Does your frozen-food distribution network still fit your customers?

A frozen-food business that grows through acquisitions can end up with a network assembled one deal at a time. When you review that network, it is tempting to begin with the facilities: which ones cost the most, which have spare space, and which could close?

I would start with the customers. Where are they, how often are we shipping to them, and what does it take to keep serving them reliably? Once we understand that, we can work backward to the capacity and locations we need. The facility count should follow from that review.

Start with the customers you already serve

First, I would look at our existing clientele, particularly the bigger accounts. Put their locations alongside how often we deliver to them. That gives us a picture of the work the network actually has to support.

If we are shipping into the same area all the time, I would examine how we cover those journeys. How far can we sensibly serve from the facility handling them today? Could another facility cover that area? We need to understand what each location lets us do before deciding whether we still need it.

I would also look at where demand has increased. Are we seeing growth in a particular geography, customer group or industry? That may change where we need to focus. The customer base we are supplying today should be visible in the way we assess the network.

In Food Logistics’ June 2026 review of the cold-chain 3PL market, Aidan McCauley, president of Dawsongroup tcs USA, emphasizes “Proximity to the point of need” when discussing local cold-chain services. His observation connects location to the work customers need done. For our business, that means looking at actual destinations and delivery requirements when considering where facilities belong.

Once we can explain how we cover those customers, we can ask whether we need the same number of facilities. We might have the reach we need while still having room to consolidate some locations. That is something to investigate from the shipping pattern.

Understand product movement and available capacity

Next, I would look at how much frozen stock comes in, how much goes out and how long it stays. The type of product matters here. We need to understand how the goods move through the facilities we are considering changing.

I would be asking whether we have more storage capacity than the business needs. How much space are we maintaining for the activity we actually have? Put that question alongside the movement of stock, so the discussion includes both the capacity available and the goods passing through it.

If inventory stays for a long time, I would want to understand that. But long dwell alone is not enough to decide that a facility should close. We still have to establish what capacity the business needs and how the remaining network would serve its customers.

Suppose we consider consolidating a location. Can the other facilities take on its stock and work? The goods still need somewhere to go, and the orders still need to leave. I would want that question answered before treating the capacity at another site as a reason to close this one.

Compare facility savings with the journeys they create

Running a facility is expensive. If we have spare capacity elsewhere, it makes sense to ask whether we could reduce that expense. I would then look closely at what happens to freight when we make the change.

If closing a location means serving its customers through longer hauls, what does that do to the freight bill? We need that cost in the same conversation as the facility saving. Otherwise, we have considered the expense we might remove without understanding the transport we would need in its place.

Reliable delivery belongs beside that cost comparison. Can we still get to those customers reliably from the remaining facilities? Go back to where they are and how often we ship. The proposed network has to support those journeys after the change.

A 2024 study in Scientific Reports offers a related example: Jianli Shi describes a network model aimed at “minimizing both transportation and holding costs”. The model treats those two costs together when assessing distribution locations. Our review also needs to account for the wider expense of running a facility and whether we can keep serving customers reliably.

There is also the practical burden of operating across several countries. Each brings rules and restrictions the business has to be prepared for. If our network spans different countries, I would include that complexity in the review alongside the capacity, freight and service questions. It is another part of understanding what the current arrangement requires and what a different arrangement would involve.

Keep prospective business in proportion

I would also want to know which customers we hope to win. Who is the ideal account we have not secured yet, and would we be close enough to serve it? That is useful information when discussing where the network might need to go.

But I would not bet the decision on those accounts. There is a difference between knowing about an opportunity and relying on it to justify a facility. Keep the prospective business visible while grounding the decision in customers we already serve and growth we have actually seen.

Another possibility is using a third-party logistics provider, or 3PL, instead of running a location ourselves. Given the expense and work of operating a facility, that is worth examining. We would still need to establish how that arrangement fits the customer coverage and capacity we require.

Those possibilities may lead to different answers across the network. We may find that a location remains necessary, that another could be consolidated, or that a 3PL is worth considering. I would work through them using the same questions about customers, product movement, capacity, freight and reliability.

Before changing the network, I want to be able to explain how it will serve the business we have. Start with the customers and work backward. That gives us a practical basis for deciding which facilities we need and what would have to change if we operated fewer of them.