic issue driven by:

• Lack of insurance culture
• Disconnect between logistics and risk management
• Static models for dynamic risks
• Underestimation of the true financial impact

Cargo theft is already embedded in operations, but not yet in strategy.

A Necessary Position 

Mexico is not losing the nearshoring opportunity. But it is increasing its cost — silently and progressively.

The problem is not the existence of cargo theft. The problem is that the system is designed to absorb it, without correcting it.

A legal framework that limits carrier liability, a market where most cargo remains uninsured, and a highly predictable logistics network create a structure that shifts risk to the most vulnerable player: the cargo owner.

In this environment, competitiveness is no longer about cost or location. It becomes a matter of operational certainty and financial resilience.

Because in the end, nearshoring is not won by the closest countries. It is won by those that can guarantee delivery.

And today, in Mexico, that guarantee is not defined by logistics capacity, but by ability and discipline.