Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures

David B. Grant*, Sarah Shaw†, *Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility Group, Department of Marketing, Hanken School of
Economics, Helsinki, Finland; †Logistics and Management Systems Subject Group, Hull University Business School, University of Hull, Hull,
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction 16
Performance Measurement and Measures 16
Performance Measurement Frameworks 17
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 18
The Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle 18
Special Cases 18
Sustainable or Environmental Performance Measures 18
Sustainable or Environmental Performance Measurement Frameworks 19
Sustainability or Environmental Management Schemes for Logistics and SCM 20
Humanitarian Logistics and SCM 21
Conclusion 22
Biographies 23
References 23
Further Reading 23

Introduction

The phrase that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure” is attributed to various sources and has become an important business
aphorism. There are two additional, related quotes that highlight today’s preoccupation with performance measurement and key
performance indicators (KPIs). The management guru Peter Drucker argued that “if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it,” while
the statistician and quality control expert W. Edwards Deming suggested that “in God we trust, all others bring data.”
These three concepts are very applicable in the logistics and supply chain management (SCM) domains where organizations
are concerned with what have been called the “7 rights:” the right product in the right place at the right time to the right customer
in the right amount or quantity in the right condition and at the right cost. These “rights” are predicated on being able to measure
what goes into a logistics and SCM process and, more importantly, tracking and tracing where goods, products, or services are in
that process.
This chapter provides an overview of logistics and SCM performance measurement in three sections. First, performance
measurement and measures or metrics in general are discussed regarding current practice and provide suggestions for managers
on selecting appropriate measures for the organizations. Then, different types of performance measurement frameworks are
introduced regarding management of performance measurement and measures. Finally, two special contexts, sustainable or
environmental and humanitarian logistics and SCM, are presented to consider nuances on usual organizational performance
measurement and include the use of two frameworks, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, to
illustrate these nuances.

Performance Measurement and Measures

Performance measures (PMs) are a set of metrics or measures used to quantify the efficiency and/or effectiveness of an action. PMs
enable an organization’s mission or strategy to be translated into reality by generating “actionable” knowledge that is essential for
managing and navigating organizations through turbulent and competitive global markets. They allow organizations to track
progress against their strategy, identify areas of improvement and act as a good benchmark against competitors or industry leaders.
The information provided by PMs allows managers to make the right decisions at the right times.
One of the most prevalent issues associated with performance measurement is having too many metrics. Some organizations are
using hundreds of metrics, which are often not aligned to the organization’s strategy. One review of logistics and supply chain
performance measures by identified almost 90 metrics, of which 40% were financial and 60% were functional (Shaw, 2013). Such
metric proliferation can lead to confusion, often results in “paralysis by analysis” and presents difficulties in conducting bench-
marking exercises. Thus, organizations need to determine a meaningful but parsimonious set of PMs, so they can be effectively
implemented and monitored.

International Encyclopedia of Transportation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10210-6 16

 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures 17

Table 1 Common logistics and SCM performance and service measures

Accurate invoices
Accurate orders
After-sales support
Appropriate order cycle time
Availability of products
Complete orders
Consistent order cycle time
Consistent product quality
Customized services
Delivery time
Helpful customer service representatives
On-time delivery
Products arrive undamaged
Products arrive to specification
Supplier commitment
Supplier integrity
Supplier trust

Source: Compiled from Grant, 2012

Table 2 Eight criteria for judging performance measures

Criteria Description
Validity PM accurately captures activities being measured and controls for any external factor
Robustness PM can be interpreted similarly by users, is comparable across time, location and organizations, and is repeatable
Usefulness PM is readily understandable by managers and provides a guide for action
Integration PM includes all relevant process aspects and promotes coordination across functions and organizational units
Economy PM benefits are greater than the costs of PM data collection, analysis and reporting
Compatibility PM is compatible with existing information, material and cash flow systems in the organization
Level of detail PM provides enough degree of granularity or aggregation for the user
Behavioral soundness PM minimizes incentives for counter-productive acts or game-playing and is presented in a useful form

Source: Compiled from Caplice and Sheffi, 1994

Traditionally, logistics and supply chain PMs have been quantitative and orientated around measuring cost, time, and accuracy.
For example, order lead-times, delivery performance, customer query time, and total cash flow time within a framework of strategic,
tactical, and operational performance levels. Table 1 lists, in alphabetical order, almost 20 PMs related to logistics and SCM
functions and service previously documented by Grant (2012). While some may appear to be the same, there are nuances as to
their meanings for individual or focal organizations.
For example, appropriate order cycle (or lead time) may be what a supplier can offer in terms of delivery dates, that is, 3 weeks or
3 days. The product type, whether it is perishable, and final demand from the focal organization’s customers will be important
factors in determining the appropriate order cycle. Consistent order cycle time is the variance around the appropriate order cycle
time, for example, 3 weeks ± 4 days. Focal organizations are also concerned with this element, as too great a variance can affect their
own scheduling and planning.
Thus, a key challenge for organizations is to determine and select the most appropriate and effective PMs. Managers should
continually review and evaluate these PMs to make sense of the large number of metrics available and to ensure they reflect the ever-
evolving business environment. Table 2 presents eight criteria from Caplice and Sheffi (1994) for judging the quality of PMs or
metrics, as they relate to an organization’s strategic objectives and strategies and considering its external environment. Managers can
use any or all of these criteria to assess any PMs they would consider choosing. However, once the appropriate PMs are chosen, the next
step is to embed them into some form of performance measurement framework or system. The further section discusses this topic.

Performance Measurement Frameworks

Over the last 40 years, researchers have proposed various performance frameworks to manage firm performance, including a
performance measurement matrix, performance pyramid, performance prism, the BSC, Deming’s PDSA cycle, and the supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model in a logistics and SCM context. This has also led to confusion for managers over which
framework may work best for their organization and how it should be developed and deployed. Due to space limitations in this
chapter we focus on two that are demonstrated in the following section.
18 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

The BSC is a strategic planning and management system that organizations can use to communicate what they are trying to
accomplish; align the day-to-day work that everyone is doing with strategy; prioritize projects, products and services, and measure
and monitor progress toward strategic targets. The BSC suggests the organization takes a view from four perspectives and develops
objectives, measures (KPIs), target, and initiatives (actions) relative to each of these points of view, which are:

• Financial, often renamed stewardship or another more appropriate name in the public sectors, this perspective views organiza-
tional financial performance and the use of financial resources;
• Customer/Stakeholder, this perspective views organizational performance from the point of view of the customer or other key
stakeholders that the organization is designed to serve;
• Internal process, this perspective views organizational performance through the lenses of quality and efficiency related to its
products, services, or other key business processes; and
• Organizational capacity (formerly called Learning and Growth), this perspective views organizational performance through the lenses
of human capital, infrastructure, technology, culture, and other capacities that are key to breakthrough performance.

The BSC has been adapted for use by different organizations in different contexts, including logistics and SCM. Although
pioneering and popular, the BSC was originally devised by Kaplan and Norton (1992) and thus it is over a quarter of a century
old. Criticisms of the BSC and its applications are that it excludes the ability to manage sustainable or environmental performance
within an overall business strategy, as well as the people and suppliers who are key stakeholders in the sustainable or environmental
management process. The BSC is also a static tool and does not have a dynamic “cause and effect” evaluation loop process and, thus,
has no ability to guide businesses through change, which is of central importance to PM. Further, there is a lack of evidence to suggest
that the application of BSC improves performance. Finally, extensions to the BSC to incorporate sustainable or environmental PMs
have been advocated but not extensively studied, and there are some arguments suggesting that adding sustainable or environmental
elements to the BSC might overcomplicate it

The Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Cycle

The PDSA cycle is a systematic process for gaining valuable learning and knowledge for the continual improvement of a product,
process, or service. Also known as the Deming cycle, or Deming Wheel (Deming, 1950), this integrated learning–improvement
model was first introduced to Deming by his mentor, Walter Shewhart of Bell Laboratories in New York (Shewhart, 1939).
The cycle begins with the Plan step. This involves identifying a goal or purpose, formulating a theory, defining success metrics and
putting a plan into action. These activities are followed by the Do step, in which the plan components are implemented, such as
making a product. Third is the Study step where outcomes are monitored to test the validity of the plan for signs of progress and
success, or problems and areas for improvement. The Act step closes the cycle, integrating the learning generated by the entire
process, which can be used to adjust the goal, change methods, reformulate a theory altogether, or broaden the learning–-
improvement cycle from a small-scale experiment to a larger implementation Plan. These four steps can be repeated over and over
as part of a cycle of continual learning and improvement.
Another variant is the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. Although PDSA and PDCA are often confused and used interchange-
ably, there are important differences. The main difference is that PDSA attempts to study the consequences of the applied changes
more closely and in more detail compared to PDCA. The meaning of the Check step often entails running some basic tests to ensure
that the new state of the system corresponds to some baseline measurements. However, that may be insufficient to understand the
entire situation and ensure that changes will lead to long-run improvement. Deming emphasized the PDSA cycle, not the PDCA
cycle, as he found the focus on the Check step is more about implementation of a change, with success or failure followed by needed
corrections to the Plan in the event of failure. His focus was on predicting results of an improvement effort, studying these results,
and comparing them to possibly revise theory. He stressed that the need to develop new knowledge from learning is always guided
by a theory.
Some authors note that PMs tend to be retrospective, inward looking, not aligned to business strategy, and focused too much on
cost as a primary measure. As a result, organizations need to continually review and renew their PMs to ensure they meet the
organization’s needs and changing business environment. Further, the development and evolution of PM research has reached a
critical point and is entering a new phase or direction, categorized by context, theme, and challenge. The following section considers
two special cases of sustainable and humanitarian logistics and SCM.

Special Cases
Sustainable or Environmental Performance Measures
Organizations are facing increased pressure from the government, customers, and competition on their environmental and social
performance. Since the beginning of this Millennium, organizations have been looking to quantify and mitigate their impact on
 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures 19

Table 3 Sustainable logistics and SCM performance measures

Electricity consumption measures

Driver behavior for telematics
Carbon dioxide emissions of an activity (route/product)
Carbon dioxide emissions per item/case/pallet delivered
Overall company carbon footprint measures
Vehicle mileage measures
Packaging consumption/reduction measures
Fuel consumption measures
Number of pallet movements or touches per delivery
Utilization/consolidation measures (warehouse/back haul/pallet occupancy)
Fuel consumed per item/case/pallet delivered
Vehicle running costs
Waste recycling measures/reduction/percentage to landfill
Warehouse efficiency measures
Water consumption measures
Gas consumption measures
Overall supply chain carbon footprint measures
Vehicle fill/utilization measures to reduce empty running
Energy used per item/case/pallet delivered
Greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur, methane, etc.)
Employee environmental or sustainability training
Container size/fill/movements (number of TEUs)
Employee travel (e.g., company car mileage, car share, and cycle to work schemes)
Resource efficiency (raw materials, asset utilization)

Source: Compiled from Shaw, 2013

natural environment ecosystems that contain, inter alia, air, water, and land without which these ecosystems would not exist. Society
and humans are both a participant in, and exploiter of, the natural environment and society’s use of the natural environment’s
resources to produce economic goods, products, and services can upset a fragile balance.
Logistics and SCM present a major challenge to the sustainability of these ecosystems in the way that goods and products are
transported, handled, stored, manufactured, and supplied throughout the world. For example, fresh air and excess packaging are
shipped, with empty return loads, products sit idle and become obsolete in warehouses, and unnecessary products move backward
and forward. Supply chain networks are not robust, and innovation is thwarted as every organization works to achieve targets within
their own corporate silos, all of which has an impact on natural environment ecosystems. It is important, therefore, for organizations
to be able to measure this environmental impact and reduce, mitigate or eliminate it.
As discussed previously, logistics and SCM performance measurement is difficult due to the numerous tiers and echelons found
within supply chains and networks and is more difficult in a sustainable or environmental context, due to its increasing
importance. A major barrier to the adoption of sustainable PMs is financial, due to the large upfront investment required that
results in low adoption rates. Organizations are also confused over what to measure and how to do so. There is a challenge in
convincing organizations to invest in sustainability and determining if it is worthwhile. There is also a challenge in assisting
organizations to find the most appropriate sustainability measures, especially in a logistics and SCM context. Shaw (2013)
developed a list of over 20 logistics and SCM sustainable PMs (Table 3), through research with members of the UK’s Chartered
Institute of Logistics & Transport (CILT).
Given the nature of the research sample, many of these PMs are transport- and storage-related and, thus, the list in Table 3 is not
exhaustive. However, it provides organizations with possible sustainability or environmental PMs in these functions and includes
aggregate (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions of an activity) and granular (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions per item/case/pallet delivered)
measures. An organization can examine their own logistics and SCM activities to develop a similar list of possible measures that can
be reduced to those that directly affect the organization’s performance. The next step is to consider what performance measurement
framework would best suit that parsimonious list.

Sustainable or Environmental Performance Measurement Frameworks

Some authors have identified that the types of sustainable PMs used are reflected by an organization’s evolutionary stage in the
sustainable management process. One of the key issues related to the number of current sustainable metrics, which range from air
emissions through to water usage. Accordingly, there is a requirement to conceptualize a sustainable and environmental perfor-
mance measurement system and its requirements, in order to address both this complexity and the volume of metrics and to provide
a way forward for the organization.
20 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures

[(Figure_1)TD$IG]

Figure 1 A Deming PDSA cycle framework for sustainable performance measurement. Source: Adapted from Hervani et al., 2005.

Fig. 1 presents an adapted PDSA cycle framework proposed by Hervani et al. (2005) for determining PMs based on the ISO 14001
family of environmental performance management systems to help design, evaluate, and adapt sustainable PMs for logistics and
supply chain applications.
Interorganizational performance management systems play an important role in this framework, since organizations are
required to explicitly consider the environment in their strategic and operational planning and execution, particularly across their
logistics and supply chain activities. This framework can be managed through actions of vertical integration of governance and
horizontal integration of internal and external stakeholders.
These actions are required to ensure the structure and functioning of a natural system is protected and maintained, while at the
same time providing the goods, products, services, and benefits required by society. Such frameworks have yet to fully exist and
operate across many organizations. However, their development and introduction is inevitable as further integration and pressures
cause organizations to seriously consider them for their long-term well-being. One way to enhance or enable a framework can be to
align it with an environmental or sustainability management certification or accreditation scheme.

Sustainability or Environmental Management Schemes for Logistics and SCM

Sustainable PMs in the logistics and SCM domain have largely focused on greenhouse gas emissions, due to their importance in the
fight against climate change. For example, the 2015 COP 21 Paris agreement legally bound industrialized nations to limit
temperature rises to below 2°C. However, organizations are also starting to more seriously consider broader sustainable manage-
ment issues, not only from a mitigation and legislative perspective but also from an adaptation perspective. Consequently, several
sustainability and environmental certification or accreditation schemes have been created and developed to assist organizations in
establishing and managing their sustainable performance initiatives.
Such schemes range in scope from generic business certifications that assess environmental performance, such as the
International Standards Organization’s ISO 14000, which specifies a process for controlling and improving an organization’s
environmental performance, and the European Commission’s Eco Audit and Management Scheme or EMAS, developed by the
European Commission for organizations to evaluate, report and improve their environmental performance. There are also more
industry-specific certifications such as the UK’s Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
which measures sustainability in the building and construction sector, or the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT), an environmental product ratings service that makes it easy to select high-performance electronics that support organiza-
tions’ information technology (IT) and sustainability goals.
However, this diversity of certifications presents additional challenges for organizations when selecting the most appropriate
certification due to the differing scopes and levels each certification may have; such as country, industrial sector, type of
organization, type of supply chain, and/or global presence. Most sustainability certifications and standards currently available
are voluntary, except for country-specific government acts such as the UK Climate Change Act. However, a significant number of
 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures 21

Table 4 Ten criteria for the sustainable or environmental management of natural ecosystems

Socially desirable/tolerable
Ecologically sustainable
Economically viable
Technologically feasible
Legally permissible
Administratively achievable
Politically expedient
Ethically defensible
Culturally inclusive
Effectively communicable
Sustainable management PMs are required or understood by society as being required.
Sustainable management PMs will ensure the safeguarding of fundamental ecosystem features, functions and final ecosystem
services.
A cost-benefit assessment of the sustainable management PM indicates economic or financial viability and sustainability.
Methods, techniques and equipment for ecosystem and society/infrastructure protection are available.
Regional, national or international agreements and/or statutes are in place to enable and/or force sustainable management PMs.
Statutory bodies such as governmental departments and environmental protection/conservation bodies are in place and
functioning to enable success.
Management approaches and philosophies are consistent with prevailing political climates and have the support of political
leaders.
Costs to act are determinable and calculable for current and future generations.
Cultural considerations are included in required sustainable management PMs.
Communication is effective all stakeholders to achieve the vertical and horizontal integration encompassed in the foregoing
criteria.

Source: Compiled from Grant and Elliott, 2018

voluntary schemes are audited to ensure organizations that use and advertise the standards comply with them, for example, the
ISO series of standards.
Integrated sustainable management requires combining many aspects into a holistic natural ecosystem and problems caused by
materials (e.g., pollution) or infrastructure added to or removed from the ecosystem (e.g., aggregates) require a risk assessment
framework to be considered in conjunction with sustainable PMs. Consideration of interactive sustainable or environmental
relationships, as discussed previously, and their inherent risks gives rise to assessing whether the strategy or strategic option fulfils
various criteria related to sustainable or environmental management.
Table 4 presents ten criteria for sustainable or environmental management discussed by Grant and Elliott (2018) which should
be largely fulfilled to ensure that the management of, and solutions for, an environmental problem will be sustainable, successful,
and acceptable to society. As such, they should fall within what is realistically possible by encompassing socioeconomic and
governance aspects noted in Fig. 1. Fulfilling them would potentially be seen by wider society as achieving sustainability and, in
turn, would be more likely to be accepted, encouraged, and successful.

Humanitarian Logistics and SCM

Fast-onset humanitarian crises, such as natural disasters or conflicts, have their own impact regarding appropriate PMs to use and
inherent trade-offs affecting usage. In a humanitarian crisis, a very important logistics and SCM consideration is to establish a
transport network to provide aid tailored to fit that crisis. The network may be considered as a conduit running from a donor
country’s port of origin all the way to warehouses or distribution centers (DCs) in or near the affected areas. The network will often
pass across an ocean arriving at a discharge port in the destination country or a country near to the destination, but may also pass
enroute through warehouses or DCs on land, and be served by rail, road, air, and even barge.
In a crisis situation, humanitarian organizations look to ensure this transport network is up and running quickly, to establish it as
robust as circumstances dictate so that supply interruptions do not occur and, while satisfying these objectives, attempt to keep
network operating costs to a minimum. Hence, PMs for this situation may not be as determinable or efficient as they would be for a
normal business organization, due to the immediacy of need and the life or death consequences for beneficiaries or recipients of aid.
Humanitarian organizations will thus need to evaluate several shipping parameters or PMs to distinguish between transport carriers,
which will vary by country and type of humanitarian crisis, as part of their carrier selection process. Table 5 lists a number of these
parameters in no particular order (Banomyong and Grant, 2016).
While many of these parameters appear “normal” in the context of business situations, they will be affected by the temporal and
fulfilment requirements of ensuring beneficiaries achieve aid goods, products, and services, and hence cost may be less important.
However, whatever is saved on transportation cost can be spent on vital aid supplies. The decision as to whether to charter a ship or to
place cargo on a liner ship is one example of this trade-off. The World Food Program (WFP) has estimated that transporting aid on
liners typically costs between two and twenty-one times as much as on ships chartered by the WFP. Consequently, to keep expensive
liner shipments to the minimum, WFP has intensified their efforts to consolidate consignments into larger quantities, suitable for
charter vessel carriage.
Another issue is what type of PM framework to use given various interrelationships between several humanitarian organizations
and, of course, aid recipients. One attempt has been made to use a modified BSC by Widera and Hellingrath (2016) as shown in
Fig. 2.
The BSC has been modified for specific humanitarian operations to reflect the daily tasks of various organizational units
involved. Each operation is unique, has different challenges and set-ups, the importance of PMs or KPIs is not the same and several
22 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures

Table 5 Transport carrier selection criteria for humanitarian logistics and SCM

Geographic coverage of the transport carrier, i.e., local or world-wide

Volume, weight, value and type of aid goods the carrier can handle
Any consignment, load and dimension limits
Transit time from door-to-door
Carrier reliability versus risk
Cost for throughput, distance, time per aid good s “unit” moved
Service frequency and schedule flexibility
Carrier’s service range and choice including the use of technology
Any intermediate handling and/or alternative routings

Source: Compiled from Banomyong and Grant, 2016

[(Figure_2)TD$IG]

Figure 2 A humanitarian logistics and SCM balanced scorecard. Source: Adapted from Widera and Hellingrath, 2016

may be conflicting, the organizational stages involved may have different objectives and operate under varying circumstances, and
the functioning of the BSC requires understanding and support by all personnel involved. Banomyong and Grant (2016) identified
ten generic objectives or PMs/KPIs unique to humanitarian operations: responsiveness and speed, cost efficiency, standardization,
innovation, co-operation, satisfaction of donors and beneficiaries, reliability, flexibility, inventory performance, and bottleneck
management.
Three of the BSC elements, financial, process, and organizational capacity, are well known from the classical BSC. However, the
introduction of the network element emphasizes the performance of collaboration with external stakeholders in the humanitarian
supply chain. Also, an adjustment for the humanitarian context is the replacement of the customer by the “beneficiary and donor” as
it is difficult to transfer the concept of a customer to a humanitarian context. The authors addressed this issue by integrating all
beneficiary and donor-related KPIs, partly conflicting and partly conforming, into one perspective to adjust the balance between the
respective interests.
The advantage of this humanitarian BSC framework is that the different perspectives allow role-based monitoring in terms of
both functions and data aggregation levels that consider a decentralized organization structure that is usual practice, i.e. with
headquarters and field offices. Thus, performance levels achieved by the different perspectives can be balanced with regards to
organization and operation-specific objectives.

Conclusion

Performance measurement is important for organizations to determine how they are meeting their strategic objectives, particularly
about their logistics and SCM activities. This chapter could only provide an overview of this topic to guide readers, especially
organizations.
Two key elements were presented in this chapter. First, organizations must determine which PMs are applicable and appropriate
for monitoring and control. They should naturally devolve from the organization’s strategic objectives. However, as discussed in the
special case of sustainable or environmental measures, some reflection and research may be required to ensure they are correct and
meet the eight criteria for an appropriate measure.
Second, the selection of an appropriate performance measurement system or framework is important, in order to best use the
selected PMs. Several were presented and details on two of the most popular frameworks, the BSC and Deming’s PDSA cycle, were
discussed in more detail and their use demonstrated in the two special cases of sustainable or environmental and humanitarian
logistics and SCM, which were provided to illustrate issues outside normal business performance measurement.
 Freight Transport and Logistics j Logistics and Supply Chain Management Performance Measures 23

Biographies
David B. Grant is Professor of Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility at Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland. His doctoral research
at the University of Edinburgh investigated customer service, satisfaction, and service quality in UK food processing logistics and received the James Cooper
Memorial Cup PhD Award from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) in 2003. David’s research interests include logistics customer service,
satisfaction, and service quality; in-store and online retail logistics; reverse, closed-loop and sustainable logistics; and humanitarian and developmental
logistics. He has over 250 publications in various refereed journals, books, and conference proceedings and is on the editorial board of seven international
journals. In 2019 David was ranked 5th in Economics, Business and Management and 1st in Industrial Economics and Logistics in an academic study determining the
“top ten professors in Finland” for research impact and productivity and awarded the Bualuang ASEAN Chair Professorship for 2019–21 at Thammasat University
in Bangkok, Thailand.
Dr Sarah Shaw is Senior Lecturer and Program Director in Logistics and Supply Chain Management at the Hull University Business School, UK. Her PhD
thesis investigated environmental supply chain performance measures. Her research interests include green and sustainable logistics, closed-loop supply chains
and performance measurement and reporting. She won “Leader of the Year” in the Women in Logistics Awards, 2017 UK for her work with the Chartered
Institute of Logistics & Transport UK encouraging young people to work in the logistics sector. She leads various multi-disciplinary research projects and has
published in a variety of scientific journals. One of her publications was selected by Emerald Group Publishing to appear in A Focus on Sustainable Supply Chains
and Green Logistics, part of “Emerald Gems,” which brings together some of the most highly cited, read, and innovative research in its field.

References

Banomyong, R., Grant, D.B., 2016. Transport in Humanitarian Supply Chains. In: Kovacs, G., Spens, K., Haavisto, I. (Eds.), Supply Chain Management for Humanitarians: Tools for
Practice. Kogan Page, London, pp. 191–208.
Caplice, C., Sheffi, Y., 1994. A review and evaluation of logistics metrics. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 5, 11–28.
Deming, W.E., 1950. Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality. Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineeers Conference, Tokyo.
Grant, D.B., 2012. Logistics Management. Pearson Education, Harlow UK.
Grant, D.B., Elliott, M., 2018. A proposed interdisciplinary framework for the environmental management of water and air-borne emissions in maritime logistics. Ocean Coast. Manag. 163,
162–172.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmark.: Int. J. 12, 330–353.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1992. The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 70, 71–79.
Shaw, S., 2013. Developing and testing green performance measures for the supply chain. PhD thesis University of Hull, UK. Available from: https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:8108.
Shewhart, W.A., 1939. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Department of Agriculture, Dover.
Widera, A., Hellingrath, B., 2016. Making performance measurement work in humanitarian logistics: the case of an IT-supported balanced scorecard. In: Kovacs, G., Spens, K., Haavisto, I.
(Eds.), Supply Chain Management for Humanitarians: Tools for Practice. Kogan Page, London, pp. pp339–352.

Further Reading

Association for Supply Chain Management, 2019. Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model. Available from: https://www.apics.org/apics-for-business/frameworks/scor.
Balanced Scorecard Institute, 2019. Available from: https://www.balancedscorecard.org/.
Beske-Janssen, P., Johnson, P.M., Schaltegger, S., 2015. 20 years of performance measurement in sustainable supply chain management – what has been achieved? Supply Chain
Manag.:Int J. 20, 664–680.
Grant, D.B., Shaw, S., 2019. Environmental or sustainable supply chain performance measurement standards and certifications. In: Sarkis, J. (Ed.), Handbook on the Sustainable Supply
Chain. Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton MA, pp. 357–376.
Grant, D.B., Trautrims, A., Wong, C.Y., 2017. Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chain Management, second ed. Kogan Page, London.
Gunasekaran, A., Kobu, B., 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and applications.
Int. J.Prod. Res. 45, 2819–2840.
Kasilingam, R.G., 1998. Logistics and Transportation: Design and Planning. Springer, Boston MA.
Neely, A.D., 2005. The evolution of performance measurement, developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. Int. J. Operat. Prod. Manag. 25, 1264–1277.
Shaw, S., Grant, D.B., Mangan, J., 2010. Developing environmental supply chain performance measures. Benchmark.: Int. J. 17, 320–339.
The W. Edwards Deming Institute, 2019. Availabe from: https://deming.org/.