Poland is not automatically “replacing Germany” as Europe’s e-commerce hub. It can be the better fulfilment location for a specific order geography, cost structure and market-entry route. The right answer comes from service and total-cost modelling, not a country slogan.
The decision in one paragraph
Use Poland when it improves the combined commercial and operating model for Poland and CEE without breaking the promised service to other core markets. Use Germany when customer concentration, carrier performance, returns or existing infrastructure make it the stronger node. Consider a two-node or flexible 3PL design only when the service gain exceeds duplicated stock and complexity.
Eight factors to model
1. Order geography
Model actual and expected orders by postcode and country. A map of Europe is not a delivery-performance model.
2. Delivery promise
Compare carrier products, cut-offs, handovers, weekend behaviour and remote-area service.
3. Labour and handling
Use comparable fully loaded operating quotations, not a national average wage as a proxy.
4. Facility and storage
Include receiving, minimums, volume tiers, aged stock, peak capacity and contract indexation.
5. Returns
Model inbound return transport, inspection, refurbishment, restocking and customer-refund timing.
6. Inventory design
One node improves stock pooling; two nodes may improve service while increasing safety stock.
7. Tax and customs
Stock location and flows affect obligations. Confirm the structure with qualified advisers.
8. Integration and control
Order, stock, shipment, carrier, return and claims data determine whether the node is operable.
Build a weighted scorecard
Weight each factor against the business strategy. A Poland-first brand may prioritise local marketplace operations and domestic service; a Western-Europe-heavy brand may prioritise cross-border transit and return convenience. Record the evidence, owner and confidence for each score.
| Criterion | Evidence to request | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Service coverage | Carrier matrix and postcode-level promises | Using an unqualified “next day across Europe” claim |
| Total cost | Comparable scenario-based quotation | Comparing only one handling line |
| Returns | Process, SLA, fees and disposition options | Treating return transport as the whole return cost |
| Peak resilience | Capacity assumptions and escalation process | Assuming the standard SLA survives the peak |
| Exit risk | Data export, stock removal and notice terms | Evaluating only the launch, not the exit |
Pilot before moving the network
A controlled pilot can test stock receipt, order cut-offs, carrier labels, tracking, cancellations, returns and reporting on a limited assortment. Define what will be measured and the threshold for scaling. Avoid moving the entire catalogue merely because the facility quote looks lower.
What Westom does in partner selection
Westom prepares the requirements, obtains comparable responses, challenges commercial and technical gaps, and coordinates the go-live owners. The client contracts with the selected provider; Westom does not claim to own warehouse capacity.
See fulfilment partner selection
Primary references and data routes
- Eurostat: transport statistics.
- World Bank Logistics Performance Index.
- InPost integrated annual reports for current network disclosures.
- European Commission: One Stop Shop.
Accessed 15 July 2026. Provider-specific service levels and prices must be obtained directly for the relevant profile.