Cold Chain Transportation Modes

for Seafood Supply Chain: A Case Study

of Vietnam-China Trade

Vo Le Cam Phuong1, Enrico D’agostini2, Huynh Thi Lan Anh3 and

Nguyen Huu Nam4

The study aims to assess the factors that influence the choice of cold chain transportation modes for seafood
exports from Vietnam to China. We propose a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework using
three different modes of transportation as alternatives and seven criteria for competitive evaluation. A Best-
Worst Method (BWM) is utilized to evaluate the most and the least important criteria in seafood exports and
the most suitable mode of transport of seafood from Vietnam to China, considering a period in which supply
chain disruptions, port congestion, and low reliability of the transport network seem to be the new normal.
The findings reveal that, among the three modes of transport (air, sea, and land), land transport is prioritized
for exporting seafood from Vietnam to China. Furthermore, in terms of transport seafood via road, it is found
that ‘equipment’ and ‘facility’ are prioritized.

Introduction
Seafood export is an important industry that contributes to economic development in
many countries, including Vietnam, and its significance extends to production (Straume
et al., 2020), diplomacy (Chen and Garcia, 2016), trade (Eegunjobi and Ngepah, 2022),
employment (Johansen et al., 2019), and its role as the primary source of animal protein
for humans. As a result, fish and fishery products account for the greatest proportion of
global trade in the food industry (FAO, 2017). Frozen commodities in general and seafood
in particular belong to the category of perishable goods, which should be strictly controlled
by temperature before, during, and after transportation to avoid spoiling, decaying or
becoming unsafe to consume (US Department of Agriculture, 2019).
1
Department of International Logistics, Tongmyong University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
E-mail: vlcp152001@gmail.com
2
Senior Lecturer in Logistics, Department of Business and Enterprise Management, Faculty of Economics,
Management and Accountancy, University of Malta, MSD 2080 Msida, Malta; and is the corresponding author.
E-mail: enrico.dagostini@um.edu.mt
3
Department of International Logistics, Tongmyong University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
E-mail: lananh758301@gmail.com
4
Department of International Logistics, Tongmyong University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
E-mail: nguyenhuunam095@gmail.com

Cold Chain
© 2023 IUP. Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain:
All Rights Reserved. 5
A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
 China has a common border with Vietnam, so it has long been the main export market
for India. China is Vietnam’s third largest seafood export market, after the US and Japan,
in 2021 with $977.9 mn (Vietnam Customs, 2022). In addition to exporting all kinds of
seafood in general, Vietnam is the exclusive supplier of frozen pangasius to the Chinese
market. Accumulated to the end of March 2022, pangasius export is estimated at $646 mn,
an increase of 88% compared to the same period in 2021. Pangasius is regaining its
position in the list of exported aquatic products, accounting for 27% of seafood export
value (Vietnam Customs, 2022).
For the export of seafood products, cold-chain management is vital in terms of
transportation and storage management. A cold chain is defined as an uninterrupted
supply system that maintains the quality of products from production through
transportation, distribution, storage, and retail by using temperature-controlled
environments (Kitinoja, 2013). It is critical for preserving the quality of these high-risk
and low-risk perishable products, ensuring that they arrive in optimal condition, ready for
use or consumption. In the entire cold chain, the most important aspect is selecting the
proper mode of transportation, as there are several factors influencing enterprises’ choice
of transport mode when exporting seafood. China used to be a relatively easy market in
procedural terms, but in recent years, it has tightened import standards, particularly as the
corona epidemic grows, and it is currently enforcing a “zero Covid” policy (Lim, 2022).
As a result, the import of seafood products is closely regulated and subject to heavy
logistics disruptions mirrored in port and inland congestion. Therefore, businesses must
choose a suitable and economical means of transportation to ensure that their exports are
of high quality and match the country’s requirements. Under current market requirements,
and in particular in light of recent challenges related to food chain processing and
distribution due to Covid-19 pandemic (Aday and Aday, 2020), investigating the most
suitable mode of transport from Vietnam to China and assessing what factors are the most
and least influential in the cold supply chain transport of seafood can significantly
contribute to managerial decision making.
Furthermore, traditional techniques such as Structural Path Analysis (SPA), Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Fuzzy Dematal (Cakýlcý, 2020) have commonly been used in
most research studies to find the most suitable mode of transportation for exporting seafood.
However, in this study, a BWM approach is applied, which is a newer Multi-Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) model. It holds several advantages, such as requiring fewer respondents
that lead to more consistent comparison and more reliable results. Hence, the applied method
is another significant distinction between our research and past studies.

Literature Review
Cold Chain: An Overview
Cold supply chain, also known as temperature-controlled supply chain, is vital for
maintaining the quality of perishable goods such as fresh food, medicines, vaccines, and

6 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
so on to prevent spoiling and ensure product value (Heard and Miller, 2016). Cold chain
is a thriving industry, with the worldwide cold chain market value predicted to increase
by more than 15% between 2019 and 2025 (Grand View Research, 2019). The whole
duration of the cold chain varies greatly depending on the exact product and target
market, with some cold chains lasting only a few hours and others lasting several days or
even months, particularly for frozen food goods (Mack et al., 2014; and Gogou et al., 2015).
Depending on the requirements of each type of goods, the temperature of the cold
supply chain will be adjusted differently. Basically, the following are the common
temperature standards:
• Deep Frozen: from –25 to –30 oC. This is the coldest temperature, mainly for
transporting seafood.
• Frozen: from –10 to –20 oC, mainly for transporting meat.
• Chiller: From 2 to 4 oC, which is the standard temperature in refrigerators and
is commonly used to transport fruits and vegetables for optimal shelf life.
Temperature standards are easier to be implemented and monitored since they apply
to a wide range of temperature-sensitive goods. Yet, reefers can also be adapted to maintain
a specific temperature requirement of any given product. Hence, cold chain plays an
extremely important role in preserving and maintaining the quality of items that are
highly sensitive to temperature.
A majority of studies in this field concentrate on the technological elements of food
(Wang and Zhao, 2021) and pharmaceutical (Pambudi et al., 2022) industries. A fuzzy
analytical hierarchy process was used in the study by Kumar et al. (2021) to prioritize
critical performance elements to preserve the shelf-life, quality, and potency of food cold
chain from manufacturing through final consumption. Zhang et al. (2020) aimed to find
out the cold chain mode choice problem by defining a shipping method and deciding on
a multi-period planning environment with individual perishable product demands, using
value-based management method. Yang and Lin (2017) investigated the factors
influencing the decision of cold chain mode of transport from the perspective of Taiwanese
companies operating long line tuna fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean, which are
primarily motivated by the need to reduce operating costs. They also examined the modes
of transport through an analytic hierarchy process, using questionnaires collected from
industry personnel and government personnel involved in the long line cold supply chain
system. Castelein et al. (2019) provided a comprehensive overview of the reefer container
sector, including its most important characteristics and trends, as well as an asystematic
review of the academic literature on reefer containers and logistics, which may support
food managers in the food cold chain industry in preserving the quality of low-temperature
food products.
In the next section, a description and evaluation of cold supply chain transport
alternatives and selection criteria are provided.

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 7

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
Identification of Alternatives and Criteria for Cold Supply Chain in Seafood
Exports from Vietnam to China
Based on previous literature on cold supply chain requirements, we review and evaluate
the most important transport modes (used as alternatives in cargo export) and the criteria
affecting the overall transport competitiveness of the alternatives considered. The three
alternatives in this study are ‘land transport’, ‘air transport’ and ‘sea transport’, while the
seven selected criteria are ‘freight rates’, ‘equipment’, ‘facility, ‘speed’, ‘reliability’,
‘environment’, and ‘safety’. This process is very important to obtain relevant information
during evaluation and pairwise comparison.

Identification of Transport Alternatives

There are various modes of transportation available in the logistics industry, each having
both advantages and drawbacks. The means of transport allow cargo to be transferred from
one place to another based on factorial requirements such as distance, cost, and transit
time. Overall, the advantages and disadvantages of each method can support shippers’
decision making in carrier selection, and in some cases, these requirements can be clustered
into unique groups (D’agostini et al., 2022). With the “border brotherhood”, Vietnam and
China have a potential opportunity in import and export. In 2021, China continued to be
the largest trading partner of Vietnam with nearly $166 bn, of which, exports accounted for
$55.95 bn, and imports $108.87 bn (The State Council, 2022). Therefore, we consider 3
alternative modes of transportation (land, sea, and air).

Land Transport
The most frequent mode of food transportation is by land, using vehicles or trucks.
McKellar et al. (2014) estimated that in Canada the average total transit time for fresh-
cut lettuce from production to retail was roughly 38 hours, which translates to a distance
of almost 2,500 km, assuming an average speed of approximately 65 km/h.
Given the long distances traveled and, as a result, the length of time spent on land
transportation, maintaining perishable food in the correct temperature range throughout
this step in the cold chain is important. Derens et al. (2006) and Derens-Bertheau et al.
(2015) found that the temperature of perishable food was efficiently maintained in the
desired range during commercial transportation in France, with average temperatures,
during this step in the cold chain, of 2.9, 3.1, and 2.4 °C, respectively.
Truck transport has the flexibility of changes in location, direction, speed, and timing of
travel that are not available to other modes of transport. Furthermore, it is possible to provide
door-to-door service only by road transport, which is one of the premium services in logistics.
In this study, we applied a truck (border-cross) to export seafood through Huu Nghi
Border Checkpoint (an international border checkpoint in Lang Son, Vietnam, located on
the border between Vietnam and China). This “economic belt” is the main trading place,
strengthening the relationship between the two countries.

8 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
Sea Transport
In cold supply chain transport mode selection, sea transportation is much slower than air
transportation and may not be suitable for perishable goods with a short shelf life.
Nonetheless, sea transportation may be more cost-effective than air transportation and
is an essential means of transportation for fruits, vegetables, dairy goods, meat, and fish
products produced in remote locations and whose shelf-life exceeds the shipping time. Sea
transportation is generally done on specialized ships or reefer containers (Tanner et al., 2004).
Temperature heterogeneity can be attributed to a variety of variables, including the
operation and construction of the container or vessel as well as the qualities of the food
product and packaging (Tanner and Smale, 2005). Mai et al. (2012) examined the
temperature of fresh fish carried by boat or air from Iceland to the United Kingdom or
France. They found that the temperature stayed more consistent during sea
transportation than during air transportation because maritime transportation utilizing
refrigerated containers reduced the amount of handling activities, during which the
pallets may be exposed to high ambient temperatures. For example, refrigerated
containers may be carried immediately from the ship to a vehicle on deck, whereas
pallets must be unloaded from an aircraft and reloaded in a refrigerated truck following
air transportation.

Air Transport
Transportation of perishable food by air provides significant benefits for a year-round
supply of perishable food in regions far from the harvesting or production site. However,
because of the significant economic and environmental implications of this mode of
transportation, air delivery of perishable food remains limited. Air transportation is
essential for high-value perishable food and perishable food with a short shelf life that
must reach their destination as soon as possible. Air transportation may become a more
important link in the global cold chain since the overall volumes of commodities moved
by air are growing again after a few challenging years (Deloitte, 2022).
According to a survey of the air transportation industry, a majority of complaints about
perishable food are concerning bad odors, poor color or texture, and rotted products. These
issues are generally related to insufficient temperatures and support the need for better
temperature management during perishable food air transportation (Mercier et al., 2017).
In order to avoid some of the problems described above, some lucrative industries are
increasingly arranging for charter flights to convey perishable commodities to their
destination (Tan, 2021). Furthermore, advancements in refrigeration systems, such as
improvement of active temperature controlled ULDs during the last decade, have improved
key stakeholders’ capacity to assure unbroken cold chains (Baxter and Kourousis, 2015).
Air transport is extremely useful for many reasons: It is convenient, fast, and does not
have to compete with natural barriers. While land transport is the quickest way to deliver
goods that only have a short distance to travel, air transportation is the fastest option for
freight that has a farther destination—it is even regarded as the best mode of

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 9

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
transportation for perishable goods for this reason. Consequently, we consider air transport
as a third alternative to export seafood from Tan Son Nhat (TSN) Airport to China. While
TSN is the largest airport in Vietnam with a large volume of exported cargo, several airports
in China also had a large amount of cargo throughput in 2021, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Cargo Throughput in Thousand Metric

Tons of Major Chinese Airports

Kunming Changshui Airport 377.2

Xi’an Xianyang International Airport 395.6
Chongquing Jiangbei International Airport 476.7
Chengdu Shuangliu Airport 629.4
Zhengzhou Xinzheng International Airport 704.7
Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport 914.1
Beijing Capital International Airport 1401.3
Shenzen Baoan International Airport 1568.3
Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport 2044.9
Shanghai Pudong Airport 3986.6

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/258235/leading-airports-in-china-by-cargo-thoughput/

Identification of Criteria
In this section, we identify seven criteria for evaluating the competitiveness of the three
transport alternatives for seafood exports from Vietnam to China. The selection and
evaluation of the seven criteria are based on a review of the literature and defined under
seven main elements, namely ‘freight rates’, ‘equipment’, ‘facility, ‘speed’, reliability’,
‘environment’, and ‘safety’. The definition and references for each of the seven criteria are
provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Identification and Definition of Criteria

Criteria Definition References
Freight rate The price at which a specific cargo is Kaewfak et al. (2019 and
transported from one point to another. 2020), Mittal and McClung
It is an integral supply chain element (2016)
in providing effective movement of goods
Equipment The physical equipment used to hold, Laguerre et al. (2014)
protect, or secure cargo for cold chain Azimi et al. (2017), Verma and
logistics purposes Singh (2019)

10 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
 Table 1 (Cont.)

Criteria Definition References

Facility The infrastructure used to store and Kola-Korolo et al. (2010)
distribute cargo and ensure that quality, Chukwu and Adibe (2022),
safety and integrity of cold chain products
are maintained
Speed The total time duration it takes for cargo to Kumru and Kumru,
be transported between one point and another. (2014), Blagojeviae et al. (2020)
Reliability It relates to the quality of the transport service Soza-Parra et al. (2019), Bell,
and the variability of travel time; it is (2000), Nicholson et al., (2003)
considered as an essential indicator of
transport systems.
Environment The capacity shown by transport operators Yedla and Shrestha, (2003),
to be more sustainable in terms of negative Berrittella et al. (2007),
environmental impacts Awasthi and Chauhan (2011),
Singh et al. (2020)
Safety It relates to the ability to guarantee the Joshi et al. (2011), Yang and
avoidance of theft, loss or damage of cargo Cai (2013), Shen et al. (2019),
during transport and storage operations Tian et al. (2019)

Method
Definition and Motivation Behind Using Best-Worst Method
In this study, we applied the Best-Worst Method (BWM), which is a useful analytical tool
to solve multi-criteria decision-making problems. This methodology was developed by
Jafar Razei in 2015. Compared to the existing MCDM methods, the BMW yields several
advantages, and particularly it requires fewer comparisons of data and it leads to more
consistent comparisons, which means that it produces more reliable results. In the
methodological process, the best (most important) and the worst (least important) criteria
are identified by the decision-maker. Comparisons are then made between each of these
two criteria (best and worst) and the other criteria. Next, these data are formulated and solved
to determine the weights of different criteria. The weights of the alternatives with respect to
different criteria are obtained using the same process. The final scores of the alternatives are
derived by aggregating the weights from different sets of criteria and alternatives, based on which
the best alternative is selected. Overall, the method develops in 6 steps:
1. Determine a set of evaluation criteria
2. Determine the best and worst criteria
3. Find the preference of the best criterion over all the other criteria
4. Find the preference of all the other criteria over the worst criterion
5. Find the optimal weights
6. Determine the final scores of the alternatives

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 11

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
 Although the BWM is a relatively new method, there are numerous studies which have
applied it: for instance, in the social sustainability of supply chains (Ahmadi et al., 2017),
firms’ R&D performance (Salimi and Rezaei, 2018), facility location selection (Kheybari
et al., 2019), green port management (Munim et al., 2020), and automative industries
(Wankhede and Vinodh, 2021).

Data Collection
We identified potentially relevant respondents based on their extensive expertise in
the fields of logistics, supply chain management, international trade, or a combination
of these sectors. We sent the BWM questionnaire to a total of 15 relevant respondents
via email, Zalo (a common social media in Vietnam) and Kakaotalk (a common social
media in South Korea) in April 2022. However, we received only six responses
collected during a period from April to May 2022. The respondents were
knowledgeable practitioners in the field, and their specific areas of expertise, country
of residence, affiliation, years of experience and educational background are shown in
Table 2. Whilst there are only six respondents, in analytical methods, the quality of
the information or observation is more important than the quantity, and such a
sample can generate reliable findings.

Table 2: Overview of the Respondents

Res. Expertise Country Affiliation Experience (Years) Education

1 Logistics Korea Academic 15 PhD
2 Logistics and Vietnam Academic 12 Master
Maritime transport & Industry degree
3 Business Korea Academic 11 PhD
4 Logistics Vietnam Academic 10 PhD
5 Logistics Vietnam Industry 2 Bachelor
degree
6 International Vietnam Industry 7 Bachelor
Trading degree

Empirical Application of BWM

We empirically apply BWM, developed by Jafar (2015) as it is, to choose a suitable mode
of transportation for exporting seafood from Vietnam to China by following the six steps
given below:

Step 1: Determine a set of evaluation criteria

The first step is to determine the evaluation criteria for choosing a suitable mode of
transportation for exporting seafood. As mentioned earlier, we consider three alternatives,
which are air transport, sea transport, and land transport. And we consider seven criteria:
freight, equipment, facility, time, reliability, greener, and safety.

12 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
Step 2: Determine the best and worst criteria
In step 2, respondents were asked to prioritize the best (most important) and the worst
(least important) criteria among the ones considered. We asked the respondents, “Which
of the seven criteria is the most important for choosing a suitable mode of transportation
for exporting seafood from Vietnam to China?” and “Which of the seven criteria is the
least important for choosing a suitable mode of transportation for exporting seafood from
Vietnam to China?”. Out of the six respondents, two indicated that ‘equipment’ is the
most important criterion and two respondents were inclined towards ‘freight’, as indicated
in Table 3. On the other hand, three out of six respondents indicated that ‘environment’
is the least important criterion, as shown in Table 4.

Table 3: Best to Others Vector

Respondent Best Freight Rate Equipment Facility Speed Reliability Environment Safety
1 Reliability 7 6 6 6 1 5 4
2 Equipment 3 1 7 8 8 7 8
3 Equipment 8 1 8 9 9 7 8
4 Freight Rate 1 5 4 7 8 1 7
5 Time 9 8 9 1 6 9 7
6 Freight 1 7 7 8 7 6 7

Table 4: Others to Worst Vector

Respondent Worst Freight Rate Equipment Facility Speed Reliability Environment Safety

1 Safety 7 7 8 9 9 6 1

2 Freight Rate 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

3 Environment 9 9 7 8 7 1 8

4 Environment 9 5 4 7 8 1 7

5 Reliability 3 3 2 3 1 3 2

6 Environment 9 7 7 8 7 1 7

Step 3: Find the preference of the best criterion over all the other criteria
Table 2 presents the best to others criteria vector. To obtain this, respondents ranked the
importance of the best criterion over all other criteria using a 1-9 scale.
Therefore, the best to other vectors is expressed as follows:

A B  a b1 , a b 2 , ..., a bn  ...(1)

where abj indicates the preference of the best criterion B over the criterion j.

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 13

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
Step 4: Find the preference of all the other criteria over the worst criterion
Table 3 presents the others worst vector. Respondents ranked the importance of all other
criteria over the worst criterion on a scale of 1 to 9. Hence, we can express others having
the worst vector as:

A w  a 1w , a 2w , ..., a nw  ...(2)

Here, ajw indicates the preference of the criterion j over the worst criterion W.

Step 5: Find the optimal weights

In this step, we find the optimal weights by minimizing the maximum absolute differences
w b  a bj w j , w j  a jw w w  for all j. The optimal weights are found and expressed as a
minimization problem as follows:

 

min  max w b  a bj w j , w j  a jw w w
 j

 
s.t  j
w j 1
...(3)
w j  0 , for all j

Following Equation (3), we can proceed by solving a linear optimization problem as

shown in Equation (4).
min L
min L
s.t.

w b  a bj w j   L , for all j
w j  a jw w w   L , for all

w j
j 1

w j  0, for all j ...(4)

 
By solving Equation (4), we obtain the optimal weights w1* , w*2 , ..., w*n and the optimal
value of the consistency ratio expressed as L. In the BMW approach, the consistency ratio
is output-based, with a threshold of 0.459 (Liang et al., 2020) for eight criteria. In this study,
the ratio of each respondent is less than 0.4298, and the average consistency ratio is 0.2503.
The optimal weights of each of the criteria and the consistency ratio L*of each
respondent are presented in Table 5.

14 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
 Table 5: Optimal Weights (Full Sample)
Respondent Freight Equipment Facility Time Reliability Environment Safety L*
Rate
1 0.094 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.407 0.131 0.040 0.2484
2 0.163 0.407 0.093 0.081 0.081 0.093 0.081 0.2442
3 0.096 0.515 0.096 0.085 0.085 0.038 0.085 0.2523
4 0.365 0.136 0.170 0.097 0.085 0.050 0.097 0.3149
5 0.079 0.089 0.079 0.499 0.096 0.079 0.079 0.2103
6 0.471 0.100 0.100 0.088 0.100 0.040 0.100 0.2315
Mean 0.211 0.226 0.108 0.160 0.143 0.072 0.080 0.2503

As the consistency ratio in BWM is output-based, a L up to 0.4298 is acceptable for

studies with seven criteria (Liang et al., 2019). In this study, the ratio of each respondent
is less than 0.4298, and the average consistency ratio is 0.2503.

Step 6: Determine the final scores of alternatives

In step 6, we find the scores of the three alternatives for the selection of the preferred
mode of transportation for cold chain logistics between China and Vietnam. Hence, we
need to assess the priority scores under each alternative. Respondents were asked to rank
the importance of each alternative under each criterion using a 1-9 Likert scale.

Table 6: Importance of Alternatives Under Each Criterion (Respondent 2)

Alternative/Criteria Freight Rate Equipment Facility Speed Reliability Environment Safety

Air Transport 1 5 6 7 8 8 8
Sea Transport 8 7 6 7 6 8 7
Land Transport 6 7 7 6 7 5 7

Table 6 presents the preference scores from respondent number 2 as an example of the
procedure that was followed. In the next step, we normalized the values in Table 7 through a
linear normalization approach by dividing each value by its column-wise maximum value.
The last step of the process is to multiply the normalized values obtained in Table 7
by their respective weights. Then, the final scores are obtained by summing up the scores
in each row (Table 8).
The results of the process can be expressed as follows:


n
Zi  w j X ijnorm
j 1

In step (5), represents the value of alternative i and X ijnorm expresses the normalized
values of the criterion j under the alternative i. The same calculation is then repeated for

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 15

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
 Table 7: Normalized Values (Respondent 2)
Alternative/Criteria Freight Rate Equipment Facility Speed Reliability Environment Safety
Weights 0.162 0.406 0.093023 0.081 0.081 0.093 0.081
Air Transport 0.125 0.714 0.857143 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sea Transport 1.00 1.00 0.857143 1.00 0.750 1.00 0.875
Land Transport 0.750 1.00 1.00 0.857 0.875 0.625 0.875

Table 8: Priority Values of Alternatives (Respondent 2)

Alternative/ Freight Equipment Facility Speed Reliability Environment Safety Overall
Criteria Rate
Air Transport 0.020349 0.290698 0.079734 0.081395 0.081395 0.093023 0.081395 0.727990
Sea Transport 0.162791 0.406977 0.079734 0.081395 0.061047 0.093023 0.071221 0.956188
Land Transport 0.122093 0.406977 0.093023 0.069767 0.071221 0.058140 0.071221 0.892442

each of the respondents and the results are shown in Table 9. Overall, ‘land transport’
(0.909) is the preferred mode of transport for exporting seafood from Vietnam to China,
followed by ‘air transport’ (0.861) and ‘sea transport’ (0.848).

Table 9: Priorities in Transport Mode Selection (Full Sample)

Respondent Air Sea Land

1 0.799 0.950 1.00
2 0.727 0.956 0.892
3 1.00 1.00 1.00
4 0.659 0.837 0.871
5 1.00 0.400 0.745
6 0.984 0.944 0.947
Mean 0.861 0.848 0.909

Previously, in Table 8, we presented the priority score of each transportation

alternative under each of the criteria for respondent 2. To find the aggregate priorities of
all respondents, we calculate the average scores of respondents, as shown in Table 10.
Under the three alternatives, 'equipment' is the most important criterion, and 'land
transport' is the most suitable mode of transport.
Finally, the aggregate priorities of the sample are found by taking each respondent's
score and obtaining an average. The results are illustrated in Table 10.

16 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
 Table 10: Priority of Transport Mode Selection Under Each Criterion
(Full Sample Aggregate Level)
Alternative/ Freight Equipment Facility Time Reliability Environment Safety Average
Criteria Rate
Air 0.138 0.198 0.091 0.150 0.134 0.070 0.078 0.123
Sea 0.202 0.203 0.086 0.108 0.122 0.064 0.059 0.121
Land 0.190 0.214 0.106 0.137 0.130 0.062 0.066 0.129

In the last step, to find the aggregate priorities of all respondents, we took the
individual scores and calculated an average. The results are presented in Table 9. The port
cooperation model is prioritized under several criteria, including environmental
sustainability, risk management, counterbalancing carriers’ power, operational performance,
and know-how and competencies.

Discussion
Based on the findings of the study, the analysis showed that respondents, overall,
prioritized the ‘land transport’ alternative for exporting seafood from Vietnam to China
(mean of 0.909). One of the reasons for this choice may be the relative flexibility and
convenience of road transport between Vietnam and China. Vietnam has a highway that
runs from north to south, making it easy for commodities from various provinces to
congregate and be distributed to the north side of the country. In this study, we used the
Huu Nghi border checkpoint as an example; however, there are numerous additional
international border checkpoints in Vietnam’s northern provinces, such as Muong
Khuong, Dong Dang, Mong Cai, and others, all of which are convenient for exporting
frozen goods to China. Secondly, exporting seafood from Vietnam to China by road only
takes about 1 to 3 days (Phan, 2019), so the quality and shelf life of cargo should be
guaranteed given the faster transit time and less likelihood of supply chain disruptions en
route. In terms of selected criteria, under ‘land transport’, equipment (0.214) and facility
(0.106) were the prioritized criteria underlying the importance of ensuring temperature
control and end-to-end product freshness for the whole cold supply chain.
The second preferred alternative was ‘air transport’ (mean 0.861). While carrying goods by
air is linked to the advantage of speed (and it is especially important to assure the quality and
freshness of seafood), the cost impact can be significant, especially when transporting non-
premium seafood products. Under ‘air transport’, the most important criteria were identified
as time (0.150), reliability (0.134), environment (0.070), and safety (0.078). This alternative
showed the highest number of preferred criteria, indicating that, in different circumstances,
there are several factors perceived as positive for transporting seafood via air transport.
Surprisingly, the ‘sea transport’ alternative was the least preferred alternative (mean
0.848). While a cheaper ton per mile of freight is a major advantage of shipping transport,

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 17

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
China has been heavily affected by supply chain disruption during the Covid-19 outbreak
(Wang et al., 2020; and Tang et al., 2021). In particular, due to the zero-Covid policy during
the period in which data was collected for this study, major Chinese ports (Shanghai,
Shenzhen, and Ningbo) experienced prolonged issues with congestion, lockdowns, and
unpredictability, impacting global supply chains (Geale, 2022). For example, in March
2022, there were 34 vessels waiting to dock in the port of Shenzhen compared to the same
period in 2021, indicating the severity of supply chain shocks for logistics operators and
cargo owners (Brock, 2022). Furthermore, another issue affecting the cold supply chain is
that refrigerated containers are, for the investigated period, in short supply in Vietnam,
and freight rates have significantly increased, making sea shipping from Vietnam to China
a less attractive option to shippers. Transporting a refrigerated container used to cost
VND30 to 40 mn, but now it costs VND200 mn (PV, 2022). The only criterion that was
preferred under the ‘sea transport’ alternative was freight rate (0.202).

Conclusion
Cold chain plays a vital role in food safety, hygiene, health, and the environment. As the
world’s dependence on the processed food sector has grown due to changing lifestyles,
urbanization, increased purchasing power, and population growth, the demand for
specialized cold chain equipment has risen. Furthermore, the cross-border trade in seafood
has increased the demand for such temperature-controlled storage units. This paper,
through an application of the bets-worst method, assessed the relative importance of some
factors influencing the choice of a cold chain mode of transport for exporting seafood
from Vietnam to China. Reducing operational costs, optimizing cargo exporting transport
procedures, and increasing the reliability of equipment in use as well as transit time are
challenging yet important elements of consideration for managerial decision. This study
presented seven criteria for three modes of transportation, namely, ‘air transportation’, ‘sea
transportation’ and ‘land transportation’. The findings of the study reveal that ‘land
transportation’ is the best choice to export seafood from Vietnam to China, taking into
account the impact of the Covid-19 outbreak, and ‘equipment’ is the most important
factor affecting the transport mode selection. Transporting by road to China appears to
be a suitable transportation option as it helps in minimizing the likelihood of supply chain
delays, compared, for instance, to ‘sea transport,’ and is seen as a more competitive option
compared to ‘air transport’. In addition, to meet the increasingly strict food safety
standards of the export market and reduce losses in the supply chain of fresh products,
businesses need to focus on upgrading their equipment to operate effectively along the
cold supply chain. Our research study findings point to specific factors in the cold supply
chain, and in particular the use of land transport, which is seen as the most reliable mode
of transport. Hence, Vietnam needs to invest in infrastructure, focusing on the
development of both the expressway system and the utility network. In addition,
Vietnam’s cross-border trade process, including time and cost, still needs significant
improvement. Cross-border transaction costs, including compliance costs and import and

18 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
export costs, should be more competitive in the region. Moreover, businesses need to
prepare themselves with solid human resources, along with government support, to not
only exploit effectively but also contribute to promoting the growth of the cold chain and
develop trade activities.
The relatively small sample size of six respondents could be considered a limitation of
this study. On the other hand, the best-worst method does not require a large sample size,
especially when the respondents are highly experienced and knowledgeable about the
surveyed theme. Future studies can focus on larger sample sizes and more respondents from
various stakeholder groups, such as maritime academies, ship-owners, ship managers, ship
financing companies, seafarers, insurance companies, regulatory bodies, and so on, to
provide a broader stakeholder perspective on the cold supply chain. Furthermore, the
proposed MCDM framework may be expanded by adding other relevant criteria and modes
of transportation alternatives. 

References
1. Aday S and Aday M S (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain”,
Food Quality and Safety, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 167-180.
2. Ahmadi H B, Kusi-Sarpong S and Rezaei J (2017), “Assessing the Social Sustainability
of Supply Chains using Best Worst Method”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 126, pp. 99-106.
3. Awasthi A and Chauhan S S (2011), “Using AHP and Dempster–Shafer Theory for
Evaluating Sustainable Transport Solutions”, Environmental Modelling & Software,
Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 787-796.
4. Azimi T, Franzel L and Probst N (2017), “Seizing Market Shaping Opportunities for
Vaccine Cold Chain Equipment”, Vaccine, Vol. 35, No. 17, pp. 2260-2264.
5. Baxter G and Kourousis K (2015), “Temperature Controlled Aircraft Unit Load
Devices: The Technological Response to Growing Gobal Air Cargo Cool Chain
Requirements”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 10, No. 1,
pp. 157-172.
6. Bell M G (2000), “A Game Theory Approach to Measuring the Performance
Reliability of Transport Networks”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological,
Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 533-545.
7. Berrittella M, Certa A, Enea M and Zito P (2007), “An Analytic Hierarchy Process
for the Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts”.
8. Blagojeviæ A, Veskoviæ S, Kasalica S et al. (2020), “The Application of the Fuzzy
AHP and DEA for Measuring the Efficiency of Freight Transport Railway
Undertakings”, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1-23.

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 19

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
 9. Brock J (2022), “COVID Curbs Bite at Chinese Ports, Threatening Global Supply
Chains”. Retrieved on August 22, 2022 from https://www.reuters.com/business/
covid-curbs-bite-chinese-ports-threatening-global-supply-chains-2022-03-16/
10. Cakýlcý C (2020), “Conceptual Framework Model for Performance Improvement
of a Cold Chain Management in Supply Chain by Using Fuzzy Dematel
Method”.
11. Castelein B, Van Duin R and Geerlings H (2019), “Identifying Dominant Stakeholder
Perspectives on Sustainability Issues in Reefer Transportation”, A Q-Method Study in
the Port of Rotterdam, Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 12, p. 3425.
12. Chen X and Garcia R J (2016), “Economic Sanctions and Trade Diplomacy:
Sanction-Busting Strategies, Market Distortion and Efficacy of China’s Restrictions
on Norwegian Salmon Imports”, China Information, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 29-57.
13. Chukwu O A and Adibe M (2022), “Quality Assessment of Cold Chain Storage
Facilities for Regulatory and Quality Management Compliance in a Developing
Country Context”, The International Journal of Health Planning and Management,
Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 930-943.
14. D’agostini E, Jo S, Nam H S and Kim Y S (2022), “Q-Method and its Application
in Clustering Hong Kong Shippers’ Selection Criteria of Ocean Carriers”, Research
in Transportation Business & Management, pp. 100785.
15. Deloitte (2022), “The Growing Opportunity in Air Cargo”. Retrieved on August 19,
2022 from The Growing Opportunity in Air Cargo – Laying a Runway for
Collaboration Across Canada’s Aviation Ecosystem (deloitte.com)
16. Derens E, Palagos B and Guilpart J (2006), “The Cold Chain of Chilled Products
Under Supervision in France”, In 13th World Congress of Food Science and
Technology, pp. 823-823.
17. Derens-Bertheau E, Osswald V, Laguerre O and Alvarez G (2015), “Cold Chain of
Chilled Food in France”, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 52, pp. 161-167.
18. Eegunjobi R and Ngepah N (2022), “The Determinants of Global Value Chain
Participation in Developing Seafood-Exporting Countries”, Fishes, Vol. 7, No. 4,
p. 186.
19. FAO (2017), “FAO Support to the WTO Negotiations at the 11th Ministerial
Conference in Buenos Aires”, Trade in Fish and Fishery Products, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
20. Geale S (2022), “How China’s Zero-Covid Policy is affecting Global Supply Chains”.
Retrieved September 11, 2022 from How China’s Zero-Covid Policy is Affecting
Global Supply Chains | Proxima (proximagroup.com)

20 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
21. Gogou E, Katsaros G, Derens E et al. (2015), “Cold Chain Database Development and
Application as A Tool for the Cold Chain Management and Food Quality
Evaluation”, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 52, pp. 109-121.
22. Grand View Research (2022), Cold Chain Market Analysis by Type (Storage,
Transportation, Monitoring Components), Packaging (Product, Materials), Equipment
(Storage Equipment, Transportation Equipment), Application (Fruits & Vegetables,
Fruit Pulp & Concentrates, Dairy Products, Fish, Meat, & Seafood, Processed Food,
Pharmaceuticals, Bakery & Confectionary) – Global Industry Revenue Estimation
and Demand Forecast to 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/
press-release/global-cold-chain-market on February 18, 2023.
23. Heard B R and Miller S A (2016), “Critical Research Needed to Examine the
Environmental Impacts of Expanded Refrigeration on the Food System”, Environmental
Science & Technology, Vol. 50, No. 22, pp. 12060-12071.
24. Jafar Rezaei (2015), “Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method”, Omega,
Vol. 53, pp. 49-57, ISSN 0305-0483.
25. Johansen U, Bull-Berg H, Vik L H et al. (2019), “The Norwegian Seafood Industry–
Importance for the National Economy”, Marine Policy, Vol. 110, p. 103561.
26. Joshi R, Banwet D K and Shankar R (2011), “A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS Based
Benchmarking Framework for Performance Improvement of a Cold Chain”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 10170-10182.
27. Kaewfak K, Huynh V N, Ammarapala V and Charoensiriwath C (2019), “A Fuzzy AHP-
TOPSIS Approach for Selecting the Multimodal Freight Transportation Routes”, International
Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Sciences, November, pp. 28-46, Springer, Singapore.
28. Kaewfak K, Huynh V N, Ammarapala V and Ratisoontorn N (2020), “A Risk
Analysis Based on a Two-Stage Model of Fuzzy AHP-DEA for Multimodal Freight
Transportation Systems, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 153756-153773.
29. Kheybari S, Kazemi M and Rezaei J (2019), “Bioethanol Facility Location Selection
Using Best-Worst Method”, Applied Energy, Vol. 242, pp. 612-623.
30. Kitinoja L (2013), “Use of Cold Chains for Reducing Food Losses in Developing
Countries”, Population, Vol. 6, No. 1.23, pp. 5-60.
31. Kola-Korolo O, Iboma G O A A, Olonire O and Tayo A (2010), “The Impact of
health Facility Monitoring on Cold Chain Management Practices in Lagos, Nigeria”,
Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 78-81.
32. Kumar N, Tyagi M and Sachdeva A (2021), “Estimation of Critical Key
Performance Factors of Food Cold Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP Approach”,
In Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, pp. 701-711, Springer,
Singapore.

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 21

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
33. Kumru M and Kumru P Y (2014), “Analytic Hierarchy Process Application in
Selecting the Mode of Transport for a Logistics Company”, Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 48, No. 8, pp. 974-999.
34. Laguerre O, Duret S, Hoang H M and Flick D (2014), “Using Simplified Models of
Cold Chain Equipment to Assess the Influence of Operating Conditions and
Equipment Design on Cold Chain Performance”, International journal of Refrigeration,
Vol. 47, pp. 120-133.
35. Liang F, Brunelli M and Rezaei J (2019, December 20), “Consistency Issues in the Best
Worst Method: Measurements and Thresholds”, Omega, from https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048319307479
36. Lim P H (2022), “China’s Strict Zero-Covid Policy Creates Supply Chain Chaos”,
VOA. Retrieved on May 13, 2022 from https://www.voanews.com/a/china-s-strict-
zero-covid-policy-creates-supply-chain-chaos-/6591227.html
37. Mack M, Dittmer P, Veigt M et al. (2014), “Quality Tracing in Meat Supply Chains”,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, Vol. 372, No. 2017, pp. 20130308.
38. Mai N T T, Margeirsson B, Margeirsson S et al. (2012), “Temperature Mapping of
Fresh Fish Supply Chains–Air and Sea Transport”, Journal of Food Process Engineering,
Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 622-656.
39. McKellar R C, LeBlanc D I, Rodríguez F P and Delaquis P (2014), “Comparative
Simulation of Escherichia coli O157: H7 Behaviour in Packaged Fresh-cut lettuce
Distributed in a Typical Canadian Supply Chain in the Summer and Winter”, Food
Control, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 192-199.
40. Mercier S, Villeneuve S, Mondor M and Uysal I (2017), “Time–Temperature
Management Along the Food Cold Chain: A Review of Recent Developments”,
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 647-667.
41. Mittal N and McClung D (2016), “Shippers’ Changing Priorities in Port Selection
Decision-A Survey Analysis Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, Journal of the
Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 55, No. 1424-2017-1755, pp. 65-81.
42. Munim Z H, Sornn-Friese H and Dushenko M (2020), “Identifying the Appropriate
Governance Model for Green Port Management: Applying Analytic Network Process
and Best-Worst Methods to Ports in the Indian Ocean Rim”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 268, p. 122156.
43. Nicholson A, Schmöcker J D, Bell M G and Iida Y (2003), “Assessing Transport
Reliability: Malevolence and User Knowledge”, The Network Reliability of
Transport, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
44. Pambudi N A, Sarifudin A, Gandidi I M and Romadhon R (2022), “Vaccine Cold
Chain Management and Cold Storage Technology to Address the Challenges of
Vaccination Programs”, Energy Reports, Vol. 8, pp. 955-972.

22 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
45. Pelletier W (2010), “Air Transport of Horticultural Products: A Thermal Analysis”,
PhD Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., USA.
46. Phan M G (2019), Kinh nghim xut Khu Hàng Sang Trung quc. Th Gii Hi Nhp, May
27. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://thegioihoinhap.vn/kinh-doanh/doanh-
nghiep/kinh-nghiem-xuat-khau-hang-sang-trung-quoc/
47. PV (2022), Doanh Nghip Gp Khóvìgiá Container lnhoýng Bin Tãng Cao, Doanh
Nhân Sài Gòn Online, January 6. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from https://
doanhnhansaigon.vn/thoi-su-trong-nuoc/doanh-nghiep-gap-kho-vi-gia-container-
lanh-duong-bien-tang-cao-1108930.html
48. Salimi N and Rezaei J (2018), “Evaluating Firms’ R&D Performance Using Best Worst
Method”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 66, pp. 147-155.
49. Shen L, Zhu G, Qian X et al. (2019), “Risk Analysis of Cold Logistics Chains in
Maritime Transportation”, In 2019 5th International Conference on Transportation
Information and Safety (ICTIS), July, pp. 1152-1162, IEEE.
50. Singh A, Gurtu A and Singh R K (2020), “Selection of Sustainable Transport System:
A Case Study”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 32,
No. 1, pp. 100-113, https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2020-0059
51. Soza-Parra J, Raveau S, Muñoz J C and Cats O (2019), “The Underlying Effect of
Public Transport Reliability on Users’ Satisfaction”, Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, Vol. 126, No. C, pp. 83-93.
52. Straume H M, Anderson J L, Asche F and Gaasland I (2020), “Delivering the Goods:
The Determinants of Norwegian Seafood Exports”, Marine Resource Economics,
Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 83-96.
53. Tan H (2021), “The Shipping Crisis has Gotten so Bad that Some Companies are
Chartering Air Cargo Planes for $2 million or More for a Single Flight”. Retrieved
on August 16, 2022 from Shipping Crisis Is so Bad Some Companies Are Chartering
Air Cargo Planes for $2 Million (businessinsider.com)
54. Tang C H, Chin C Y and Lee Y H (2021), “Coronavirus Disease Outbreak and Supply
Chain Disruption: Evidence from Taiwanese Firms in China”, Research in International
Business and Finance, Vol. 56, p. 101355.
55. Tanner D and Smale N (2005), “Sea Transportation of Fruits and Vegetables: An
Update”, Stewart Postharvest Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
56. Tanner D, Amos N and Smale N (2004), “Shipping in Containers-Temperature
Variability and Implications for Quality”, In Proceedings of Pacific 2004 International
Maritime Conference, January, pp. 460-468, Pacific 2004 International Maritime
Conference Managers, Sydney.

Cold Chain Transportation Modes for Seafood Supply Chain: 23

A Case Study of Vietnam-China Trade
57. The State Council (2022), The State Council; The People’s Republic of China,
Accessed on September 20, 2022 from China’s Foreign Trade Hits New High in 2021
(www.gov.cn)
58. Tian Y, Xie Q and Wang Z (2019), “Safety Assessment of Fresh Agricultural Products
Cold Chain Logistics Based on AHP-Entropy Weight Method”, Storage and Process,
Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 185-190.
59. US Department of Agriculture (2019), What Foods are Perishable? Retrieved on May
15, 2022, from What Foods are Perishable? (usda.gov)
60. Verma S and Singh H (2019), “Vacuum Insulation in Cold Chain Equipment: A
Review”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 161, pp. 232-241.
61. Vietnam Customs (2022), Vietnam Customs. Accessed on September 17, 2022 from
Tng cc Hi quan (customs.gov.vn)
62. Wang M and Zhao L (2021), “Cold Chain Investment and Pricing Decisions in a
fresh Food Supply Chain”, International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 28,
No. 2, pp. 1074-1097.
63. Wang Y, Wang J and Wang X (2020), “COVID-19, Supply Chain Disruption and
China’s Hog Market: A Dynamic Analysis”, China Agricultural Economic Review,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 427-443.
64. Wankhede V A and Vinodh S (2021), “State of the Art Review on Industry 4.0 in
Manufacturing with the Focus on Automotive Sector”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 692-732.
65. Yang F and Cai J M (2013), “The Analysis of Fresh Food Safety Risks from the cold
Chain Logistics System”, In The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Engineering Management, pp. 197-207, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
66. Yang Y C and Lin H Y (2017), “Cold Supply Chain of Longline Tuna and Transport
Choice”, Maritime Business Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 349-366.
67. Yedla S and Shrestha R M (2003), “Multi-Criteria Approach for the Selection of
Alternative Options for Environmentally Sustainable Transport System in Delhi”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 717-729.
68. Zhang X, Lam J S L and Iris Ç (2020), “Cold Chain Shipping Mode Choice with
Environmental and Financial Perspectives”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 87, p. 102537.

Reference # 34J-2023-03-01-01

24 The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.