Shipping & Handling
Denmark · owned by SDK FREJA A/S (Denmark) · shsp.dk · 1 vendor
Shipping & Handling is an international transport and logistics company. We are part of the SDK FREJA group. For more than 40 years, we have provided both Danish and international companies with transport and logistics services. We are a full-service provider, and our service portfolio includes sea freight, air freight, and road transport, as well as courier and parcel services, and warehousing solutions.
Resilience scores
- Digital Sovereignty: 100
- Digital Resilience: 5
Technology vendors
- Signaturgruppen — Cybersecurity — Denmark
Services catalogue
1 service in catalogue across 1 category; runs on 1 sub-vendor.
- Handl UTM Grabber
Insights
Last updated 2026-07-30 · revision 2
1 direct vendor, 6 subvendors
Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)
- Denmark: 1
Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)
- United States: 2
- Belgium: 1
- Italy: 1
Migration Readiness: 3/10
Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.
Shipping & Handling's migration readiness is significantly hampered by a lack of critical information and potential challenges. The most substantial unknown is the internal tech stack's modernity; there is no data indicating whether it is cloud-native, containerized, or based on microservices, which are key indicators of migration ease. The listed 'Key Technologies' are standard for the Transport & Logistics industry but do not provide insight into their architectural flexibility. The regulatory environment presents a complex landscape for migration. The company is stated to be subject to EU regulations including GDPR and categorized as an 'Essential Entity' under the NIS2 Directive. While the regulatory description incorrectly identifies the company as a 'financial institution' in the 'banking' sector (contradicting its 'Transport & Logistics' profile), the mandatory compliance with NIS2 and GDPR will impose stringent requirements on data security, integrity, and residency during any migration, adding complexity and potential costs. Data residency requirements are also not specified, which could further constrain cloud migration options. Vendor relationships pose a significant risk to migration readiness. Although 'Total Vendors: 0' is stated, which would imply no vendor lock-in, this is highly improbable. The subsequent vendor data ('Total Services: 1', 'Vendor HQ Countries: Denmark', 'Vendor Geographic Diversity: 1 unique countries') strongly suggests a highly concentrated vendor landscape, potentially with a single critical vendor based in Denmark. This scenario would lead to a high risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to migrate away from existing systems or services provided by this vendor. The ability to fund a migration is also unknown due to a lack of financial stability data.
Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.