Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Building environmental sustainability: empirical evidence from

Logistics Service Providers
Claudia Colicchia a,1, Gino Marchet b, 2, Marco Melacini b, *, Sara Perotti b, 3
a
Logistics Institute, Hull University Business School, Hull, HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
b
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Via Lambruschini 4B, 20156 Milano, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmental sustainability has recently become more and more of a concern among both academics
Received 25 June 2012 and practitioners. In particular logistics services operations can play a significant role in reducing the
Received in revised form environmental burden of the supply chain. Although studies on these issues have been progressively
25 June 2013
increasing in the extant literature, still little investigation has been performed among Logistics Service
Accepted 28 June 2013
Available online 13 July 2013
Providers (LSPs). The present paper aims to fill this gap and provides the results of an empirical study on
the adoption of environmental initiatives in the contract logistics industry, along with the metrics used
for environmental performance measurement and the barriers and drivers that may hinder or facilitate
Keywords:
Environmental sustainability
the adoption of these initiatives. After a careful literature review, a framework was developed to identify
Logistics the initiatives towards environmental sustainability with a focus on companies involved in logistics and
Freight transportation transportation processes. The framework was applied to a set of ten LSPs by examining their environ-
Logistics Service Providers (LSPs) mental reporting and a sub-set of three companies was finally selected for in-depth interviews. An
analysis of the environmental sustainability initiatives of primary multinational LSPs and their adoption
level is presented. The present paper contributes to the knowledge of environmental sustainability for
logistics and transportation and offers new insights in theory, paving the way for further research on
these topics.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction develop solutions for more sustainable supply chains (Evangelista

Environmental sustainability has recently become more and
more of a concern among both academics and practitioners
(Gaziulusoy et al., 2013). Even if service industries are traditionally
assumed to have a small environmental impact, logistics services
operations can play a significant role in Green Supply Chain Man-
agement (GSCM) (Zailani et al., 2011), reducing the environmental
burden of the supply chain, especially in terms of pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal, and others (Lin and Ho,
2008; Maas et al., in press). In this context, logistics outsourcing can
be viewed as a lever to pursue environmental sustainability goals:
logistics service providers (LSPs) or Third Party Logistics (3PLs) can
assume a more critical role in supply chain orchestration and
management towards sustainability, having the capabilities to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 02 23994059; fax: þ39 02 23993978.
E-mail addresses: C.Colicchia@hull.ac.uk (C. Colicchia), gino.marchet@polimi.it
(G. Marchet), marco.melacini@polimi.it (M. Melacini), sara.perotti@polimi.it
(S. Perotti).
1
Tel.: +44 (0)1482 347550.
2
Tel.: þ39 02 23994061.
3
Tel.: þ39 0523 356876.
et al., 2010; Anttonen et al., 2013).
Although previous studies have made significant contributions
to the literature on environmental issues in a variety of industries,
much still remains to be learned about managing environmental
issues in logistics and among LSPs (e.g. Lin and Ho, 2008; Fürst and
Oberhofer, 2012). Even if environmental performance monitoring
and measurement has started to be perceived as fundamental
(Cucek et al., 2012; Scipioni et al., 2012; Stechemesser and
Guenther, 2012), still very few studies related to applications in
the contract logistics industry are available.
This paper aims to fill this gap by providing the results of an
empirical study on the adoption of environmental initiatives in the
contract logistics industry. As in the study by Colicchia et al. (2011),
which examined the environmental reporting of a set of
manufacturing companies to assess the adoption of a number of
environmental initiatives, the purpose is to provide an analysis of
environmental sustainability, but with a particular focus on the
logistics industry. This research also aims to examine how the
environmental performance of LSPs is assessed and measured by
the companies.
The paper is organised as follows. The next section outlines the
theoretical background and the research questions, while the

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.057
198 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
methodology used in the study is described in Section 3. Based on a
thorough review of the literature, Section 4 illustrates the frame-
work used to identify and assess the main initiatives towards
environmental sustainability that may be adopted by companies
involved in logistics and freight transportation processes. Section 5
discusses the results of the analysis of environmental reporting by
companies involved in this research, and presents comparisons
with the literature, while in Section 6 the insights gained through
the case study analysis are presented. Section 7 offers a discussion
of the study results. In the final section, conclusions are drawn,
research limitations are identified, and potential directions for
future research are identified.
2. Theoretical background and research questions
The subject of environmental sustainability focussing on the
activities of LSPs has been gaining increasing interest. Some pre-
vious contributions discuss the impact of logistics outsourcing on
supply chain sustainability (Evangelista et al., 2010; Facanha and
Horvath, 2005; Jumadi and Zailani, 2010); others examine the
LSPs commitment to environmental sustainability (Murphy and
Poist, 2003; Zailani et al., 2011); still others attempt to analyse
factors that may influence the adoption of green practices by lo-
gistics companies (Lin and Ho, 2008) or whether environmental
issues represent a selection criteria when buying logistics services
from companies (Wolf and Seuring, 2010).
However little attention has been paid to the adoption level of
specific environmental initiatives by LSPs and the reasons, both
strategic and operative, underpinning their commitment to build-
ing a sustainable supply chain.
Previous studies on GSCM have provided a number of theo-
retical constructs, such as stakeholder theory, stewardship the-
ory, institutional theory (McWilliams et al., 2006). To the extent
that companies engage in GSCM from both a strategic and
operational point of view, their behaviour can be examined
through the lens of the natural-resource-based view (NRBV) of
the company (Maas et al., in press; Shi et al., 2012). This latter
theoretical construct better reflects the objectives of the present
study. As such, in this paper we extend past research on GSCM
with a particular focus on the logistics industry by drawing on
the NRBV of the company. Hart (1995) first introduced this the-
ory. According to this study “it is likely that strategy and
competitive advantage in the coming years will be rooted in
capabilities that facilitate environmentally sustainable economic
activity”. The author introduces two interconnected strategies for
manufacturing companies that can be implemented to effectively
achieve competitive advantage, i.e. pollution prevention and
product stewardship. This theory has been recently adopted by
Maas et al. (in press) in the context of LSPs: pollution prevention
refers to LSP internal operations while product stewardship can
be applied to service operations in terms of service stewardship
that extend the scope of the sustainability initiatives across
company boundaries. This latter strategy is thus related to the
ability of LSPs to provide environmentally sound service offerings
by collaborating with the other partners of the supply chain. The
NRBV of the company has been successively extended by Shi
et al. (2012). By drawing on the NRBV theory the authors pro-
posed a conceptual model of GSCM that includes the following
elements and the relationships among them:
 intra-organisational environmental practices, refer to environ-
mental initiatives related to company “in-house” processes
coherently with the pollution prevention strategy of the NRBV
 inter-organisational environmental practices, refer to environ-
mental initiatives that imply collaboration and trust among
multiple supply chain members coherently with the product
stewardship strategy of the NRBV
 performance measures, refer to environmental, operational and
financial measures needed to explore the effect of environ-
mental initiatives
 institutional drivers, refer to external forces that motivate com-
panies to adopt environmental initiatives coming from regula-
tors, the market and competitors coherently with the institutio
nal theory.
Based on the above described scenario and according to this
conceptual model, the aim of the present paper is threefold:
 First, to identify the initiatives towards environmental sus-
tainability currently in place among LSPs, distinguishing be-
tween intra-organisational and inter-organisational
environmental practices (RQ1).
 Second, to investigate the methodology used by LSPs and the
areas addressed when measuring environmental performances
(RQ2).
 Finally, to explore the institutional drivers behind the adoption
of these initiatives by LSPs, along with their interactions with
performance improvements (RQ3).
3. Methodology
To achieve the above-stated research objectives, an in-depth
review of the existing literature on this topic was initially per-
formed. For the purpose of the present study, the analysis focused
on companies operating in the contract logistics industry and the
environmental dimension of sustainability (Carter and Rogers,
2008) was specifically taken into account.
The following three-phase methodology was adopted (Fig. 1).
First, based on the review by previous studies, a framework was
developed to identify the initiatives towards environmental sus-
tainability at companies involved in logistics and transportation
processes, distinguishing between intra-organisational and inter-
organisational environmental practices. In particular the frame-
work consists of seven macro-areas, i.e. distribution strategies and
transportation execution, warehousing and green building, reverse
logistics, packaging management, internal management, collabo-
ration with customers, external collaborations. A systematic liter-
ature review approach was undertaken that allows for a more
objective overview on the search results (Colicchia and Strozzi,
2012; Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). The literature review focused
on scientific journal articles. The starting point for the paper search
was a number of library databases (i.e. Scopus, Science Direct, ISI
Web of Knowledge, Scirus and Google Scholar). The search was
conducted using keywords and strings (e.g. ‘Sustainability’, ‘Green
Supply Chain Management’, ‘Green logistics’, ‘3PL’) that were
looked for in both the abstract and main body of the paper. We also
went back to other papers by cross-referencing, thus to include
potential papers that were not picked in the above-mentioned
databases. This method allowed us to include contributions pub-
lished in all the major logistics and transportation journals, as well
as the top management journals and conference proceedings. We
are therefore confident that the main contributions on this topic
have been included within the framework.
Second, the framework was applied to a set of LSPs by exam-
ining their Company Environmental Reporting (CER), to assess the
adoption level of each initiative. In order to compare the imple-
mentation of the proposed initiatives, the Environmental Perfor-
mance Index (EPI) was computed for each of the identified macro-
areas of sustainability initiatives. As suggested by Colicchia et al.
(2011), the EPI for each company k can be defined as follows:
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209 199

Fig. 1. Research methodology.

performance to their stakeholders. For each, the CER available on

PNj
S $Wi;j
i¼1 k;i;j
EPIk;j ¼ $100
Nj
where Sk,i,j is a Boolean variable equal to 1 if the initiative i is
adopted in the macro-area j by company k, 0 otherwise. Wi,j is the
impact of the initiative i within the macro-area j on the overall
sustainable performance. Nj is the total number of initiatives
considered within the macro-area j.
As identified by Colicchia et al. (2011), the EPI computation al-
lows for a comparative analysis of the sustainability initiatives in
place at each company within each of the identified macro-areas.
The data set examined included ten companies that provide
logistics and freight transportation services (i.e. either LSPs or
couriers/express couriers), namely: Arcese, DB Schenker, DHL,
Fiege, Gefco, Geodis, Kuehne þ Nagel, Havi Logistics, Norbert
Dentressangle, and STEF-TFE. Their main details are reported in
Table 1. We assume that the number of CER examined is appro-
priate for the purpose of the present paper. Indeed, it is in line with
previous literature on sustainability issues in the manufacturing
context (Colicchia et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 2010; Veleva et al.,
2003). Such number appears more than satisfactory as far as the
contract logistics sector is concerned, since the number of complete
reports is even lower.
The companies were selected based on the following criteria: (i)
medium- or large-sized companies, which are more inclined to
adopt green initiatives (Vachon and Klassen, 2006); (ii) companies
with headquarters, or at least a branch, in Italy; (iii) companies that
communicate their environmental strategy and environmental
the company’s internet site was examined to understand the
(1) environmental initiatives currently being adopted. The analysis of
public sustainability reports is already available in the literature on
this topic (Colicchia et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 2010; Veleva et al.,
2003). The main aim is to provide some insights into the level of
understanding and awareness of sustainability issues at the com-
panies reviewed, without claiming to link the performance ach-
ieved to the related investment (Roth and Kåberger, 2002; Veleva
et al., 2003).
A sub-set of three companies, each of which demonstrates a sig-
nificant commitment to environmental sustainability improve-
ments, was finally selected for in-depth interviews. As suggested by
Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1994), the multiple case study method-
ology was chosen, as it is appropriate for exploring a phenomenon
under development or whose dimensions are not yet fully under-
stood. The number of case studies considered (i.e. 3) is deemed to be
sufficient given the primary objective of our research, i.e. capture
variations in theory and concepts and not generalisability. Both
collection of secondary sources and interviews with company man-
agers were performed. Companies were asked to discuss the results
obtained and to explore the drivers for adopting environmental
initiatives, along with their complex interactions with performance
improvements.
The interviewees were supply chain managers and/or environ-
mental managers, working in Italy. To allow the reliability of results,
more than one manager were interviewed for each company. Please
note that the analysis focused not only on the Italian context, but on
all the initiatives undertaken by the selected companies at a

Table 1
LSP company details.

Company Turnover (2010) No. employees Fleet (no. vehicles) Warehouses (m2) Publication year of the examined
environmental report

ARCESE 460 mil V 4,000 More than 800 >500,000 2009

DHL 51 bil V >275,000 76,200 n.a. 2011
DB Schenker 14 bil V 91,000 20,000 10,000 2011
FIEGE 1.45 bil V 21,000 n.a. 2,850,000 2006
GEFCO 3.4 bil V 9,400 n.a. n.a. 2010
GEODIS 6.5 bil V 30,000 5,000 n.a. 2010
HAVI Logistics 3.7 bil V 5,080 n.a. n.a. 2011
Kuehne þ Nagel 16.8 bil V 60,000 10,000 7,000,000 2010
Norbert Dentressangle 2.84 bil V 26,000 6,800 5,000,000 2010
STEF-TFE 2.06 bil V 14,000 2,000 5,766,000 2010
200 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
European level. Interviews lasted about 90 min and were audio-
taped and transcribed. The interviews were supported by a formal
interview protocol composed of three macro-sections, i.e. company
general information, strategy towards the environment, drivers and
inhibitors of environmental sustainability.
The data collected were analysed at two levels: within-case
analysis and across-case analysis. Within-case analysis involved
detailed case study write-ups of each case. A cross-case analysis
was finally conducted to synthesize the information obtained from
the case studies.
4. Framework for assessing environmental sustainability
Based on a thorough examination of the literature on this
topic, in this section we present a framework for identifying and
assessing the main initiatives towards environmental sustain-
ability that may be adopted by companies involved in logistics
and freight transportation activities. The framework consists of
seven macro-areas. Four of them are derived from the classifi-
cation framework proposed by Zhu et al. 2008 namely internal
management, collaboration with customers, external collabora-
tions, and packaging management. In addition, in order to reflect
the specificity of the logistics area, three additional categories
have been included: distribution strategies and transportation
execution (e.g. Lin and Ho, 2008; Jumadi and Zailani, 2010; Lieb
and Lieb, 2010; Langella and Zanoni, 2011), warehousing and
green building (e.g. Hervani et al., 2005; Rizzo, 2006; Lieb and
Lieb, 2010; Jumadi and Zailani, 2010), and reverse logistics (e.g.
Murphy and Poist, 2000; Hervani et al., 2005; Tsoulfas and
Pappis, 2008). According to the conceptual model basing the
present research, initiatives included in the areas of distribution
strategies and transportation execution, warehousing and green
building, reverse logistics, packaging management and internal
management belong to intra-organisational practices in the
context of logistics industry, while initiatives within the collab-
oration with customers and external collaborations areas can be
considered inter-organisational practices for the contract logis-
tics industry, since they imply commitment and joint goal setting
among different players of the same supply chain.
A brief description of the initiatives that can be used to enhance
environmental sustainability within each of the above-mentioned
macro-areas is provided in the following subsections and the ini-
tiatives are summarised in Tables 2a and 2b.
4.1. Distribution strategies and transportation execution
Increasing attention to distribution and sustainable trans-
portation execution has been observed, in terms of both tech-
nological innovation and management strategies (Fürst and
Oberhofer, 2012). The following initiatives have been identi-
fied: fleet technological innovation, such as cleaner vehicles and
the use of alternative fuels or vehicles (e.g. electric, hybrid),
with the key objective of reducing greenhouse gases and CO2
emissions (e.g. Jumadi and Zailani, 2010; Browne et al., 2012);
shifting traffic to more fuel efficient modes, sharing vehicles
across multiple customers, limiting the speeds at which com-
pany equipment is operated and reconsideration of network
design and transport strategies (e.g. Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2008;
Lieb and Lieb, 2010); finally, other initiatives such as freight
consolidation, reducing vehicle idling time (e.g. Ciliberti et al.,
2008), and use of ICT applications supporting functionalities
such as planning, routing, and fleet tracking and tracing (e.g.
Hilty et al., 2006; Marchet et al., 2009, 2012; Jeffers, 2010;
Perego et al., 2011).
4.2. Warehousing and green building
Both eco-friendly warehouse design and energy efficiency are
among the foremost recognised initiatives (e.g. Hervani et al., 2005;
Ciliberti et al., 2008; Jumadi and Zailani, 2010). As for eco-friendly
warehouse design, some of the primary initiatives consist of:
energy-efficient heating and lighting systems (i.e. installing sky-
lights and clerestory windows in distribution facilities that allow
companies to use natural light as a source of interior illumination;
use of less polluting energy sources), material handling equipment
(i.e. ‘green storage’), and the creation of a ‘sustainable’ work place
for employees, with green ICT and eco-friendly facilities. As regards
warehouse energy efficiency, the main initiatives involve the use of
alternative energy sources (e.g. solar panels), energy-efficient ma-
terial handling equipment, and water systems (e.g. plants and
landscaping materials that minimise water waste, use of ‘grey
water’ systems) (e.g. Rizzo, 2006; Lieb and Lieb, 2010). As high-
lighted by Zhu and Sarkis (2007), the adoption of such practices
may sometimes be supported by governmental resource subsidies
or tax breaks.
4.3. Reverse logistics
According to the Reverse Logistics Council, reverse logistics may
be defined as ‘the process of planning, implementing, and con-
trolling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw materials, in-process
inventory, finished goods, and related information from the point of
consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing
value or of proper disposal’, as reported by Meade and Sarkis
(2002). A substantial interest in reuse and recycling began in the
90s, as noted by Murphy et al. (1994). More recently, considerable
attention has been focused on the ‘reverse’ approach, thanks to the
increasing awareness of environmental issues and attention to lo-
gistics sustainability (Nikolaou et al., 2013). Waste reduction,
transport and disposal, materials recycling and reuse, and con-
sumption reduction whenever possible are a few examples of such
initiatives (e.g. Van Hoek, 1999; Rubio et al., 2008).
4.4. Packaging management
Packaging management activities have meaningful effects on
environment and transport (Wever et al., 2007). Additionally, the
management of tertiary unit loads, such as returnable pallets, is
acknowledged in the literature as a relevant area for improving the
environmental sustainability of the supply chain (Lacefield, 2004;
Ray et al., 2006). Environmental initiatives in this sense essen-
tially consist of: packaging reduction, and the use of recycled and
ecological material (Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2006);
treatment of packaging waste in a more environmentally benign
manner (Faruk et al., 2001) to reduce the life cycle environmental
impact of the entire packaging supply chain (Ciliberti et al., 2008);
freight load optimisation, as reducing the weight and volume of
packaging results in cargo efficiency and waste reduction (Sarkis
et al., 2004; Jumadi and Zailani, 2010).
4.5. Internal management
Internal management initiatives towards environmental sus-
tainability involve both managers and operative staff. They mainly
consist of: personnel training and development of organisational
sensitivity to sustainability issues (Lieb and Lieb, 2010; Jumadi and
Zailani, 2010); organisational changes to address sustainable goals;
establishment of new expertise and sustainability-dedicated
intercompany groups (Lieb and Lieb, 2008). Overall, managerial
skills, the identification of appropriate environmental targets, and
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
Table 2a
Intra-organisational environmental practices in freight transportation and logistics.
Approach Initiative(s)
Distribution strategies Use of alternative fuels
and transportation Use of more recent/less polluting vehicles
execution Use of alternative vehicles (e.g. electric, hybrid)
Vehicle speed reduction to save fuel and reduce
emissions
Use of alternative transportation modes
(e.g. intermodal, combined)
Effective shipment consolidation and full
vehicle loading
Routing systems to minimise travel distances
(Re) design of logistics system components for
greater environmental efficiency
Warehousing and Eco-friendly building design (e.g. energy-efficient
green building lighting systems, building thermal insulation)
Energy-efficient material handling equipment
Use of alternative energy sources
Water systems (e.g. plants and landscaping materials
that minimise water waste, use of “grey water” systems)
Efficient land use (e.g. brownfield redevelopment)
Reverse logistics Waste reduction, transport and disposal
Materials recycle whenever possible
Consumption reduction whenever possible
Materials reuse whenever possible
Packaging Packaging recycle or reuse
management
Ecological materials for primary packaging
Reduction of packaging waste
Internal Environmental compliance and auditing programs
management Environmental performance measurement and
monitoring
Use of ‘green IT’ (e.g. reduction in server numbers,
use of green software, optimisation of backup numbers)
Promote industry cooperative effort
Personnel training (office staff, employees and operators)
Establishment of new expertise and sustainability-dedicated
intercompany groups
Promote environmental awareness among managers
Provide incentives and benefits for green behaviour-practices
Transparency Policy (e.g. informing the consumer,
the supply chain)
Publicise environmental efforts/accomplishments
Development of a formal environmental sustainability
statement for the company
Table 2b
Inter-organisational environmental practices in freight transportation and logistics.
Approach Initiative(s)
Collaboration with Help customers comply with certification programs and support
customers their efforts to attain the "green" goal
Cooperation with customers on reverse logistics and recycling
programmes
External Membership in environmental programs
collaborations Collaborative partnerships with other companies/3PLs
City logistics programmes and coordinated transportation
Collaboration with suppliers
201
Papers
Ciliberti et al. (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010); Browne et al. (2012)
Ciliberti et al. (2008); Lin and Ho (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006); Lieb and Lieb (2008);
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Hervani et al. (2005); Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008);
Lin and Ho (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010)
McIntyre et al. (1998a, b); Ciliberti et al. (2008); Mondragon et al. (2009)
Faruk et al. (2001); Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006);
Ciliberti et al. (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Hilty et al. (2006); Lieb and Lieb (2008, 2010); Lin and Ho (2008);
Jeffers (2010); Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Lieb and Lieb (2008); Jumadi and Zailani (2010); Langella and Zanoni (2011)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Hervani et al. (2005); Zhu and Sarkis (2007);
Ciliberti et al. (2008); Lin and Ho (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010);
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Hervani et al. (2005); Zhu and Sarkis (2007);
Ciliberti et al. (2008)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000);
Murphy and Poist (2000)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Hervani et al. (2005); Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008);
Lieb and Lieb (2010); Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Lieb and Lieb (2008, 2010); Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006);
Ciliberti et al. (2008); Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010);
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006)
Sarkis (2003); Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006);
Carter and Rogers (2008); Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008); Lieb and Lieb (2010);
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Darnall et al. (2009); Lieb and Lieb (2010);
Hervani et al. (2005); Wever et al. (2007); Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008);
Lieb and Lieb (2008); Darnall et al. (2009)
Hilty et al. (2006); Lieb and Lieb (2010); Jeffers (2010);
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Wever et al. (2007); Carter and Rogers (2008);
Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Lieb and Lieb (2008, 2010)
Lieb and Lieb (2008)
Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Wever et al. (2007)
Murphy and Poist (2000); Wever et al. (2007)
Lieb and Lieb (2008)
Papers
Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Meade and Sarkis (2002); Krumwiede and Sheu (2002);
Efendigil et al. (2008); Min and Ko(2007);
Tsoulfas and Pappis (2008); Jumadi and Zailani (2010);
Lai et al. (2010); Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Lieb and Lieb (2010)
Jumadi and Zailani (2010)
Faruk et al. (2001); Humphreys et al. (2003);
Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito (2006);
Vachon and Klassen (2006); Vachon (2007);
Bai and Sarkis (2009);
202 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209

the establishment of sustainability priorities within the company
represent key aspects in the achievement of environmental ob-
jectives (e.g. Jumadi and Zailani, 2010; Lieb and Lieb, 2010).
4.6. Collaboration with customers
Vachon (2007) highlights the key importance of collaboration
with customers for companies involved in logistics and trans-
portation activities. Collaboration with customers may include:
efforts towards CO2 reduction; improvement of vehicle fleets and
recovery policies for end products; support on reverse logistics
practices and waste management (e.g. Ciliberti et al., 2008). An
example is provided in Cholette and Venkat (2009). They illustrate
the use of web-portals to calculate energy and CO2 emissions
associated with a customer’s transportation link and storage
echelon.
4.7. External collaborations
Initiatives labelled as ‘external collaborations’ may include
policies and procedures like monitoring discharges and period-
ical audits, as per Bai and Sarkis (2009). Pursuing common
environmental goals has promoted the development of collab-
orative initiatives among 3PLs and shippers to improve transport
efficiency, thereby optimising routes and freight loads (Lai et al.,
2010; Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2006). Finally, it is
also noteworthy to mention the key role of technological inte-
gration with primary suppliers in environmental monitoring and
collaboration (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). Within the contract
logistics industry, collaboration with suppliers is also advocated,
to promote the adoption of sustainability principles by con-
tractors and subcontractors acting on behalf of the focal
company.
5. Results from the analysis of environmental reporting
According to the proposed framework, we have examined the
sustainability effort level in terms of environmentally sustainable
initiatives adopted by the LSPs considered based on their most
recent available environmental reporting. Please note that in some
cases, as the company terminology slightly differed from the one
used within conceptual framework, assumptions were made to
categorise the environmental initiatives in place. The reliability was
addressed by having this first step conducted by two researchers.
Afterwards discrepancies and different judgments were resolved
among the researchers.
Each macro-area identified in Tables 3a and 3b is analysed in
detail below. Finally, Section 5.8 provides an overview of the
adoption level of the initiatives in each of the identified macro-
areas, evaluated according to the EPI.

Table 3a
Intra-organisational environmental practices by the LSPs examined.

Macro-area Initiative Company

A B C D E F G H I J

Distribution strategies and Use of alternative fuels X X X X X X

transportation execution Use of more recent/less polluting vehicles X X X X X X X X X
Use of alternative vehicles (e.g. electric, hybrid) X X X X X
Vehicle speed reduction to save fuel and reduce emissions X X X X X X
(Re) design of logistics system components for greater X X X X X
environmental efficiency
Effective shipment consolidation and full vehicle loading X X X X X X X X X
Routing systems to minimise travel distances (Use of IT applications X X X X X X X X X X
e.g. planning and routing software, internet matching system.)
Intermodal transport, combined transport. X X X X X X X X
Warehousing and Eco-friendly building design (e.g. energy-efficient lighting systems, X X X X X X X X X X
green building building thermal insulation)
Energy-efficient material handling equipment X X X
Use of alternative energy sources X X X X X X X X
Water systems (e.g. plants and landscaping materials that minimise X X X X
water waste, use of “grey water” systems)
Efficient land use (e.g. brownfield redevelopment) X
Reverse logistics Waste reduction, transport and disposal X X X X X X X X X X
Materials recycle whenever possible X X X X X
Consumption reduction whenever possible X X X X X X X X X X
Materials reuse whenever possible X X X
Packaging management Packaging recycle or reuse X X X X X
Ecological materials for primary packaging
Reduction of packaging waste X X X X X
Internal management Environmental compliance and auditing programs X X X X X X
Environmental performance measurement and monitoring X X X X X X X X X X
Use of ‘green IT’ (e.g. reduction in server numbers, X X X X X
use of green software, optimisation of backup numbers)
Promote industry cooperative effort X X X X X X X X
Personnel training (office staff, employees and operators) X X X X X X X X
Establishment of new expertise and sustainability-dedicated X X X X X
intercompany groups
Promote environmental awareness among managers X X X X X
Provide incentives and benefits for green behaviour-practices X
Transparency policy (e.g. informing the consumer, the supply chain) X X X X X
Publicise environmental efforts/accomplishments X X X X X X
Development of a formal environmental sustainability statement X X x X X X X X
for the company

Note: X ¼ initiative adopted by company k. A ¼ Arcese; B ¼ DB Schenker; C ¼ DHL; D ¼ Fiege; E ¼ Gefco; F ¼ Geodis; G ¼ Kuehne þ Nagel; H ¼ Havi Logistics; I ¼ Norbert
Dentressangle; J ¼ STEF-TFE.
Source: Company Environmental Reporting.
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
Table 3b
Inter-organisational environmental practices by the LSPs examined.
Macro-area Initiative
Collaboration with Help customers comply with certification programs and
customers support their efforts to attain the “green” goal
Collaboration with customers on reverse logistics and
recycling programmes
External collaborations Membership in environmental programmes
Collaborative partnerships with other companies
City logistics programmes and coordinated transportation
Collaboration with suppliers and subcontractors
Note: X ¼ initiative adopted by company k. A ¼ Arcese; B ¼ DB Schenker; C ¼ DHL; D ¼ Fiege; E ¼ Gefco; F ¼ Geodis; G ¼ Kuehne þ Nagel; H ¼ Havi Logistics; I ¼ Norbert
Dentressangle; J ¼ STEF-TFE.
Source: Company Environmental Reporting.
5.1. Distribution strategies and transportation execution
Initiatives dealing with distribution strategies and trans-
portation execution seem to be the most common initiatives within
the sample examined.
First, fleet re-conversion was observed. Some examples of this
are Arcese, DHL, Geodis and Gefco, who have launched pro-
grammes dealing with the renewal of their fleet to comply with
Euro 4 and Euro 5, the most recent European Union vehicle emis-
sions standards.
Second, efforts are also focused on fleet modernisation to reduce
carbon emissions and fuel consumption. For instance, DHL is
constantly modernising its fleet by replacing older vehicle gener-
ations and implementing alternative technologies and fuels. Fiege
launched a fleet conversion project: all trucks were converted to
run on biodiesel and were fully equipped with a soot particle filter.
Norbert Dentressangle has developed an aerodynamic curved roof
design for its trucks that reduces wind resistance and makes it
possible to lower fuel consumption by 5e8%. STEF-TFE has reduced
emissions and fuel consumption thanks to the improvement of
engine efficiency and a reduction in the air resistance of its trucks,
achieved by optimising aerodynamics (i.e. integrating lateral and/or
roof spoilers), fitting new tyres and installing more energy-efficient
cooling units. Furthermore Geodis, Gefco, DB Schenker, DHL,
Kuehne þ Nagel and STEF-TFE are testing and deploying alternative
vehicle technologies.
The fleet renewal is also applicable to the different trans-
portation modes: DHL modernised its air fleet so as to comply to
ICAO noise and NOx emission standards; DB Schenker developed a
“Climate-friendly electric train”, thus reducing CO2 emissions.
The use of alternative fuels, with the exception of a few good
examples, is not a particularly common practice. This initiative has
been adopted by DHL, Fiege and Havi Logistics: DHL developed the
NExBTL second-generation biofuel, derived from hydrotreated
vegetable oil; Fiege converted its trucks to run on a biodiesel that
complies with DIN EN 14214 (rape methyl ester); Havi Logistics
developed a biodiesel produced from used cooking oil in collabo-
ration with its customer McDonald’s.
Besides technological innovation, LSPs seem to recognise the
need for appropriate environmental sustainability management
strategies, confirming what has previously emerged from the
literature (e.g. Wu and Dunn, 1994). These initiatives include the
adoption of IT tools to minimise travel distances, the redesign of
logistics networks, and the consolidation of shipments. Arcese and
Gefco primarily focused their efforts on shipment consolidation
and the optimisation of vehicle fill. Kuehne þ Nagel, Norbert
Dentressangle, Havi Logistics and STEF-TFE mainly concentrated on
network redesign, performing optimisations and complex simula-
tions of network changes in order to achieve the most efficient
203
Company
A B C D E F G H I J
X X X X X X X
X x X X
X X x X X X X X
X X x X X X X
X
x X x X X X X X X
network setup. However most of the companies analysed imple-
mented initiatives related both to network optimisation and ship-
ment consolidation. The issue of backhauls is quite neglected in the
examined reports, and no sustainability initiative in place has been
found related to backhauling optimisation (e.g. minimising empty
load backhauls).
In their environmental reporting many LSPs have stressed the
importance of intermodal transport to improve sustainability, and
this lever has been also investigated in the recent literature (e.g.
Lieb and Lieb, 2010). Some examples are as follows: Havi Logistics
uses combined rail and truck and rail and waterway transport; DHL
launched a new suite of multi-modal solutions, that includes
innovative services such as rail-air and sea-air; STEF-TFE has been
exploring opportunities for developing combined road-rail trans-
portation, being a shareholder of the Froid Combi Company, which
operates multi-modal transportation in France using swap bodies.
5.2. Warehousing and green building
Consistent with the findings of Dhooma and Baker (2009), the
use of renewable energy sources (e.g. wind power, natural light,
water, solar and geothermal energy) and alternative or recycled
construction materials (e.g. steel, asphalt, glass block) appear to be
one of the most common initiatives in place among the LSPs
examined. Such solutions are often supported by governmental
incentives that promote their adoption in order to achieve green
building certifications.
The use of photovoltaic facilities is also particularly widespread.
In this area, Arcese, DHL, Norbert Dentressangle and STEF-TFE have
noted benefits such as energy savings and increased efficiency. To
gain further environmental benefits, STEF-TFE is finalising the
construction of a new transport platform. It has been liaising with
the EDF (electricity board) subsidiary specialised in alternative
energy, with a view to installing a rooftop photovoltaic system to
generate electricity.
Initiatives in favour of waste reduction and sustainable lighting
systems have also been identified. Norbert Dentressangle and
Kuehne þ Nagel implemented automation, i.e. automatic lighting
control, such as the use of innovative lighting systems with motion
detectors. When it gets dark, an automatic system controls the
warehouse lighting: the programmer then switches on every second
ramp and each bulb is later switched on in two stages. Before it gets
completely dark, only every second light is switched on; the inno-
vation involves fitting lighting devices with two solar light intensity
sensors, which makes two light settings possible. This setting, which
restricts human intervention and precludes forgetting to switch off
the lights, makes it possible to save on bulbs and energy. DHL
focused on alternative lighting sources (i.e. LED, fluorescent lights).
Other companies (e.g. DB Schenker) have turned their efforts to
204 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
waste reduction policies by adopting natural cooling systems and
rain water utilisation. It should be noted that, for LSPs involved in
environmentally critical logistics processes (e.g. frozen or chilled
goods), specific initiatives have been identified, related to conver-
sion programmes for facilities, prioritising the use of natural and
sustainable fluids, according to the Kyoto Protocol. For example,
STEF-TFE is faced with the issue of converting its refrigerated facil-
ities, which run on hydro-chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) fluids.
Overall, the main objective of all the LSPs analysed is the
implementation of initiatives towards eco-friendly building man-
agement and construction to attain “100 per cent CO2 neutral” (e.g.
DHL, Kuehne þ Nagel, STEF-TFE). Some companies (i.e.
Kuehne þ Nagel and TNT) are particularly engaged in the devel-
opment of sustainable buildings, according to the “green building”
standards. Another example is Fiege’s ‘Mega Centres’, large logistics
centres whose main purpose is to reduce fuel consumption as far as
possible, by using renewable and alternative sources for energy
self-sufficiency. These large logistics centres achieve synergies
through the maximum possible convergence of the material man-
agement system traffic flows: convergence reduces the annual
transport rate to a fraction. They also use wind power as their main
materials handling energy source, and develop techniques towards
material recycle and reuse.
5.3. Reverse logistics
Initiatives involving reverse logistics are quite widespread. For
example, Havi Logistics introduced a waste management and
reverse logistics system to allow customers to collect waste elec-
trical equipment and organic waste. At DHL waste management
follows the established prioritisation of reuse over recycling over
disposal and it is considered as an effective lever to support and add
value to the operations of the company. At STEF-FTE each operating
site has been equipped with a “waste pack”, which groups together
the best practices and tools to be implemented for the selective
sorting of common waste. Furthermore, collections are organised
for electrical and electronic equipment, so that it may be recycled.
Another example is that of Fiege relog GmbH, an innovative
systemised reverse logistics company that offers expert guidance
and practical solutions to manufacturers and importers of electrical
and electronic equipment. Their practical solutions cover all
disposal stages, including compliance with all statutory regulations
and their documentation.
5.4. Packaging management
Initiatives in packaging management seem to be quite neglec-
ted. The most widespread initiative is the reduction of packaging
waste (e.g. DHL, Gefco, Geodis). Material reuse and recycling are
also relatively widespread among the set of companies examined.
As an example, Gefco has implemented a reusable transport
container solution called ‘GefBox System’ which allows recycling of
packaging. Finally, DHL has adopted a solution for minimising
operative and packaging waste by developing a policy for the
procurement and selection of paper and paper products (“Paper
Policy”). Its aim is to ensure that paper and paper products conform
to the guiding principles of sustainability, resource protection and
efficiency, and includes all volumes of paper, paper products, print
products and packaging materials procured by the company or by
third parties or agencies.
5.5. Internal management
All of the LSPs examined promote environmental training pro-
grammes for their staff. For instance, initiatives that aim to promote
driving techniques to employees in the practice of fuel efficient and
safe driving are among the most common initiatives (e.g. DHL).
Environmental training programmes are realised at all company
levels, which confirms the increasing importance of assigning
specific dedicated figures devoted to the management of environ-
mental issues (Murphy et al. 1994). As an example, STEF-TFE
established a dedicated working group to ensure sustainable
development by defining “action plans” and proposing new envi-
ronmental projects. Consistent with the findings of Jumadi and
Zailani (2010), most LSPs recognise environmental awareness and
managerial skills as fundamental to the achievement of their sus-
tainability objectives.
In addition, group brainstorming and sustainability question-
naires aimed at involving employees in the evaluation of easy-to-
implement ways to save energy, water and paper and reducing
waste, are other significant experiences of staff commitment (e.g.
DHL, Havi Logistics). Interestingly, only a few LSPs have declared
initiatives and benefits for eco-efficient behaviours (e.g. DHL).
It is noteworthy to mention that overall performance mea-
surement and monitoring are considered to be particularly rele-
vant, and all of the companies analysed embrace the assumption “if
you can’t measure, you can’t manage” highlighted by McKinnon
(2010). However, the approach used is sometimes unclear, partic-
ularly with respect to the boundaries of the considered system,
such as the supply chain processes under consideration (e.g.
backhauls, nodes of the network). Furthermore, each company
generally tends to adopt their own metrics and indicators, although
in some cases an interest in embracing shared standards has been
noted. In accordance with the classification by Svensson (2007),
both strategic (i.e. aiming at medium-long period benefits) and
operational metrics (i.e. short-period measurement and effects)
have been observed. As an example, indicators dealing with CO2
emission quantification (e.g. DHL Carbon Efficiency Index), waste
and consumption (e.g. fuel, water, and energy), and building energy
efficiency have been identified, sometimes included within a more
structured ‘holistic’ approach (e.g. Geodis ‘Blue Attitude’ environ-
mental programme).
Finally, transparency policies towards customers (e.g. informa-
tion on sustainability issues and promoting their own commit-
ment) are relatively pervasive (e.g. DB Schenker, DHL).
5.6. Collaboration with customers
The LSPs examined declared a number of initiatives promoting
cooperation with customers, in alignment with Lieb and Lieb
(2010). LSPs seem to perceive the need to demonstrate their envi-
ronmental commitment, as it has progressively become a key
element for customers within the LSP selection phase. Some of the
foremost initiatives in this regard involve company fleet conversion
projects, and measurement and monitoring of customers’ envi-
ronmental impact. Fleet re-conversion projects are mainly oriented
towards research and vehicle innovation, or the evaluation of
alternative transportation modes. Both DB Schenker and Norbert
Dentressangle have developed ad hoc solutions for their customers
to quantify the environmental impact of their operations. For
example, Eco TransIT World is an online service developed by DB
Schenker that calculates emissions from rail, road, ship, and aircraft
transport in any combination. Another example is that of Norbert
Dentressangle, who designed and developed a CO2 emissions
calculator in order to provide its customers with reliable and real-
time measurable data. The calculator, developed by the transport
division teams, is able to measure the CO2 emissions generated by
each customer, regardless of the type of transport used, including
full loads, groupage and distribution. Moreover, the tool assigns to
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
each customer the fuel consumption required for his flows and
therefore the amount of CO2 produced.
Finally, cooperation programmes for material reuse and recycle
have been also observed, such as the case of DB Schenker, which
recycles disused office equipment such as computers and fax ma-
chines with the aid of the manufacturers’ return programs. Another
example is Geodis, which provides its customers with a reverse
logistics system for end-of-life products, particularly for electric
and electronic products: with seven processing centres in Europe,
the Group optimises solutions for middle-life and end-of-life
products and ensures traceability and total reliability for pro-
cesses such as dismantling, recovery and disposal.
5.7. External collaborations
In accordance with the literature (e.g. Lieb and Lieb, 2010), a
number of examples of external collaboration initiatives have been
observed. The most common collaborations are those with external
organisations, foundations and institutions, whereas partnership
with other players in the logistics and transportation industry is
less widespread.
A few examples of external collaboration are provided by Geo-
dis, which cooperates with a number of market players, such as Air
France e KLM Cargo, with the main aim of minimising air emis-
sions. Examples of voluntary collaboration among transport orga-
nisations have also emerged, such as the case of Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) SmartWay Programme, in which DB
Schenker, DHL and other players are involved in the development
of efficient alternative fuels. In addition, some initiatives involving
collaboration with suppliers have been observed. For instance, DHL
developed an environmental questionnaire (“Supplier Code of
Conduct”) to encourage the company’s suppliers to meet ethical
Fig. 2. Company sustainability effort in each macro-area.
205
and environmental standards. Furthermore, collaboration with
research centres as well as universities has been observed (e.g.
Geodis), especially in cases that involve the development of inno-
vative solutions. Finally, only one LSP has implemented initiatives
of coordinated transport in urban areas and city logistics pro-
grammes: Geodis, which is setting up a network of ecological urban
logistics bases in Paris to support and optimise urban logistics. Once
in the city centre, goods are increasingly being carried by more
environment-friendly methods, such as electric vehicles and de-
livery tricycles, replacing the diesel vehicles that have traditionally
been used.
Overall, it has emerged that collaboration play as a key role in
the achievement of environmental sustainability goals, in accor-
dance with Hervani et al. (2005). However, the level of collabora-
tion depends strictly on environmental awareness and the strategic
decisions made by each LSP.
5.8. Adoption level: an overview
Fig. 2 provides an overview of the adoption level of the initia-
tives in each of the identified macro-areas, evaluated according to
the EPI. The value of EPI was calculated without considering the
different impact that the initiatives could have on the performances
actually obtained towards sustainability, i.e. assigning an equal
weight (Wi,j) to each initiative. In fact in the literature there is no
unanimity on the value to be attributed to the different sustainable
initiatives that can be determined within the companies to refine
the analysis of the implemented sustainability initiatives. However,
assigning an equal weight to each initiative allows performing a
comparative analysis of the sustainability initiatives in place at each
company within each of the identified macro-areas (Colicchia et al.,
2011).
206 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209

We present the results showing a box plot, where the box rep-
resents the range of values from the 25% quartile to the 75% quar-
tile, while the median is depicted by the line in the middle. The box
plot representation is very useful for visually summarising or
comparing groups of data.
It is interesting to note that significant variability is generally
observed. This means that the sustainability strategies of the LSP
companies examined are still very diverse. With reference to the
macro-areas considered in Fig. 2, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
 The higher variability is observed in the collaboration areas,
considering both collaboration with customers and external
collaborations, with EPI values ranging from 0 to 1. Notwith-
standing that multi-stakeholder collaboration is recognised in
the literature as a common and effective strategy in the area of
environmental management, the engagement of these com-
panies in collaborative processes is currently at varying levels.
This seems to confirm the presence of inhibitors and com-
plexities, which impact the adoption of collaborative strategies
in practice, as previously identified in the literature.

 Initiatives in the area of distribution strategies and trans-
portation execution are the most extensive with the higher
sample median of 81 per cent. The reason for this result is fairly
straightforward: these initiatives are strictly related to the core
competences and main activities of the companies analysed
and thus are a priority in order to increase the sustainability of
their operations. Leveraging their key capabilities, LSPs can
offer a value-added service to customers to improve the envi-
ronmental performance of the supply chain and their own
profitability while reducing, in most cases, the related cost
against an initial investment.
 Many companies have concentrated their efforts towards
warehousing and green building (sample median of 50 per
cent), and reverse logistics (sample median of 75 per cent). This
may be due to the fact that the initiatives included in these
areas are in most cases related to the core competences of the
LSPs analysed, depending on their service offering, and the
comments above remain valid. Furthermore, these initiatives
are the most internally controlled, allowing companies to
directly support sustainability initiatives and evaluate the
benefits arising from their adoption.
 The number of initiatives implemented in the area of packaging
management is quite limited (median of 33 per cent and 25th
percentile equal to 0). In fact, the sustainability initiatives
within this area are affected by the packaging design and
management choices made by the manufacturing companies.
 In contrast with what happens in the areas of distribution
strategies and transportation execution and warehousing and
green building, greater variability is observed in the area of
internal management initiatives. This suggests that companies
seem to be more inclined to adopt initiatives that have little
impact on their organisational processes (as the case of dis-
tribution strategies and transportation execution, and ware-
housing and green building), rather than significantly
modifying the way they operate.
Overall, as regards RQ1 (i.e. identify the initiatives towards
environmental sustainability currently in place among LSPs) based
on the CER analysis, it can be stated that 3PLs appear to be highly
involved in environmentally sustainable initiatives involving
physical logistics, such as those dealing with transport and ware-
housing. Conversely, actions that involve changes to internal
management and organisation are still scarce. Still, a higher vari-
ability may be observed in terms of adoption level.
6. Case study analysis
The insights arising from the CER analysis according to the
developed framework represented the starting point for building
our empirical investigation, based on case studies. Three companies
were selected in order to provide additional insights on the ob-
tained results and to investigate the drivers of the implementation
of sustainability initiatives. The main details of the companies
involved are reported in Table 4.
For confidentiality reasons, in the following empirical analysis,
the companies will be referred to only by alphabetical letters from
A to C inclusive.
A detailed analysis of the key issues which emerged from our
cross-case analysis is presented hereinafter.
6.1. Relationships between intra-organisational and inter-
organisational environmental practices
As regards RQ1, the case studies confirm and expand on the
findings of the report analysis as discussed in Section 5.8. The ini-
tiatives mentioned as the most important represent intra-
organisational practices related to distribution strategies and
transportation execution and warehousing and green building. All
the companies involved in the case study analysis stated that they
are undertaking projects of continuous improvement of their lo-
gistics network and distribution operations with the aim to reduce

Table 4
Case study analysis: company details.

Company Profile

Company A Company A commits its expertise in international express, air and ocean freight, road and rail transportation, contract logistics and international
mail services to its customers. It is part of a group that, with a global network of more than 220 countries and territories and more
than 250,000 employees worldwide, generated revenue of more than 50 billion euros in 2011. Supply chain sustainability, in its three key
dimensions, is a core element of Company A’s corporate strategy. The corporate responsibility strategy of the company is organised around
three strategic areas of involvement, i.e. protecting the environment, managing disasters and delivering help, and promoting education.
Their sustainability strategy has led the company to achieve some awards and ISO 14001 certification.
Company B Company B group operates as a worldwide LSP and offers a wide range of services including air/sea freight forwarding, groupage, express,
full truck load transportation, distribution and warehousing, as well as value-added services. Its main customers come from various
different industry sectors, such as automotive, high tech and multimedia, pharmaceutical products, chemical products, fast moving consumer
goods, luxury goods, textile & apparel, wine and spirits. With a turnover of more than 500 million euro in 2010, a workforce of over 30,000
people and a global network in 120 countries, company B is Europe’s fourth biggest global LSP. Company B has engaged in a sustainability
strategy since the early 2000s with its ISO 14001 certification. In 2008 the company launched a programme with the main objective of
promoting and coordinating the diverse initiatives already in place in terms of collaboration with customers and partners, staff involvement
and environmental protection.
Company C Company C is a company founded in 1990, which operates in the contract logistics industry to support the catering industry. In recent years
company C has undertaken a sustainability strategy, developing innovative logistics projects to improve the social and environmental
sustainability of its operations. The sustainability strategy has led the company to achieve some awards and ISO 14001 certification.
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
fuel and carbon emissions along with distribution costs. Company A
and Company C have highlighted the fact they are geared to envi-
ronmental standards when building new sites. Furthermore, for
existing buildings, the companies improve energy efficiency
through green technologies, such as photovoltaic panels, intelligent
lighting, heating and cooling solutions and increase the share of
energy from renewable sources. This finding is in line with the
contribution of Lieb and Lieb (2010), who argue that LSPs are
particularly focused on programmes directed at reducing emissions
caused by transport activities and within all company facilities.
However, Company A and Company B highlighted the need for a
more holistic approach, attested by the presence of “green pro-
grammes” tackling both operational and process-impacting
initiatives.
It is important to remark that all the interviewed companies
think that the intra-organisational practices are positively related
to inter-organisational ones, confirming the theoretical model
basing this research (Shi et al., 2012) and the extant literature
(Maas et al., in press). In fact, in the context of service industry,
internal initiatives aimed at supporting emissions reduction and
thus efficiency gains could also allow LSPs to improve the quality
of their service offerings and to establish a green image. Aware of
their role in influencing the environmental sustainability of supply
chain wide logistics operations, the companies consider internal
efforts, knowledge sharing and transparency among partners as a
starting point to promote collaboration for inter-organisational
practices.
Company A is offering various services to support customers in
assessing the environmental impact of their logistics operations
and improving the level of sustainability of their supply chains: the
company provides customers with a report of the carbon footprint
of their logistics activities and operations; it develops a dynamic
tool that gives customers the ability to assess key environmental
performance indicators and to perform what-if scenarios, such as
shipment modal changes or improvements of vehicle fill, thus
enabling beneficial supply chain decisions to improve environ-
mental performance; it supports customers in analysing initiatives
to reduce carbon emissions and selecting those that best fit their
business objectives. The ultimate objective is to support customers
in the development of concrete and implementable carbon reduc-
tion initiatives. Notwithstanding this and although the issue of
collaboration with customers is acknowledged in the literature as
promising, the case study analyses reveal criticalities in this area as
it will be analysed in detail in the following sections.
6.2. Performance measures
Focussing on RQ2 (i.e. investigate the methodology used by LSPs
and the areas addressed when measuring environmental perfor-
mances) it emerges the importance of environmental performance
measurement but a shared standard methodology for measuring
and allocating the environmental impact of processes and opera-
tions to different customers is still lacking. Company A established a
dedicated department with the aim of ensuring transparency for
customers and in public reporting, and to enable the management
of carbon efficiency. In particular Company A reports its carbon
footprint on a yearly basis, through a series of indicators of effi-
ciency and sustainability effectiveness aligned to the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
Company B publishes a yearly environmental report (since 2009).
Since 2010, CO2 emissions derived from its transportation flows
have been computed using the Bilan CarboneÒ system developed
by the French Agency for Environment (ADEME). Finally Company C
uses internally developed economic and environmental perfor-
mance indicators to assess its green initiatives: as regards their
207
economic goals, the company aims to develop projects with at least
a neutral economic impact in the long-term; the environmental
indicators used are focused on greenhouse gas emissions derived
from operational activities.
Another element of paramount importance is the scope of
environmental performance measurement. To track its progress
towards realising the efficiency target, Company A calculates and
reports the Carbon Efficiency Index, which consolidates the results
achieved in both relative and absolute terms, considering direct
CO2 emissions from its own operations (e.g. through fuel combus-
tion), indirect CO2 emissions corresponding to the electricity, dis-
trict heating and cooling that the company purchases, and indirect
CO2 emissions from subcontracted transport and business travel.
Within company B both ‘direct’ (e.g. deriving from company elec-
tricity/fuel consumption) and ‘indirect’ emissions (e.g. connected to
supplier transportation processes) are taken into account, thus
providing a comprehensive emissions profile along the entire value
chain.
These cases reflect the adoption of a holistic approach in
measuring supply chain environmental performances. However, it
is still difficult to define and apply a clear methodology of mea-
surement and reporting able to encompass all the critical sustain-
ability elements affecting company success related to
environmental, financial and operational performances. Conse-
quently, it seems difficult to distribute among supply chain players
the costs and benefits associated with the adoption of sustainability
initiatives. Indeed, the specificity of LSPs lies in both measuring
environmental performance and allocating the environmental
impact of their operations to customers, in order to communicate
their green performance. In this respect, environmental impact
measurement and allocation is fundamental in order to support a
progressive improvement in the company’s performance and to
foster effective collaborations with customers. For this reason
criticalities have appeared in comparing the green performance of
the different players.
6.3. Institutional drivers
As regards RQ3, the case study analysis confirmed pressures to
environmental sustainability coming from regulators, the market
and competitors coherently with the institutional theory (Shi et al.,
2012).
Company C identified regulatory pressures as a main motivation
to implement environmental sustainability initiatives, in agreement
with the existing literature (e.g. Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Lieb and Lieb,
2010). However, this can represent also a criticality that inhibits
companies. According to Company A government institutions
should provide more support, clearer regulations and better
communication about incentives. The regulatory complexity makes
the adoption of environmental initiatives harder (Company B).
Furthermore, according to the logistics manager of Company A,
a major challenge for successful implementation of environmental
initiatives in the contract logistics industry is to create a changed
culture and mind-set towards environmental initiatives among all
the stakeholders. Company C mentioned the lack of a widespread
sustainability culture among the supply chain partners and the lack
of standards and defined parameters for measuring CO2 emissions
as important factors that make the adoption of environmental
initiatives harder.
In line with Zhu and Sarkis (2007), market pressures from
downstream customers can represent a major driver for environ-
mental sustainability. The cases reveal that if companies do not feel
pressure from customers, they may be reluctant to implement
environmental initiatives. In this sense, according to Company A a
stronger relationship with customers would create an improved
208 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
and more stable business scenario focused on trust and improve-
ment towards sustainability. On the contrary, the lack of a shared
vision on the importance of sustainability is the main inhibitor of
the development of green supply chains.
Company A and Company C consider that providing green ser-
vices will increase their e and their customers’ e competitiveness
and could be a decisive factor in winning customers in the future,
consistently with the previous literature (e.g. Maas et al., in press;
Sarkis, 2003; Zhu and Sarkis, 2006; Ferguson and Toktay, 2006).
Notwithstanding this, they complain that most of their customers
do not demonstrate today the same commitment and the same
willingness to spend more for more sustainable logistics services
offerings. Their strategies in the area of supply chain sustainability
are based on a short-term perspective, i.e. adopting initiatives that
have little impact on processes and cost structure. Indeed, it is hard
for customers to discern what is a sound choice from an environ-
mental point of view. Clear and transparent information on carbon
footprints will empower customers. Likewise, Company C considers
relationships with key customers to be a major driver for being
environmentally sustainable. However, these relationships should
be strategic partnerships: working together to improve the sus-
tainability of the supply chain means being able to share risks and
opportunities, based on a common strategic direction.
Finally, companies involved in our analysis declared that com-
petitors do not represent the key driver in encouraging them to
adopt environmental initiatives. Given the recent evolutions of the
world economy and the tight profit margins in the contract logistics
industry, LSPs strategies are based on a short-term perspective. This
means that, as evidenced by this research, some environmental
initiatives are currently adopted in order not to lose competitive-
ness, but their extent is often limited. However, all the interviewed
companies perceive that in the long-term their environmental
strategy can represent a differentiation advantage.
7. Conclusions
This paper faces the topic of environmental initiatives in the
contract logistics industry. Based on the literature review, a
framework was developed to identify the primary initiatives to-
wards environmental sustainability focussing on companies
involved in logistics and transportation processes. Afterwards, the
framework was applied to a set of LSPs by examining their envi-
ronmental reporting, in order to assess the adoption level of each
initiative. The findings of this analysis, along with the insights from
the case studies allow to give an answer to three RQs.
Regarding RQ1 (i.e. identify the initiatives towards environ-
mental sustainability currently in place among LSPs, distinguishing
between intra-organisational and inter-organisational environ-
mental practices), we found that LSPs have adopted a number of
sustainability initiatives, especially those related to distribution
and transportation activities, whereas initiatives involving internal
management are less widespread.
Furthermore, although the issue of collaboration with cus-
tomers and suppliers is acknowledged as promising in the liter-
ature, the report and case study analysis still reveals criticalities
in this respect. Notwithstanding that a growing interest has been
observed with respect to collaboration with both customers
and suppliers, a dearth of effective collaborative actions to
improve the environmental sustainability of the supply chain is
evidenced.
Regarding RQ2 (i.e. investigate the methodology used by LSPs
and the areas addressed when measuring environmental perfor-
mances), we found the lack of a standard methodology for
measuring environmental impact, which does not allow companies
to share both the costs and the benefits of environmental
initiatives. This suggests that further research is needed to develop
an effective performance measurement system to assess the envi-
ronmental impact of processes. In the contract logistics industry
this should involve the definition of a method for allocating envi-
ronmental impact to different customers and suppliers. This would
enable LSPs to have full control over the logistics activities per-
formed by contractors and subcontractors acting on behalf of the
company and to assess the sustainability of the entire supply chain.
On the other hand it would encourage customers to move towards a
more sustainable supply chain and to invest in environmental ini-
tiatives, with clear and transparent information on their environ-
mental impact and the potential improvements, in terms of cost
savings and CO2 reductions, that greening their supply chain can
bring.
Finally, regarding RQ3 (i.e. explore the institutional drivers
behind the adoption of these initiatives by LSPs, along with their
interactions with performance improvements) most of the inter-
viewed companies consider customers to be a major driver.
Notwithstanding this, it emerged that sometimes LSPs complain
about a lack of real commitment from customers. This is also
attested by the presence of green requirements to be included in a
tender but often these requirements do not imply a real change on
processes. The case studies revealed that regulation is an important
driver but it is considered a barrier, as well. It is important in fact to
be compliant with the regulations but a heterogeneity among
countries and within the same country is highlighted and this
makes the adoption of environmental initiatives harder. Finally, it
emerges that competitors do not play an important role in
encouraging companies to adopt environmental initiatives, since
the strategies of companies operating in the contract logistics in-
dustry are mainly based on a short-term perspective.
These results suggest that further research is needed to better
investigate the relationships between environmental performances
and differentiation advantage from the perspective of LSPs, in order
to demonstrate that GSCM can lead to increased competitiveness
and market share gains in the long-term.
This study has one main limitation, which should be mentioned.
The set of companies examined, although representative, is limited.
However, this paper contributes to the knowledge on environ-
mental sustainability for logistics and transportation and offers
new highlights in theory, paving the way for further research on
these topics, especially with respect to environmental performance
measurement and the allocation of environmental impact.
References
Anttonen, M., Halme, M., Houtbeckers, E., Nurkka, J., 2013. The other side of sus-
tainable innovation: is there a demand for innovative services? J. Clean. Prod.
45, 89e103.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2009. Integrating sustainability in to supplier selection with grey
system and rough. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124, 252e264.
Browne, D., O’Mahony, M., Caulfield, B., 2012. How should barriers to alternative
fuels and vehicles be classified and potential policies to promote innovative
technologies be evaluated? J. Clean. Prod. 35, 140e151.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 38 (5),
360e387.
Cholette, S., Venkat, K., 2009. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution:
a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 17
(16), 1401e1413.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility: standard
adoption and practices in Italian companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113, 88e106.
Colicchia, C., Strozzi, F., 2012. Supply chain risk management: a new methodology
for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (4), 403e418.
Colicchia, C., Melacini, M., Perotti, S., 2011. Benchmarking supply chain sustain-
ability: insights from a field study. Benchmark. Int. J. 18 (5), 703e732.
Cucek, L., Klemes, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A Review of Footprint analysis tools for
monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 9e20.
Darnall, N., Seol, I., Sarkis, J., 2009. Perceived stakeholder influences and organi-
zations’ use of environmental audits. Account. Org. Soc. 34 (2), 170e187.
 C. Colicchia et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 59 (2013) 197e209
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic literature review. In:
Buchanan, D., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organisational Research
Methods. Sage Publications Ltd., London, pp. 671e689.
Dhooma, J., Baker, P., 2009. A methodology for energy conservation in existing
warehouses. In: Proceedings of the Logistics Research Network (LRN) Annual
Conference, Cardiff (UK), pp. 1e8.
Efendigil, T., Semih Oenuet, S., Kongar, E., 2008. A holistic approach for selecting a
third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 54 (2), 269e287.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage
Rev 4 (4), 532e550.
Evangelista, P., Sweeney, E., Ferruzzi, G., Carrasco, J.C., 2010. Green supply chains
initiatives in transport and logistics service industry: an exploratory case study
analysis. In: Proceedings of the Logistics Research Network (LRN) Annual
Conference, Leeds (UK), pp. 195e203.
Facanha, C., Horvath, A., 2005. Environmental assessment of logistics outsourcing.
J. Manage. Eng. 21 (27), 27e35.
Faruk, A.C., Lamming, R.C., Cousins, P.D., Bowen, F.E., 2001. Analyzing, mapping, and
managing environmental impacts along supply chains. J. Ind. Ecol. 5 (2), 13e36.
Ferguson, M.E., Toktay, L.B., 2006. The effect of competition on recovery strategies.
Prod. Oper. Manage. 15 (3), 351e368.
Fürst, E., Oberhofer, P., 2012. Greening road freight transport: evidence from an
empirical project in Austria. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 67e73.
Gaziulusoy, A.I., Boyle, C., McDowall, R., 2013. System innovation for sustainability: a
systemic double-flow scenario method for companies. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 104e116.
Gonzalez-Benito, J., Gonzalez-Benito, O., 2006. The role of stakeholder pressure and
managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (7), 1353e1373.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20
(4), 986e1014.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green
supply chain management. Benchmark. Int. J. 12 (4), 330e353.
Hilty, L.M., Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J., Lehmann, M., Waeger, P.A., 2006.
The relevance of information and communication technologies for environ-
mental sustainability e a prospective simulation study. Environ. Model. Softw.
21 (11), 1618e1629.
Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., Chanc, F., 2003. Using case-based reasoning to evaluate
supplier environmental management performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 25 (2),
141e153.
Jeffers, P.I., 2010. Embracing sustainability Information technology and the strategic
leveraging of operations in 3PLs. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 3 (30), 260e287.
Jumadi, H., Zailani, S., 2010. Integrating green innovations in logistics services towards
logistics service sustainability: a conceptual paper. Environ. Res. J. 4 (4), 261e271.
Krumwiede, D.W., Sheu, C., 2002. A model for Reverse Logistics entry by third-party
providers. Omega-Int. J. Manage. S. 30, 325e333.
Lacefield, S., 2004. What’s more “palletable” e renting or owning? Logist. Manage.
43 (4), 63e66.
Lai, K., Lun, V., Wong, C., Cheng, T., 2010. Green shipping practices in the shipping
industry: conceptualization, adoption, and implication. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
55 (6), 631e638.
Langella, I.M., Zanoni, S., 2011. Eco-efficiency in logistics: a case study on distri-
bution network design. Int. J. Sust. Eng. 4 (2), 115e126.
Lieb, R.C., Lieb, K.J., 2008. The North American 3PL industry in 2008: the provider
CEO perspective. Transport. J. 49 (2), 1e25.
Lieb, K.J., Lieb, R.C., 2010. Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics
(3PL) industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 40 (7), 524e533.
Lin, C.Y., Ho, Y.H., 2008. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention
to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manage. Innov. 3 (1), 17e26.
Maas, S., Schuster, T., Hartmann, E., 2012. Pollution prevention and service stew-
ardship strategies in the third-party logistics industry: effects on firm differ-
entiation and the moderating role of environmental communication. Bus. Strat.
Environ. (in press).
Marchet, G., Perego, A., Perotti, S., 2009. An exploratory study of ICT adoption in the
Italian freight transportation industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 39
(9), 785e812.
Marchet, G., Perotti, S., Mangiaracina, R., 2012. Modelling the impacts of ICT
adoption for inter-modal transportation. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 42
(2), 110e127.
McIntyre, K., Smith, H., Henham, A., Pretlov, J., 1998a. Logistics performance mea-
surement and greening SC: diverging mindsets. Int. J. Logist. Manage. 1 (9),
149e156.
McIntyre, K., Smith, H., Henham, A., Pretlov, J., 1998b. Environmental performance
indicators for integrated supply chain: the case of Xerox Ltd. Supply Chain
Manage.: Int. J. 3 (3), 149e156.
McKinnon, A.C., 2010. Product-level carbon auditing of supply chains (Environ-
mental imperative or wasteful distraction?). Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage.
40 (1/2), 42e60.
209
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M., 2006. Corporate social responsibility:
strategic implications. J. Manage. Stud. 43 (1), 1e18.
Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 2002. A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third-party
reverse logistics providers. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 7 (5), 283e295.
Min, H., Ko, H.J., 2007. The dynamic design of a Reverse Logistics network from the
perspective of third-party logistics service providers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113,
176e192.
Mondragon, A.E.C., Lalwani, C.S.L., Mondtagon, E.S.C., Mondragon, C.E.C., 2009.
Facilitating multimodal logistics and enabling information systems connectivity
through wireless vehicular networks. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 122, 229e240.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2000. Green logistics strategies: an analysis of usage pat-
terns. Transport. J. 40 (2), 5e16.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2003. Green perspectives and practices: a ‘comparative
logistics’ study. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 8, 122e131.
Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., Braunschwieg, C.D., 1994. Management of environmental
issues in logistics: current status and future potential. Transport. J. 34 (1), 48e56.
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social re-
sponsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173e184.
Perego, A., Perotti, S., Mangiaracina, R., 2011. ICT for logistics and freight trans-
portation: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manage. 41 (5), 457e483.
Ray, C.D., Michael, J.H., Scholnick, B.N., 2006. Supply chain system costs of alter-
native grocery industry pallet systems. Forest Prod. J. 56 (10), 52e57.
Rizzo, J., 2006. Logistics Distribution & Warehousing 2006: Green Building: A New
Priority. [online]. Area Developments. Available from: http://www.
areadevelopment.com/specialPub/aug06/greenbuilding.shtml (accessed 15.11.10).
Roth, A., Kaberger, T., 2002. Making transport systems sustainable. J. Clean. Prod. 10
(4), 361e371.
Rubio, S., Chamorro, A., Miranda, F.J., 2008. Characteristics of the research on
reverse logistics (1995e2005). Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (4), 1099e1120.
Sarkis, J., Meade, L., Talluri, S., 2004. E-logistics and the natural environment. Supply
Chain Manage.: Int. J. 9 (4), 303e312.
Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management.
J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 397.
Schneider, J.L., Wilson, A., Rosenbeck, J.M., 2010. Pharmaceutical companies and
sustainability: an analysis of corporate reporting. Benchmark. Int. J. 17, 421e434.
Scipioni, A., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Mastrobuono, M., 2012. Monitoring the carbon
footprint of products: a methodological proposal. J. Clean. Prod. 36, 94e101.
Shi, V.G., Koh, S.C.L., Baldwin, J., Cucchiella, F., 2012. Natural resource based green
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J. 17 (1), 54e67.
Stechemesser, K., Guenther, E., 2012. Carbon accounting: a systematic literature
review. J. Clean. Prod. 36, 17e38.
Svensson, G., 2007. Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM):
conceptual framework and empirical example. Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J 12
(4), 262e266.
Tsoulfas, G.T., Pappis, C.P., 2008. A model for supply chains environmental perfor-
mance analysis and decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1647e1657.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain.
The impact of upstream and downstream integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.
26 (7), 795e821.
Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental
technologies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18e19), 4357e4379.
Van Hoek, R.I., 1999. From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Supply Chain
Manage.: Int. J. 4 (3), 129e135.
Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., 2003. Indicators for measuring envi-
ronmental sustainability. A case study of the pharmaceutical industry. Bench-
mark. Int. J. 10 (2), 107e119.
Wever, R., Casper, B., Marinelli, T., AStevels, A., 2007. Increasing the benefits of
product-level benchmarking for strategic eco-efficient decision making.
Benchmark. Int. J. 14 (6), 711e727.
Wolf, C., Seuring, S., 2010. Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party
logistical services. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 40 (½), 84e102.
Wu, H.J., Dunn, S.C., 1994. Environmentally responsible logistics systems. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manage. 25 (2), 20e38.
Yin, R., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, second ed. Sage Publishing,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Zailani, S., Amran, A., Jumadi, H., 2011. Green innovation adoption among logistic
service providers in Malaysia: an exploratory study on the managers’ percep-
tions. Int. Bus. Manage. 5 (3), 104e113.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2006. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain man-
agement in china: drivers and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (5), 472e486.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45
(18e19), 4333e4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K., 2008. Green supply chain management implications for
“closing the loop”. Transport. Res. E-Logist. 44 (1), 1e18.