Bills of Lading in 2026: How To Stay Sane While Paper and eBL Coexist

By 2026, many shippers and logistics providers are caught in a strange middle ground. On some lanes, everything still runs on paper bills of lading. On others, carriers and banks are pushing electronic bills of lading (eBL). In between, operations teams juggle PDFs, portals, tracking tools, and legal questions that never seem fully resolved.

This article is written for supply chain, logistics, and operations leaders who want one practical goal: to build a bill of lading record that is reliable enough for tracking, disputes, and audits, even while paper and eBL coexist.

It will not argue about technology for its own sake. Instead, it will focus on:

What has actually changed in bills of lading by 2026, especially around eBL adoption.
Where hybrid paper plus eBL workflows typically break down inside large organizations.
How to design a bill of lading record that you can use for tracking, disputes, and audits.
How ocean visibility platforms, including TRADLINX, can support that record without locking you into a specific eBL platform.

TL;DR for Busy Supply Chain Leaders

Paper and eBL will coexist for years. Global electronic bills of lading have grown from around 1 percent of all bills in 2021 to single digit percentages by 2023 and roughly 10 percent plus range by mid 2025, but most trade is still hybrid.^[1][2]
The main risk is not technology. It is fragmentation. Paper originals, scanned PDFs, carrier portals, and eBL platforms often hold slightly different versions of the same bill of lading. That makes disputes and audits painful.
Your best move is to define a “bill of lading record” inside your own systems. Decide what fields you trust, where they come from, and how versions are handled. Then treat eBL platforms and portals as sources, not the only source of truth.
Visibility platforms become more valuable once you do this. If your tracking and event timelines are keyed to a clean bill of lading record, you can use them for real dispute evidence, not just customer updates.

1. What Has Actually Changed With Bills of Lading by 2026

At a legal and commercial level, a bill of lading still does the same three things it has done for centuries. It acts as:

A receipt for the goods loaded on board.
Evidence of the contract of carriage.
A document of title that can be transferred under the right conditions.^[3]

What has changed is the format and the ecosystem around that document.

1.1 eBL Adoption Has Moved Past Proof of Concept

Several data points show that electronic bills of lading are no longer only pilot projects:

Industry analyses report that digital bills of lading have grown from roughly 1 percent of all bills in 2021 to around 5 percent by 2023 and about 10 to 11 percent by mid 2025.^[1][2]
The 2024 FIT Alliance survey found that just under half of respondents now use eBLs in some form, and a clear majority of paper only users plan to adopt them in the next few years.^[4]
Major container lines and trade bodies, including members of the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA) and BIMCO, have publicly committed to reach 100 percent eBL adoption by 2030.^[5][6]
In 2025, DCSA facilitated the first standards based interoperable eBL transfer between different platforms for a live shipment, proving that eBL systems do not have to be closed silos.^[7]

These numbers are still far from universal adoption. However, they are high enough that most global shippers now touch eBL on at least some lanes, especially in trades involving large carriers and forwarders.

1.2 Legal Recognition Is Improving but Uneven

Several jurisdictions have clarified that electronic trade documents, including bills of lading, can have the same legal effect as paper if certain conditions are met. Examples include:

The United Kingdom’s Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, which gives properly managed electronic trade documents the same legal status as paper originals from September 2023.^[10]
Countries adopting or aligning with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), which sets out principles for electronic bills of lading and similar documents.^[11]
Additional European jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, moving to recognise electronic bills of lading explicitly in national law.^[12]

At the same time, surveys show that legal uncertainty and regulatory fragmentation are still among the top barriers to eBL adoption, especially in markets like the United States and Canada where federal, state, and sector specific rules interact.^[6][13] That is one reason why paper and eBL will coexist for several more years.

1.3 The Practical Result: Hybrid Reality

In day to day operations, most organizations now see three patterns:

Paper dominant lanes where original bills, scanned PDFs, and carrier portals drive process, and eBL appears rarely, if at all.
Hybrid lanes where some carriers or banks accept eBL, but counterparties still request paper or parallel documentation.
Digital focused lanes where trade corridors, banks, and carriers have aligned and eBL is the default, with paper kept only as contingency.

For most large shippers, the question is not “when will paper disappear entirely”. It is “how do we keep our sanity and data quality while working across all three patterns at the same time”.

2. Where Hybrid Paper and eBL Workflows Break Down

In theory, paper and eBL can coexist without trouble. In practice, a few recurring failure modes show up in audits, disputes, and daily operations.

2.1 No Single Bill of Lading Record

Different teams often work from different sources for the same shipment:

Operations teams read the carrier portal and visibility tools for movement events.
Documentation teams handle original paper bills, scanned copies, and courier records.
Finance and legal teams store PDFs and email attachments in separate systems.
Banking and trade finance teams manage eBLs on specialist platforms.

Without a clear internal “bill of lading record”, each group may use slightly different versions of the document. That makes it hard to answer basic questions later, such as which set of terms was actually in force, who endorsed what, and when the original was surrendered.

2.2 Incomplete Link Between Bills of Lading and Tracking Data

Modern visibility platforms track shipments by bill of lading, container, booking, and vessel identifiers. In many organizations, that tracking data is not systematically tied back to the bill of lading record.

The result is that when you face a dispute or audit, you have tracking timelines in one system and document evidence in another, with only fragile spreadsheet joins between them. That undermines the value of both.

2.3 Weak Version Control Around eBL and Paper Copies

When a shipment uses eBL for the carrier and banking side, but downstream parties still ask for paper copies, teams may generate multiple downloads and printouts from different systems. If nobody owns version control, you risk:

Confusion about which version was endorsed or pledged.
Conflicting scans and PDFs attached to different tickets or customer records.
Time wasted reconciling which copy is authoritative for a given dispute.

These issues are not solved automatically by eBL adoption. They are solved by treating bills of lading as structured records rather than loose files.

3. How To Build a Bill of Lading Record You Can Actually Use

A practical way to reduce hybrid chaos is to design a bill of lading record inside your own systems and make everything else feed into it.

3.1 Decide What Your Core Bill of Lading Record Includes

For most organizations, a usable bill of lading record should at minimum capture:

Bill of lading number and type (straight, order, seaway, electronic).
Carrier and vessel details, including voyage number.
Shipper, consignee, and notify parties as recorded on the bill.
Key cargo descriptors and container references.
Issue date, place of issue, and number of originals if applicable.
High level terms that affect risk and process (Incoterms, freight prepaid or collect, governing law where relevant).

This data can live in a TMS, ERP, document management system, or a dedicated trade documentation platform. The important point is that you treat it as a structured record, not just as attached images or PDFs.

3.2 Standardise How You Populate That Record

You can pull data into this record from several sources:

Carrier systems and portals, via EDI, APIs, or manual entry.
eBL platforms, which often provide structured data export alongside digital originals.^[6][7]
Visibility platforms such as TRADLINX, which already normalize carrier events and identifiers across carriers.^[8][9]
Internal booking and order systems for commercial references and Incoterms.

The goal is to avoid retyping the same information in multiple places. Where possible, automate the flow from carrier or eBL platform into your record and then enrich it with internal references, rather than allowing each team to maintain its own copy.

3.3 Attach, Do Not Duplicate, The Originals

For disputes and audits, you still need the originals:

For paper, that means scanned images plus a record of where physical originals are held or surrendered.
For eBL, that means a link or reference to the eBL platform and transaction, plus any PDFs generated for operational use.

Instead of storing multiple independent copies, treat the structured record as the index and store pointers or attachments to the original artefacts. That keeps your version story cleaner when regulators, auditors, or banks ask later.

4. Connecting Bills of Lading to Visibility and Tracking Data

Once you have a defined bill of lading record, the next step is to link it tightly to your tracking timelines. This is where ocean visibility platforms are more than “where is my container” dashboards.

4.1 Use Bills of Lading as a Primary Tracking Key

Most modern visibility providers, including TRADLINX, allow you to track shipments by bill of lading, container, booking, or vessel.^[8][9] For documentation and audit purposes, the bill of lading number is often the most natural anchor, because it ties together multiple containers and the legal document in one reference.

Practically, that means ensuring that:

Your bill of lading record includes the exact identifier formats used by carriers and visibility tools.
Tracking timelines from your visibility platform are attached to that record, not just to containers or internal shipment IDs.
Event definitions such as “discharged”, “available”, and “gate out” are standardized across carriers as much as possible.

This makes it far easier to reconstruct what happened to a shipment when you are faced with a claim, a delay dispute, or a demurrage and detention argument.

4.2 Turn Timelines Into Evidence

Regulators and trade bodies increasingly expect disputes to be supported by detailed data rather than general statements. The same applies to internal audits and customer escalations. A good practice is to ensure that, for each bill of lading, you can quickly produce:

The bill of lading record with core fields and links to originals.
A container event timeline showing key milestones such as loading, departure, discharge, availability, and final delivery.
A short commentary or classification of delays, separating carrier or terminal issues from external constraints and internal process gaps.

Visibility tools that provide standardized milestones and frequent refreshes, combined with your own bill of lading record, give you a much stronger base for negotiations and governance than isolated PDFs or emails.^[8][9][14]

5. Governance Questions To Settle Now

To keep hybrid paper and eBL workflows manageable, it helps to settle a few governance questions explicitly.

Ownership. Who in your organization owns the bill of lading record for each shipment. In many companies, this sits with logistics or documentation teams, but legal and trade finance should have input.
Retention. How long do you keep structured records, originals, and platform references, and where. Consider aligning with legal and financial audit requirements.
Change control. Who is allowed to update key fields, and how are changes logged. This matters when terms or counterparties change mid shipment.
Platform choices. How many eBL platforms you are willing to support and how they connect to your internal systems.
Dispute playbook. What information you pull first when facing a claim, chargeback, or audit related to a bill of lading.

These questions are not technology specific. They matter whether you are working purely on paper or fully electronic. Addressing them now will make the transition to higher eBL adoption smoother, not more complicated.

6. Where TRADLINX Fits In This Picture

TRADLINX Ocean Visibility focuses on giving logistics and supply chain teams standardized ocean shipment events at a cost structure that works for multi container moves. It is designed to work in a world where paper and eBL coexist.

It tracks shipments by bill of lading, container, booking, or vessel so that operations, documentation, and customer teams can share one timeline.^[8][9]
It combines carrier events and AIS positions to provide standardized milestones and frequent refreshes, which you can tie back to your internal bill of lading record.
It exposes this data through APIs and embeddable views so you can integrate it into TMS, ERP, trade documentation platforms, and customer portals rather than adding another silo.
Its bill of lading based pricing model can be more efficient when you routinely move many containers under a single bill of lading, compared with per container visibility pricing from some competitors.^[9]

TRADLINX does not replace your bill of lading systems or eBL platforms. Instead, it gives you cleaner shipment timelines keyed to your bill of lading numbers, which you can then use for internal records, customer communication, and negotiations.

If you are currently reviewing how your organization handles bills of lading, one practical next step is to pick a few key lanes, define the bill of lading record you want, and then connect TRADLINX timelines and events directly to that record. The goal is simple: when you look at a shipment, you should immediately see both the legal document and the movement history in one place.

References

DCSA and industry analyses on global eBL adoption growth from 2021 to 2025. According to Breakbulk (September 2025), adoption reached 11% by August 2025, up from approximately 1% in 2021. See Breakbulk: Shipping Industry Pushes Toward Electronic Bills of Lading and DCSA Newsroom: Member Carriers Commit to Standardised eBL by 2030.
FIT Alliance 2024 eBL survey with ICC, HKUST Li & Fung Institute, and BCG. The December 2024 survey found 49.2% overall eBL adoption with 41.7% using dual-format (paper and electronic). See ICC: Survey Shows Steady Rise of Global Adoption and AJOT: FIT Alliance’s 2024 eBL Survey.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 and the three core functions of a bill of lading: receipt for goods, evidence of the contract of carriage, and negotiable document of title. See Roger Williams University Law Journal: The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 and Law Teacher: Bill of Lading and Functions.
UK Government Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, which gives electronic bills of lading the same legal effect as paper documents. Commentary available at Kennedy’s Law: Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023.
DCSA (Digital Container Shipping Association) commitment to 100 percent eBL by 2030, with nine member carriers committing to 50% adoption within five years. Additional details at DCSA: 100% eBL Commitment.
DCSA analysis of legal and regulatory barriers to eBL adoption, covering 15 countries representing 60% of global trade. Detailed analysis available at Global Trade Review: Regulatory Barriers Holding Back eBL Adoption.
DCSA announcement of the first standards-based interoperable eBL transaction (May 2025), involving CargoX, edoxOnline, Suzano, and HMM using DCSA PINT API standards. See also edoxOnline: First Live Interoperable eBL Transaction.
TRADLINX Blog: The Complete Guide to Ocean Freight Tracking Software in 2025, describing container visibility, shipment event data, and DCSA standards support for real-time tracking across major carriers.
TRADLINX Blog: Project44 vs TRADLINX: Visibility Cost Breakdown, explaining bill of lading-based pricing ($1.25 per BoL) versus per-container pricing models ($3.03 per container) and total cost implications for logistics professionals.
UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), adopted July 2017, setting out principles for electronic bills of lading and similar instruments. Overview at ICC Academy: MLETR Overview.
Dutch government introduced MLETR-lite digital trade bill (May 2025) recognising electronic bills of lading with same legal status as paper. Netherlands joins UK, France, and other European countries in eBL legislative reform. See also Global Trade Review: Dutch Government Unveils MLETR-lite Bill.
DCSA, ICC, BIMCO, and FIATA joint commitment to electronic bills of lading (February 2023). Industry analysis of legal uncertainty, operational practices, and regulatory fragmentation as barriers at BIMCO: Complete Guide to Bulk eBL Adoption.
Container visibility data and standardised shipment events support demurrage and detention analysis, dispute resolution, and claims management. See MIT CTL: Smart Contracts and Container Demurrage and Unity SCM: Technology Solutions for Detention and Demurrage Management.

Why overpay for visibility? TRADLINX saves you 40% with transparent per–Master B/L pricing. Get 99% accuracy, 12 updates daily, and 80% ETA accuracy improvements, trusted by 83,000+ logistics teams and global leaders like Samsung and LG Chem.

Start Free Trial Contact Us

Prefer email? Contact us directly at min.so@tradlinx.com (Americas) or henry.jo@tradlinx.com (EMEA/Asia)