In logistics hiring, 2026 looks familiar in one key way: demand continues to outpace supply for people who can operate confidently in real warehouse and transport environments, not just in workshops. SAP EWM and SAP TM remain two of the most consistently difficult skill sets to hire across Europe, particularly where the work involves multiple sites, complex 3PL relationships, or tight operational tolerances.
The phrase we hear repeatedly from hiring managers is: “We can find SAP people, but we can’t find the right SAP people.” What they usually mean is they can find profiles with module exposure, but not enough profiles with end-to-end ownership, operational credibility, and the ability to stabilise a live environment.
One reason EWM hiring remains tight is that EWM roles are rarely “pure system” roles. They sit directly on the boundary between system behaviour and physical reality. If the design is weak, the warehouse does not politely fail in the background—it fails in front of operators, supervisors, and sometimes customers. That operational pressure shapes the type of consultant who succeeds: someone who can hold process discipline while still being practical.
In 2026, we see strong EWM hires typically fall into two broad groups. The first is the classic delivery specialist: configuration depth across inbound, outbound, internal processes, RF frameworks, waves, labour management exposure, and strong testing discipline. The second is the operational translator: someone who can sit with warehouse leads and convert real constraints into implementable decisions without allowing “workarounds” to become permanent design.
Both can be valuable. Problems appear when organisations try to hire one profile and expect the other. For example, a technically strong EWM consultant may struggle if the warehouse side is resistant or inconsistent. Likewise, an operational translator can struggle if the template is weak and deep configuration work is required quickly.
Another friction point is how organisations scope EWM requirements. Too many job descriptions still treat the warehouse as a standardised environment, when the real complexity often sits in the exceptions: returns, quality holds, value-added services, cross-docking, production supply, serialisation, packaging, carrier integration, and the reality of mixed automation across sites. Candidates who have lived through those exceptions tend to be cautious about roles that look under-defined.
SAP TM follows a similar pattern, but with a different type of complexity. Strong TM talent tends to be scarce because TM spans planning, execution, settlement, integration, and close coupling with business stakeholders who are often under constant cost pressure. Many TM projects also fail quietly by underestimating master data, carrier contracts, and planning logic, then blaming the tool.
In 2026, strong TM consultants are usually those who can explain the trade-offs between planning sophistication and operational usability. They understand where the business genuinely benefits from advanced optimisation and where simpler planning with strong execution discipline wins.
From a hiring perspective, we are also seeing more hybrid demand: logistics roles that require EWM or TM plus integration awareness, because many issues sit in edges—label printing, carrier systems, yard management, automation, middleware and scanning devices. Organisations that insist on “EWM only” or “TM only” profiles sometimes struggle unnecessarily. A broader requirement—strong module depth plus basic integration and operational awareness—tends to widen the pool without compromising delivery.
Language and onsite expectations continue to be a significant lever in logistics hiring across BeNeLux and DACH. Warehouses are hands-on environments and many stakeholders prefer local language, particularly for day-to-day adoption work. The risk is over-specifying language and collapsing the pool. Where employers hire well, they separate stakeholder-facing requirements from build requirements: bilingual leads where needed, wider pool for specialist configuration where possible.
Interviewing for EWM/TM in 2026 should also be outcome-driven rather than exposure-driven. “Have you done EWM?” is less useful than:
- What warehouse or transport environment was it (automation level, 3PL involvement, multi-site)?
- What did you own end-to-end?
- What broke after go-live, and how did you stabilise it?
- How did you manage business pressure when the operation needed immediate fixes?
- What did you do to prevent recurring issues?
Candidates who can answer those questions clearly tend to be the ones who can deliver in live environments.
For employers entering Q2 and Q3 delivery cycles, the practical implication is that EWM/TM hiring needs lead time. Good people are available, but not instantly available, and they respond better to roles that are specific about scope, governance and operational reality. For candidates, the market rewards those who can show they deliver outcomes under operational pressure—because in logistics, the system is only as good as the warehouse and transport reality it supports.
