JINGDONG Logistics Expands Middle East Presence with 5 Warehouses, Offering Premium Services Across MENA Markets
Currently, JINGDONG Logistics operates five warehouses in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia Warehouse No. 1. Last year, JINGDONG Group also established a strategic partnership with Saudi Electricity Company to automate and upgrade dozens of its warehouses, enhancing end-to-end supply chain efficiency and cost reduction across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
JINGDONG Group began expanding into the Middle East market years ago. In 2020,JINGDONG Logistics launched its first self-operated warehouse in Jebel Ali Port, Dubai—the largest free zone in the region. Later, its UAE Dubai Warehouse No. 2 started operation, providing an integrated supply chain solution for Chinese brands going global, as well as local brands, merchants, and traders, with coverage extending across Asia, Africa, and Europe.
Furthermore, in 2025, JINGDONG Logistics partnered with Chinese automaker Chery to establish one of the largest automotive parts centers in the Middle East. Leveraging advanced warehousing expertise and logistics technology, JINGDONG Logistics handled the planning and design of this regional parts hub while offering end-to-end supply chain services—from container receiving, customs clearance, warehousing, and quality inspection to storage, order processing, packaging, and outbound shipping. The center significantly improves parts logistics efficiency, serving markets across the Middle East and North Africa.
Beyond serving MENA markets, JINGDONG Logistics actively engages in community initiatives, leveraging its strengths to support local holiday celebrations. From March 29 to March 30, the company distributed over 1,000 gifts—including traditional Chinese presents—to residents at locations such as Tahliah Street, and Panorama Mall. This Eid al-Fitr campaign exemplified JINGDONG Logistics' commitment to integrating into local culture and connecting with communities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Some fear Chinese automakers' playbook is existential threat to US auto industry
DETROIT - Aggressive component-sharing efforts have contributed to lower cost structures at many Chinese automakers, and there's an increasing push for Western automakers to catch up. The strategy stretches from internet-connected vehicle technologies and electric vehicle powertrain systems to actuators and even engines that once defined models. Automakers agree to use common specifications for vehicle parts, sometimes at the behest of the government, to create economies of scale, ensure quality and offer better functionality to customers. The effort has contributed to lower-cost and technologically advanced vehicles from China that people like Ford Motor Co. CEO Jim Farley have called an existential threat to the U.S. auto industry. "We have to beat (Chinese EV giant) BYD, and we're not going to do it with cheaper batteries," Farley said last week during a panel at the Reindustrialize summit in Detroit. "We're going to have to do that with smarter engineering and better supply chain and manufacturing." A key part of that, said Terry Woychowski, president of automotive at Caresoft Global Technologies Inc., a benchmarking consulting firm, is common parts between brands and automakers. "To compete from a cost perspective and time perspective, there needs to be much more sharing of components," he said at the company's vehicle tear-down facility in Livonia. He gave an example: Three automakers go to a supplier for a windshield wiper motor, each providing several thousand specifications for the parts. The supplier agrees to make the individual part for 100,000 vehicles for each company. In contrast, Chinese brands are increasingly agreeing on a list of requirements for a supplier to produce one part many times over. "If you could all get together and say, 'OK, we took 8,000 requirements (each), and we made it 4,000, and we've all agreed - boom. Can you make that for all of us?' You say, 'Yeah, 300,000 at scale,'" Woychowski said. "We all need a motor to do this, but we all think we're smarter than anyone else, and that our smartness is what makes us a better product. "Who would know?" he continued. "Who would care? Nobody. It's got to work. But we fixate on those things because we rely on 100 years of experience. We rely on our specs. We rely on the way we specify a product." As a result, Chinese automakers take advantage of greater economies of scale and introduce product faster compared to U.S. companies for a part of the vehicle that probably won't make or break a sale, Woychowski said. Meanwhile, some automakers in China adopting a common structural design have reduced their bill of materials costs by 5-10%, said Sharath Reddy, senior vice president of research and development at Magna International Inc. Standardization also has been key to unlocking product development timelines of less than two years and driving reliability and quality benefits from tested designs built at scale. Reconciling different engineering philosophies, protecting intellectual property and balancing standardization with the need for differentiation, however, can be a challenge, Reddy said. Additionally, legacy companies work with processes and specifications that have been put in place over decades. "For them, adopting standardization can take years," Reddy said in an email, "especially as it needs to align with sourcing cycles." That's less of a challenge for the startups and new brands working from the ground up in China, he added. Additionally, the role of government and the work of organizations like the China Automotive Technology and Research Center and China Society of Automotive Engineers have contributed to accelerating adoption. For example, the government's standardization of the hardware interface and communication protocols for charging ports for new-energy vehicles, including EVs and plug-in hybrids, allows drivers to use any public or private charging station. That access has helped EV adoption, whereas it's struggled in the United States, where automakers traditionally have used a different charging port from Tesla Inc. "In North America and Europe, there isn't the same level of centralized collaboration. OEMs tend to operate more independently, which makes broad standardization harder to achieve," Reddy wrote. "That said, we're seeing signs of change. With rising cost pressures and increased competition - especially from Chinese OEMs - some global automakers are beginning to revisit how they approach standardization." The most effective use of this approach is sharing components that aren't tied to a brand's identity or for areas where customers don't interact with the vehicle, such as structural parts, seat frame closures, actuators and certain electronic modules, Reddy said. More challenging areas are lighting, exteriors, interiors, powertrains, advanced driver assistance systems and infotainment. "These areas often define the user experience and brand identity," he said, "so OEMs typically want more control and differentiation there." Shifting consumer expectations The line for what parts are important for differentiation is shifting, experts said. As the lifespans of gas- and diesel-powered vehicles extend amid a bumpier transition to EVs, automakers are pressed on where to invest. Plus, newer technologies like the interior's digital cockpit experience are increasingly becoming a way for models and brands to separate themselves from the competition. Bill Russo, CEO of consulting and investment platform Automobility Ltd. in Shanghai, said "the foreign brands have had to rethink, because the whole pricing strategy and the whole content strategy has always been pegged around brands that are defined and differentiated based on their driving performance. It's not about that in the 21st century." More people in China ride than drive, which means they are looking for a vehicle space to live in and enjoy, he explained. The bragging right of the car, Russo said, isn't about the 0-60 mph acceleration. "When the transition happens to EV, it goes from an analog to more of a digital measure of technology differentiation," he said. "It's not that I-get-the-good-stuff-if-I buy-the-bigger-engine way of thinking about product planning. I get the good stuff or I opt in for more intelligence, more experience, more comfort, more cabin comfort." As a result, even engines are increasingly becoming an area of commonality. Horse Powertrain Ltd. is a joint venture between China-based Volvo parent Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. and French automaker Renault SA that produces engines, transmissions and other powertrain parts, including for hybrids. Horse also said publicly that it's supplying engines for Mercedes-Benz and other brands. With 17 plants and five research and development centers on three continents, Horse now has its eyes set on expanding into North America, CEO Matias Giannini said on a recent visit to Detroit. Traditionally, engines were a part of the DNA of a brand or model. Although that still might be true for performance-oriented vehicles, it may not be as much of a priority for other offerings, creating opportunity for economies of scale, Giannini said. Collaboration may be a move to save on costs to fill out a company's portfolio for ICE and hybrid vehicles when capital is spread thin investing in EVs and other advanced technologies that automakers see is their future, Giannini said. "By 2040, 50% of vehicle sales still will not be EVs," he said. "A lot of OEMs had given up (on investing in ICE), and they're realizing there is more than one road to net zero (carbon emissions). We offer solutions to close gaps, as companies realize they need to have more hybrids, and the biggest question is: What is the most efficient way? We can help them get the volume they need." Giannini said cost savings depend on whether an automaker uses an off-the-shelf product or develops something with Horse. The manufacturer makes 8 million engines and transmissions per year and has $17 billion (15 billion euro) annual revenue outlook. What the industry says General Motors Co. had said it's going "all in on EVs," only to reverse that decision by announcing plans to launch plug-in hybrids in 2027 in North America. A representative for the Detroit automaker declined to comment on shared component efforts, citing competitive reasons. GM has partnered with Hyundai Motor Co. on vehicle development, supply chain and clean-energy technology, with GM CEO Mary Barra in recent months teasing that more information on that collaboration will be coming soon. In a statement, Stellantis NV - parent of Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram - shared that the automaker isn't a part of any external or industrywide standardization effort, but that it uses collaboration and scale across its 14 brands globally. Ford Motor Co. spokesperson Mike Levine pointed to the Dearborn automaker's partnership with Volkswagen AG that shares platforms and plants. For example, the VW Amarok truck is based on the Ford Ranger pickup, and both are built at a Ford plant in South Africa. Ford and GM have also developed together nine- and 10-speed transmissions. Ford also referred The Detroit News to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which didn't respond to a request for comment. German supplier Robert Bosch GmbH seeks standardization of products within its portfolio to save on costs, though automakers define their individual specifications, spokesperson Tim Wieland said in a statement. Japanese supplier Denso Corp. spokesperson Andrew Rickerman said in a statement that standardization is an area the company is always evaluating. Denso leverages a "core and customize approach" when co-developing products with customers in which it presents a core product that can be altered for the unique applications and requirements of individual customers and the regions in which they operate. "This approach allows us to produce dependable products," Rickerman said, "that still offer opportunities to innovate for consumer value, helping us make continual advancements in traditional and new product areas." SAE International in the United States works with stakeholders to develop standards in the automotive and aerospace industries. The organization's standards are voluntary, though it does provide information to governments developing regulations when requested. Regarding China, "they have certain benefits that we may not recognize as easily in a free market society where their market is somewhat constrained to a certain degree," Christian Thiele, SAE's senior director of ground vehicle standards, said about government support and subsidies in China for standardization. But industry collaboration in the United States to improve safety, health and other benefits for customers has been ongoing for decades. ADAS, driver monitoring systems and sustainability are major topics today Thiele said. SAE reviews existing standards every five years, though some areas that represent rapidly changing technologies, like those around the North American Charging Standard, are discussed more frequently. "Getting 125 engineers in the room, you might think sometimes it's efficient, but it doesn't get that efficient, because now you have a lot of strong-willed individuals with their opinions," Thiele said. "But what you're doing at the end of the day is you're delivering the best product there is." And even in these discussions, Chinese competitors are participating as they look to expand into the U.S. market, Thiele said. "You may not get a complete vehicle on four wheels from BYD next week," he said, "but eventually that will happen." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
From California to Gulf Coast, Trump's trade war take biggest toll on nation's smaller, secondary ports
Across the U.S., from California to the Gulf Coast, secondary and smaller ports are processing less trade as shippers readjust supply chain deliveries in a race against August tariff deadlines. Recent data on container volumes shows that while the nation's busiest port, Los Angeles, has seen a sizable bump in traffic, that has come at the expense of trade activity for smaller ports, where there has been a reduction in scheduled services for imports, according to ITS Logistics' monthly US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index. "The ports of Oakland, Jacksonville, New Orleans, and Panama City [Florida] are getting sandwiched out of port calls as more shippers decide to unload their freight in the larger ports in an effort to get the product in before the tariffs," said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at ITS Logistics. The Port of Oakland recently reported a 10.1% decrease month-over-month in June — year-over-year container traffic was down 13%. Port of Oakland maritime director Bryan Brandes said the softening demand is a result of the ongoing tariff uncertainty. "This is not a seasonal dip, but a market recalibration," said Brandes. "Importers and exporters are adjusting their supply chain timing and routing decisions in response to evolving conditions," he added. Oakland is unique among U.S. ports, maintaining a near 50/50 balance of imports and exports, with a big role in the nation's agricultural trade. The Port of Oakland is the No. 1 refrigerated export gateway in the U.S., and nearly all containerized cargo moving through Northern California goes through the Port of Oakland. Container volumes are key economic and job drivers for a port's local community and economic stability, and port officials have voiced concerns in recent months about the trade war risks. The Port of Oakland, along with its partners, supports more than 98,000 regional jobs and $174 billion in annual economic activity. Jobs and trade have also been a focal point for the larger ports, even amid a short-term increase in container volumes during the pause on the steepest Chinese tariff levels, which saw the Port of Los Angeles handle record monthly traffic in June. Back in its May container update, Port of LA executive director Gene Seroka said the drop in containers being moved impacted jobs. "We saw that for every two longshore members that walked into the hiring hall, one went home without work," he said. During the more recent front-loading of Chinese goods ahead of the mid-August deadline for a trade deal before much higher tariffs kick in, port officials have stressed that they would not describe it as a "surge." Seroka recently told CNBC that "shifting timelines simply mean shifting volume and more uncertainty here at the Port of LA. Looking into August, if everything holds the way we see it right now, I expect volume to ease because of those new tariffs being in place, making it more costly for American importers." "It's easy to say right now, peak season is earlier than normal. Just a question of how long this will last," Brashier said. He added that the recent trend among ocean carriers to concentrate on the largest ports like Los Angeles while skipping secondary ports like the Port of Oakland should continue. "There is too much uncertainty in the marketplace right now for companies to truly book ahead," he said. "Companies are reassigning their logistics to be as efficient as possible in moving their decreased number of containers. It is all about margins, so when you are negotiating with logistics companies, shippers may have more negotiating power with more containers arriving at one port instead of two or three." Comparing June and July container arrivals, the majority of the secondary ports across the U.S. are down substantially, according to trade tracker Vizion, though Oakland has seen a slight turnaround. Josh Stein, governor of North Carolina, recently told CNBC that there has been a recent reduction in traffic at the state's biggest port in Wilmington, a result of trade policy that "changes practically on a daily basis." "We need to have stability, businesses need certainty, so they can figure out how and where to invest," Stein said. More than 20% of North Carolina's GDP in 2024 came from international trade in goods, according to data from Trade Partnership Worldwide. The outlook for Chinese exports to the U.S., according to recent SONAR data on ocean freight bookings, suggests a decline in orders headed to the U.S. in the coming weeks. Even as the stock market and economy prove resilient in the face of tariff uncertainty, U.S. companies continue to downsize orders or eliminate products that are not as popular. "Carriers are aligning service schedules, resulting in fewer sailings, fuller ships, and volume patterns that mirror the broader hesitancy in global trade," said Brashier. There are economic reasons for shippers to maintain service across a wide portfolio of ports. Brashier said the decision to cut down on ports called on can negatively lead to higher costs. Export containers can be in different locations, which can impact availability, and truck transportation costs can be anywhere between two and four times what is typical. "Normally, a company's distribution center is near the port where they traditionally bring their freight in," Brashier said. "If their containers are now being offloaded at another port, that means that container pickup, which was originally a local pickup, could morph into a 400 to 500-mile trucking job. The more miles a trucker travels to pick up a container and return, the more expensive that freight move will be."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Attacks On Kurdish Oil Fields Is All The Negotiating Baghdad Wants To Do
The series of attacks against oil fields in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) last week underlines long-stated view that the dispute between this Region and the Federal Government of Iraq (FGI) is not really to do with oil at all – it is all about sovereignty. The FGI in Baghdad does not want the KRI in Erbil to have any independence from it, and the KRI wants to have more. The FGI's stance aligns perfectly with that of its key sponsors China and Russia. This was relayed to some time ago by a senior energy source who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry: 'By keeping the West out of energy deals in Iraq, the end of Western hegemony in the Middle East will become the decisive chapter in the West's final demise.' The KRI's view also equally reflects the view of its principal sponsors – the U.S. and its key allies. This is that they want the Kurdistan Region to terminate all links with Chinese, Russian and Iranian companies connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps over the long term. The U.S. and Israel also have a further strategic interest in utilising the Kurdistan Region as a base for ongoing monitoring operations against Iran. Once these basic elements are understood, then everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen, makes perfect is the key to success for any state large or small, and both the KRI and FGI have spent years doing their utmost to assert control over the semi-autonomous state's finances. In 2013 – on 23 April – the Kurdistan Region's government passed a bill that would allow it to independently export crude oil from its fields and those of Kirkuk in the event that Baghdad failed to pay its share of oil revenues and exploration costs for crude found in the Region, as analysed in my latest book on the new global oil market order. A corollary bill to create an oil exploration and production company separate from the Federal Government in Baghdad and a sovereign wealth fund to take in all energy revenue was approved at the same time. At that point, the Kurdistan Region was producing around 350,000 barrels per day (bpd) – out of a total 3.3 million bpd across Iraq -- and planned to increase this to 1 million bpd by the end of 2015. In sum, the Region intended the 2013 bill to give it complete financial independence from the rest of Iraq as a precursor to total political independence shortly thereafter. The next phase -- after independent oil sales were assured by the Kurdistan Region -- was a planned referendum on independence. The Federal Government correctly saw this as an existential threat to its future, given the U.S.'s promise to the Kurds that they would gain full independence for their vital help in defeating Islamic State. Efforts to put these new measures towards greater independence into practice were hampered by overt and covert pressure from Baghdad's key regional sponsor Iran. And when the independence referendum finally did take place – in 2017 – and the result was a resounding vote in favour, it was Iran that moved quickly and forcefully into the Kurdistan Region to quell any idea of full independence being granted. A year after the Kurdistan Region had made its move in 2013 to secure more independence, Baghdad suggested that instead of independent oil sales for the Kurdistan Region, the two sides instead agreed to a deal. The 2014 'Budget Payments-for-Oil Deal' focused on the south paying the north a certain amount of its budget each month in return for a certain level of oil pumped in the south then being sent in return. Specifically, the original deal involved the Kurdistan region exporting up to 550,000 bpd of oil from its own fields and Kirkuk via the Federal Government of Iraq's State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO). In return, Baghdad would send 17% of the federal budget after sovereign expenses (around US$500 million at that time) per month in budget payments to the Kurdistan region. From the outset, each side tried to gain an advantage, with the Kurds either failing to send the required amount of oil (while also attempting to sell some of it independent of Baghdad), and the Federal Government failing to send the required levels of budget payments. Russia's effective takeover of the Kurdistan Region's key oil infrastructure in 2017 after the independence referendum was aimed at further sowing discontent between the two sides – and it worked – as also detailed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. These themes have consistently continued to play out in the country, all centred on maximising control over the money from the Kurdistan Region's oil sales, which in turn is a proxy for the level of independence it has from Baghdad. Matters have been complicated by a lack of clarity in the 2005 Iraqi Constitution. According to the Kurdistan region, it has authority under Articles 112 and 115 of the Constitution to manage oil and gas in the Kurdistan Region extracted from fields that were not in production in 2005. In addition, the Region maintains that Article 115 states: 'All powers not stipulated in the exclusive powers of the Federal Government belong to the authorities of the regions and governorates that are not organised in a region.' As such, the Region maintains that, as relevant powers are not otherwise stipulated in the Constitution, it has the authority to sell and receive revenue from its oil and gas exports. Additionally, it argues the Constitution provides that, should a dispute arise, priority shall be given to the law of the regions and governorates. However, the Federal Government maintains that under Article 111 of the Constitution oil and gas are under the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates and should therefore be handled through Baghdad. The upshot of this impasse was the 25 March 2023 embargo placed on all independent oil sales from the Kurdistan Region which is still in place. As this issue of independent oil sales is actually about the sovereignty – and geopolitical alignment – of a key piece of land in the heart of the Middle East, it should come as no surprise to anyone the lengths to which the interested parties will go to make sure their side wins. It is apposite to note that around the same time as the U.S. was stressing again that both sides – the Kurdistan Region and the Federal Government – should redouble their efforts to find a negotiated settlement to the long-running oil embargo, a series of attacks from 'unknown assailants' occurred at multiple oil fields in the Kurdistan Region. Among these key oil sites affected were Sarsang, Tawke, Peshkabour, Khurmala, and Ain Sifni, resulting in the Kurdistan Region's crude output dropping by around half, to 150,000 bpd. All these sites were operated by foreign firms, which the Federal Government of Iraq has long maintained should not be dealing direct with the Kurdistan Region but should instead be dealing with the central government in Baghdad. Indeed, May saw Iraq's federal authorities file another complaint against the Kurdistan Region for signing gas contracts with two U.S. companies, including HKN Energy (the operator of the Sarsang site). So who possibly could have been behind the attacks? Unsurprisingly, given the pinpoint accuracy of U.S. laser-guided missile technology, no group has claimed responsibility, but the Kurdistan Region's authorities have questioned whether it could be Iran-backed Iraq paramilitaries. Again unsurprisingly, the Federal Government in Baghdad has rejected this idea. Whether it was one of these many such groups that have attacked foreign targets in Iraq for years remains to be seen. But what is clear is that a very clear link has now been established between foreign powers seeking to up the pressure on Baghdad to resume negotiations on ending the ban of oil sales from the Kurdistan Region and wide-ranging attacks on the very oil fields from which that oil comes. At the same time, the Federal Government of Iraq has refloated a variation of the original 2014 'Budget Payments-for-Oil Deal'. This latest manoeuvre saw the Iraqi Cabinet approve the immediate transfer of all oil produced in the Kurdistan Region to the federal Government of Iraq-controlled State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) for export. This time around, Baghdad has offered to provide the KRG with an advance of $16 pb (cash, or in-kind benefit), based on a minimum delivery of 230,000 bpd, with any additional production to be included under the same mechanism. This, of course, is aimed at wresting control of the Kurdistan Region's oil sales -- and therefore finances – away from its de facto authority in Erbil and firmly to the Federal Government of Iraq in Baghdad. By Simon Watkins for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
