The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) has attracted considerable strategic attention. It promises to connect India with the Gulf and Europe through an integrated network of maritime links, rail connections, ports and associated infrastructure. At a time when countries are rethinking trade routes, supply-chain dependencies and economic security, its potential is considerable.
But there is a fundamental question that must now move to the centre of the conversation: what will persuade businesses to use IMEC rather than the routes and networks they already depend on? The answer will determine whether IMEC becomes a transformative economic corridor or remains an ambitious geopolitical proposition.
Governments can articulate a vision, negotiate agreements, facilitate infrastructure and provide diplomatic momentum. They are indispensable to the enterprise. But governments do not, by themselves, generate sustained cargo flows, establish commercial supply chains or make investment decisions. These are driven by businesses responding to costs, reliability, transit times, market access and the confidence that a new network will work consistently.
IMEC must therefore evolve from a government-supported strategic initiative into a business-led economic enterprise. Its ultimate test will not be the number of agreements signed or meetings convened, but the volume of trade it facilitates, the investment it attracts, the costs it saves and the economic opportunities it creates.
The recent meeting of the IMEC Ports Club in New Delhi, jointly convened by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) and the Port of Marseille Fos on October 6, was significant in precisely this context. Bringing ports together is an important step towards translating the corridor's strategic promise into practical cooperation. More importantly, it places commercial infrastructure operators at the heart of the implementation conversation.
The challenge now is to build on this momentum and ensure that business remains in the driving seat.
From geopolitical vision to commercial proposition
The geopolitical case for IMEC is compelling. Countries want greater diversification of trade routes, stronger economic partnerships and reduced exposure to disruptions in critical supply chains. India seeks deeper integration with Gulf economies and European markets, while countries along the route see opportunities to strengthen their roles in trade, logistics, manufacturing and energy. Yet strategic alignment is a starting point, not a substitute for commercial viability.
A manufacturer deciding how to ship goods from India to Europe will ask practical questions. Will the route be faster or more reliable? Will total logistics costs be competitive? Will customs procedures and documentation be seamless across jurisdictions? Will cargo move predictably between ships, railways, terminals and inland distribution networks? Will the route remain dependable when geopolitical tensions or other disruptions affect established pathways?
These are not questions that can be answered through diplomatic declarations alone. They require businesses, logistics operators, shipping lines, freight forwarders, exporters, importers and investors to work together from the outset.
IMEC should begin, therefore, by identifying specific trade flows and supply chains where the corridor can offer a demonstrable advantage. Pilot projects could test its commercial proposition for selected commodities, manufactured goods, energy-related products and other cargoes where there is a credible business case. The precise priorities should emerge from consultations with actual users of the route, rather than being determined solely by governments or infrastructure providers. The objective should be to demonstrate that IMEC works in practice, and that using it makes economic sense.
Why ports must be at the centre
Ports are natural starting points for this effort. They are not simply physical gateways through which cargo passes; they are critical nodes in larger networks connecting shipping, rail, road, warehousing, manufacturing and distribution. Their efficiency can influence the cost and reliability of an entire supply chain.
This makes cooperation among participating ports essential. Ports will continue to compete for cargo and investment, as they should. But within a corridor such as IMEC, they also have a shared interest in ensuring that the entire network functions efficiently. A highly efficient port cannot compensate indefinitely for delays, fragmented documentation or unpredictable transfers elsewhere along the route.
APSEZ's role in helping convene the Ports Club with Marseille Fos is therefore noteworthy. The participation of major infrastructure and port operators brings operational experience and a commercial perspective to a project that must ultimately work for businesses. APSEZ's broader port and logistics operations also illustrate why ports should be understood as part of integrated economic networks, rather than as isolated maritime assets.
The opportunity is to extend this approach across the corridor. Ports from Mundra to Marseille and beyond can help identify bottlenecks, improve coordination, share operational expertise and develop common approaches to the movement of cargo. They can also work with shipping lines, railway operators, customs authorities and private-sector users to identify where better coordination would produce the greatest gains.
The missing link: a permanent mechanism for cooperation
This brings us to an institutional question that deserves early attention. How will the Ports Club sustain momentum between meetings and translate broad agreement into practical outcomes? International initiatives often generate enthusiasm when participants first assemble. The more difficult task is maintaining progress once delegations return home, operational priorities compete for attention and decisions require coordination across institutions and countries. Without a mechanism for continuity, even sound proposals can lose momentum.
The IMEC Ports Club should therefore consider establishing a lean, permanent secretariat, supported by designated focal points at participating ports and in relevant countries. Its purpose would not be to create another layer of bureaucracy, but to make cooperation continuous, focused and accountable.
Such a secretariat could maintain a common work programme, track agreed actions, convene technical working groups, identify obstacles requiring intervention and report periodically on progress. It could help match commercial opportunities with the port, logistics and infrastructure capabilities available along the corridor. It could also facilitate dialogue between port operators and prospective users, ensuring that the programme remains anchored in business needs.
The secretariat should have a clear mandate, modest administrative costs and measurable objectives. Its effectiveness should be judged by what it helps participants accomplish, not by the size of the organisation it creates. Three areas would merit early attention.
First, the Club could identify a small number of commercially credible pilot initiatives, with businesses involved in defining the problem, assessing costs and measuring results.
Second, it could develop a practical agenda for operational coordination and digital interoperability, bringing together the relevant port operators, technology providers and public authorities.
Third, it could establish a common framework for monitoring progress, including agreed responsibilities, milestones and periodic reviews. A roadmap for 2027-28 could provide a useful basis for translating these priorities into an actionable programme.
A permanent secretariat would provide the institutional memory and continuity needed to keep these efforts moving. In this sense, institutional cooperation is not an end in itself. It is an instrument for achieving commercial results.
Interconnected infrastructure is not enough
IMEC's success will depend on how well its different components work together. Physical connectivity is necessary, but it does not automatically produce seamless movement of goods. A shipment may pass through efficient ports and still encounter delays because documentation requirements differ, customs processes are poorly coordinated, data cannot be exchanged or responsibility for resolving a problem is unclear. The corridor must address these operational frictions as deliberately as it addresses infrastructure gaps.
Digital interoperability should consequently be a priority from the beginning. Participating ports and logistics providers could explore compatible systems for cargo tracking, documentation, data exchange and operational planning, while working towards greater consistency in standards and processes. Cybersecurity and the protection of commercially sensitive information must be built into this effort.
The objective need not be to impose one technology platform on every participant. It should be to ensure that different systems can communicate reliably and securely. Businesses should be able to plan and track shipments across the corridor without encountering a series of disconnected digital environments. This is where a Ports Club can add practical value: by bringing operators together to identify common problems and agree on solutions that no single port could implement across the entire route on its own.
Resilience must be built into the business model
The changing global environment has made resilience a central consideration in trade and investment decisions. Efficiency remains important, but businesses increasingly value the ability to withstand disruptions and recover quickly when established routes become unreliable.
IMEC should not be presented as a zero-sum alternative to other trade corridors, nor should its viability depend on being defined against any single competing route. Its strongest proposition would be to offer businesses another reliable option within a diversified global trading system.
That requires more than a line on a map. It calls for dependable operations, alternative routing possibilities where feasible, coordinated responses to disruption and greater visibility across the supply chain. Ports and logistics operators should consider how information can be shared during disruptions, how cargo can be redirected when necessary and how operational bottlenecks can be identified before they become systemic problems.
Resilience also has an investment dimension. Businesses are more likely to commit resources to a corridor when they have confidence that its institutions, infrastructure and operating arrangements will remain dependable over time. Predictability is itself an economic asset.
Green connectivity as a commercial opportunity
The energy transition presents another opportunity for practical cooperation. Maritime transport, ports and associated logistics networks are under increasing pressure to improve environmental performance and prepare for evolving standards, technologies and customer expectations.
Participating ports could explore a green maritime agenda covering energy efficiency, cleaner port operations, shore-side electricity where feasible, alternative fuels, emissions measurement and the infrastructure needed to support lower-carbon shipping. The precise priorities will depend on local capabilities, commercial demand and the pace of technological development.
The objective should be to identify projects that are both environmentally meaningful and commercially credible. A green corridor cannot be created through declarations alone; it requires investment, workable technologies, suitable infrastructure and a viable business model.
A coordinated approach could help participating ports share experience, identify complementary investments and provide greater clarity to shipping lines and cargo owners considering lower-emission logistics options. This is another area where the combination of private-sector initiative and public-sector facilitation could be particularly productive.
A corridor that creates its own economic constituency
Ultimately, IMEC's greatest strength will lie in the economic relationships it creates. Infrastructure connects ports. Reliable services connect businesses. Investment creates shared interests. Trade generates constituencies that have a practical stake in the corridor's continued success.
As firms begin to use IMEC, they will have incentives to improve its performance, expand its reach and deepen their participation. Logistics providers may develop new services; manufacturers may reconsider sourcing and distribution decisions; investors may identify opportunities around ports and industrial clusters; and energy companies may explore complementary infrastructure and supply arrangements. This is how a corridor can gradually become an economic ecosystem.
Governments will remain essential. They must provide the enabling framework, address regulatory obstacles, support cross-border coordination and sustain the diplomatic engagement required to make the corridor function. But they should create the conditions for business to lead, rather than attempt to prescribe every commercial outcome.
The IMEC Ports Club offers a practical platform for advancing this approach. Its value will depend on whether participants can move from dialogue to implementation, from general ambition to identifiable business opportunities, and from occasional meetings to continuous cooperation.
A lean permanent secretariat can help sustain that process. Digital interoperability can reduce friction. Green maritime initiatives can prepare the corridor for a changing energy landscape. Cooperation on resilience can strengthen confidence in the network. But each of these efforts must ultimately be tested against a straightforward question: does it make IMEC more useful to the businesses that will depend on it?
Governments can open the door to IMEC. Ports can build the connections. But businesses must make the corridor work. That is the transition from connectivity to community and from strategic vision to lasting economic value.
(Shishir Priyadarshi is President of Chintan Research Foundation and a former Director of the World Trade Organization)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
