International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20
Exploring green logistics practices in freight
transport and logistics: a study of biomethane use
in Sweden
Mary Catherine Osman, Maria Huge-Brodin, Jonas Ammenberg & Jenny
Karlsson
To cite this article: Mary Catherine Osman, Maria Huge-Brodin, Jonas Ammenberg & Jenny
Karlsson (2022): Exploring green logistics practices in freight transport and logistics: a study of
biomethane use in Sweden, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, DOI:
10.1080/13675567.2022.2100332
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2100332
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 10 Aug 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1293
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2100332
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Exploring green logistics practices in freight transport and
logistics: a study of biomethane use in Sweden
Mary Catherine Osmana,c, Maria Huge-Brodin
a
, Jonas Ammenbergb and Jenny Karlssonc
a
Logistics and Quality Management, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; bEnvironmental Technology and
Management, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; cSwedish National Road and Transport Research Institute,
Linköping, Sweden
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Logistics networks need to conform to arising market trends and public
requirements for greening freight transport through a series of Green
Logistics Practices (GLPs). This study sets out to explore the use of
fossil-free fuels as a GLP and possible influence on business strategy
and system design. A literature review was conducted which concluded
that literature about the use of fossil-free fuels is limited. An explorative
interview study was conducted to further explore the use of
biomethane among actors in logistics networks. Customers increasingly
request green freight transport typically accepting moderately higher
prices for green transport. Development of green logistics services is
predominately driven by corporate stakeholders and internal initiatives,
while public regulation appeared to have a weak influence. The study
revealed new insights into how GLPs can relate to each other.
Received 12 January 2022
Accepted 7 July 2022
KEYWORDS
Biomethane; freight
transport; green logistics
practice; fossil-free fuel;
explorative study
1. Introduction
Business trends mirror the requirements of customers and development of technology of the current age. The growing awareness of the impact human activities have on the environment has led
customers, businesses, and governments to shift mindset resulting in changes in market trends,
business operations and government involvement as described in European Commission’s 2018
report A Clean Planet for All (European Commission 2018). Transportation has a major environmental impact, where freight transport is considered as challenging to improve (McKinnon 2018).
In the supply chain context, logistics activities have increased dramatically with the globalisation of
economies thereby increasing stress for creating and implementing sustainable business practices
across all actors within the logistics industry (Centobelli, Cerchione, and Esposito 2017). In the European Union, road transportation is consistently responsible for most of the transportation industry’s
environmentally negative effects (e.g. CO2 emissions, shipping less than truckload (LTL), noise pollution, possible material waste from packaging), hence stakeholders in the freight and logistics industry have focused on methods to minimise these effects, such as overall system design, eco-driving,
collaborative projects, alternative propulsion technology, fossil-free fuels, route optimisation, or
more sustainable packaging (Martinsen and Huge-Brodin 2014; Pålsson and Hellström 2016; Pieters
et al. 2012). These methods have been labelled differently over time but have lately been referred to as
Green Logistics Practices (GLPs) (Jazairy and von Haartman 2020). Although climate challenges may
CONTACT Mary Catherine Osman
mary.catherine.osman@vti.se
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
take centre stage in certain debates, GLPs promote a wider understanding of environmental sustainability. The wide range of GLPs include measures relating to logistics, technical considerations, behavioural matters and the selection of fuel and its consequences.
Transportation – freight transport in particular – is still reliant on fossil fuels. As stakeholder
opinions change, abandoning fossil fuels for fossil-free fuels is of particular interest in creating
environmentally sustainable supply chains (European Commission 2018). Several alternatives to
fossil-fuels have been suggested such as different manners of electrification, liquid biofuels and biomethane (McKinnon 2018). However, the required transition from today’s fossil-fuel transport will
take time thus all available alternatives should be considered. The freight transport system and its
actors can be illustrated through studying how the scope of GLPs may be affected when implementing fossil-free fuels.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the transition from fossil fuels to fossil-free fuels in freight transport
through the prism of GLPs.
With this background and current challenges, the first item to address is how GLPs are represented in literature on logistics systems in relation to fossil-free fuel and in relation to actors
in the supply chain.
RQ1: Which GLPs are used and suggested in logistics literature for designing more environmentally sustainable logistics systems, and what is the role of fossil-free fuel?
Supply chain actors are many, such as freight forwarders and hauliers – logistics service providers (LSPs) – and producers as well as suppliers – shippers (Huge-Brodin and Sweeney 2021).
While their challenges and drivers when adopting solutions based on fossil-free fuels may differ,
it is imperative to explore different perspectives. Therefore, the second research question reads:
RQ2: How do different actors experience various drivers when changing from traditional to fossil-free fuel in
their freight transport and logistics systems?
GLPs are often described in their general meaning and from a systems perspective. Exceptions
include Jazairy and von Haartman (2020), who frame their discussion based on shippers’ perspective, and Martinsen and Huge-Brodin (2014) who discuss GLPs from both the LSPs’ and the shippers’ perspectives. Shifting to fossil-free fuels can itself be a GLP but may have an impact on other
GLPs as well, thus affecting the operations, finances and offerings from the involved actors. The
third research question hence reads:
RQ3: How are GLPs influenced from changing to fossil-free fuels among actors in the supply chain?
Among the various alternative fossil-free fuels, biomethane was selected for in-depth study. Biomethane can, depending on choice of substrate, be one of the best options for fossil-free logistics.
Contrary to electrical solutions, biomethane is already available for heavy freight transport, and
vehicles using biomethane may also in the absence of biomethane use natural gas hence the access
to fuel infrastructure is not as limited as for electric vehicles. As such biomethane can be a fuel for
present use enabling a fast transition to fossil-free fuels. Also in the future, biomethane may be an
alternative for fossil-free freight transport in areas with restricted access to electricity (Ammenberg
2020 ).
The remainder of the paper structure is as follows: methods, a literature review focused on GLPs,
empirical findings and analysis, and conclusions with suggestions for future research.
2. Research design
A mixed-method approach was applied to answer the RQs. The researchers began by conducting a
systematic literature review to understand the research landscape and gain a better grasp of the
challenges in the field. After an analysis of the literature which concluded there is a lack in the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
3
logistics literature relating to fossil-free fuels, the researchers moved ahead and conducted an interview study with selected actors from the supply and transport provision chain. Below, the literature
study, the interview study and the analysis procedure are described in more detail.
2.1. Literature review procedure
While rigorous in structure, the results of a systematic literature review enable researchers to confidently describe the current research and justify that knowledge is missing. The researchers chose to
follow the six steps designed by Durach, Kembro, and Wieland (2017), as visually displayed in
Figure 1, to structure the process. Inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1) were applied to streamline the literature selection resulting in the final collection of literature. To capture freight transport
in the supply chain, the search terms ‘freight’ and ‘transport’ were chosen. As not all utilise the term,
GLP, broadening of the search terms to include all possible environmental initiatives lead to the
inclusion of ‘sustain*/green/ environment* logistics’ in the search string. Finally, the researchers
wanted to identify action of found GLPs which led to the inclusion of several action-related
terms. The following search string was compiled and performed in Scopus in March 2021:
TITLE-ABS (freight OR transport) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (transition* OR adopt* OR shift* OR
challeng* OR drive* OR motivat* OR implement* OR enact* OR switch*) AND TITLE-ABS (sustain* OR green OR environment* AND logistics)
The findings of the articles were categorised by the researchers based upon actors, drivers and,
finally, into 4 different categories of GLPs: Business Strategy, Logistics System, Social and Energy &
Emissions. The characterisation of GLPs categories was inspired by (Castelein, van Duin, and Geerlings 2019) and (Evangelista 2014), and was the result of iterations between the authors.
Each category was analyzed separately, responding to RQ1. The categories were all discussed in
relation to biomethane as the focal fossil – free fuel.
2.2. Literature overview
2.2.1. Literature landscape
The 162 articles included from the literature search span a period of 25 years displaying spurges in
publications correlating with the dates of major international climate summits such as the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997 and Paris Climate Accord in 2015. Most of the articles were published between
2016 and 2020. While there is research represented from all continents, Europe, with 61 articles
(38%), is the largest contributing continent.
As the literature search was conducted in the first quarter of 2021, it is difficult to determine the
representation of articles to be published during 2021. The spread of articles published per year is
illustrated below in Figure 2.
2.2.2. Methods utilised in collected literature
Qualitative and quantitative studies as well as literature reviews are represented in the literature
sample (Figure 3). Case studies and simulations were the most common methods utilised. The
Figure 1. Six steps of a SLR & literature selection progression (Durach, Kembro, and Wieland 2017).
4
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Table 1. Literature inclusion & exclusion criteria.
Inclusion
Peer-reviewed journal articles
Articles written in English
Studies focusing on actions and practices to create more
environmentally sustainable freight transport
Exclusion
Documents and reports from governments or organisations that
have not been peer-reviewed
Articles written in other languages
Studies focusing on humanitarian logistics, food perishability,
tourism, public health, agriculture, passenger vehicles and public
transportation, city and urban planning
methods differ among the case studies with the majority as multiple-case studies. Literature reviews
hold a good representation in the sampled literature. Two included literature reviews discuss
alternative fuels but from the producers’ perspective (Gold and Seuring 2010; Roddy 2013), none
of the included literature reviews actually investigate implementation and subsequent challenges
of fossil-free fuels in the supply chain. This broad range of methodology enables a multitude of
topics, viewpoints, and results to be reported, allowing the researchers to understand the problem
on a deeper level.
2.3. Interview study
As described in the introduction, biomethane was chosen as a focal alternative fuel. Beside its
potential role to decrease the use of fossil fuels in freight transport, biomethane has regional importance for East Sweden where the research group is located. This means that existing solutions are
comparatively well-developed, which may positively influence the actors’ perceptions of using
biomethane.
In order to respond to RQ2 and RQ3 five interviews were held with stakeholders. The first two –
with one Forwarder and one Fuel supplier, were explorative and semi-structured, since the field is
novel and research results are lacking (Bryman and Bell 2007). Based on the results from these
interviews, three more interviews were conducted: two with hauliers – both contracted by the forwarder; and one with a shipper – a customer of the forwarder. The latter three interviews were also
semi-structured, however, less so than the first two interviews. The actors were selected based on
their practical experience from biomethane for heavy freight transport.
The interviews were recorded, and the findings were documented by the researchers. Two
researchers were present at each interview. The respondents were given the opportunity to control
and adjust their responses. Following strict documentation and allowing participants to adjust
responses ensures construct validity Yin 2011).
Figure 2. Number of articles published per year.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
5
Figure 3. Methods represented.
The researchers systemised the interview results in relation to the actors’ drivers for using biomethane, and in relation to how using biomethane affected the other GLPs. In comparison to the
literature review, additional aspects emerged in relation to the drivers.
2.4. Analysis
The conducted analysis aimed to further explore the use of biomethane in relation to freight transport connected to previous literature, hence no analysis technique to bring forth explanation was
applied. The results from the interview study were juxtaposed with the literature review. The Actors
and their respected Drivers were analyzed in parallel per actor. This analysis served to position the
research against prior studies.
Final GLP categories extracted from the literature review were further developed with respect to
the biomethane perspective based on the interviews. For each category, corresponding practices
when using biomethane were related to the literature found from the systematic literature review.
First the analysis was conducted by two of the researchers, secondly the other members of the
research team added their reflections. Such triangulation of analysts allows for validation of the
results by avoiding biases as well as taking advantage of the different perspectives of the analysts
(Patton 2014). Based upon the findings and responses to research questions, a wide set of implication for research and practice were revealed.
3. Literature review on GLPs and fossil-free fuel
The section starts by presenting the actor perspective on GLPs in literature. This is followed by the
result from analyzing the driver suggested by literature for developing green logistics. The final part
of the section describes the GLPs in themselves, and how they are represented in literature.
3.1. Actors
Identifying the main actors from which the research’s perspective comes from or is targeted towards
enables the reader to have a broader perspective of whom assumes investment responsibility and
allows them to shift through potential biases. In this group of literature, three major actors were
realised: supply chain actors, governmental actors, and general stakeholders.
6
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
3.1.1. Actors from supply chain
Some studies hold the perspective from the entire supply chain network hindering an in-depth solution. Investigation of GLPs at an entire supply chain level tends to be very broad and general, such
as building of better infrastructure or optimal routing (Gallo et al. 2017; Kayikci 2021; Zhu, Nowak,
and Erikstad 2014). Certain actors in the supply chain tend to be drawn to certain questions due to
the nature of their role in the supply chain. Freight transporters tend to look toward the trends in
shifting from a traditional mode to a greener one or the introduction of intermodal transportation
(Iannone 2012; Kumar and Anbanandam 2020). The GLPs studied where the perspective stemmed
from Third Party Logistics (3PL) providers centred around minimising costs for all involved parties
(Niu et al. 2018; Tiwari et al. 2021).
3.1.2. Actors from governing bodies
The presence and influence of governments and governing bodies allow the researchers to trace and
understand the geographical research and innovation representation of GLPs. As discussed previously, there is a large amount of research coming from Europe which could be an indicator of
the European governments being an underlying actor (Bressers, de Bruijn, and Dinica 2007).
Few of the articles in this group had the government actors as the sole perspective point, a government perspective was paired with a non-government entity such as freight transporters, shippers or
academic institutions (Beškovnik 2010; Havenga and Simpson 2018; Paddeu et al. 2020). Moving
towards intermodal transportation and placing a greater emphasis on rail transport is seen in
studies spanning over multiple regions or economic stages (Hanaoka and Regmi 2011; Havenga
and Simpson 2018).
3.1.3. Actors from general stakeholder groups
The literature concerning general stakeholders formed no concrete trends. Many of these studies
were broad investigating multiple industries or organisations using one of multiple GLPs (Klumpp
2016). Many of the articles that hold the perspective of multiple stakeholders across industries tend
to discuss more innovative or ‘recent’ developments in GLP such as vehicle electrification and biobased fuels (Cebrat, Karagiannidis, and Papadopoulos 2008; Crawford et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2019).
Citizens of urban areas are recognised as an important stakeholder group in most city logistics
research (Nathanail et al. 2021).
3.2. Drivers of green logistical practices
Globalisation of economies and shifting customer trends created an atmosphere where transportation has become a crutch and force for many industries with their survival depending on its success (Ji and Sun 2017; Zhang et al. 2017). As the development of transportation systems continue,
the importance of balancing profit, stakeholder demands, and environmental effects have increased.
The rise of digitalisation and advancement in technology has brought once regional economies
to the global stage. An increase of logistical activities followed the development of economies, which
in recent years have led towards greener practices as a comprehensive method to reduce costs, market demands and compliance with regulations (Geng et al. 2020; Hakawati et al. 2017; Pålsson and
Kov 2014; Pashkevich et al. 2019). Developing countries, such as China, India and Nigeria, are
taking great strides in implementing GLPs to improve infrastructure, labour market, and reduce
carbon emission congruently strengthening their economies (Dioha and Kumar 2020; Kayikci
2021; Khandelwal 2020; A. Kumar and Anbanandam 2020, 2021; Orji et al. 2019; Wu and Haasis
2018). Players driving the mainstreaming of GLPs are not limited to those in the logistics sector
providing possibilities for collaboration across industries and stakeholders thus promoting greener
business as a norm in the foreseeable future (Laari et al. 2016; Sallnäs and Huge-Brodin 2018).
The customer demand and market trends have positioned sustainable and greener supply chains
as a competitive advantage. Well-implemented GLPs have the possibility to do more for the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
7
organisation than just reduce their climate impact (Fernández Vázquez-Noguerol et al. 2018; Harris
et al. 2011; Lammgård 2012; Lee et al. 2014). Visibility and transparency of the supply chain comes
to the forefront which has in recent years become a customer demand (Evangelista 2014). Cities
grow in population demanding quick, easy last-mile transport that does not contribute to the
amount of traffic in urban areas (Fraske and Bienzeisler 2020). Simultaneously as the e-commerce
sector grows, the demand for a particular level of service is present, creating a difficult situation for
organisations to control the amount of orders while meeting the customer desires to have business
with a green company (Mangina et al. 2020).
3.3. Green logistics practices (GLPs)
Four groups form each to be discussed at a greater detail. Formation of these practice groups stem
from their function or actor enforcement. The four groups are as follows: Business Strategies, Logistics System, Social, and Energy & Emissions.
3.3.1. Business strategy GLPs
The GLPs allotted in this group have the main purpose to promote a more successful overall
business with the unintended benefit of creating a more sustainable system. These practices can
be broken down further into two smaller groups: Competencies and Business Models and Tools.
Competencies: These GLPs lean towards the service provided to their customers, managing the
customer relationship and brand promotion with a sustainability perspective.
. Internal competencies and experiences of collaboration (Sallnäs and Huge-Brodin 2018)
. Conducting research on target market identifying weak points that hinder from reaching sustainable goals (Rakhmangulov et al. 2018)
. Sustainable pricing of logistics services (Kumar et al. 2017)
. Creation of workplace culture and employee support of organisational sustainable goals
(Rodrigues and Kumar 2019)
Business models and tools: As more businesses are moving towards more environmentally friendly
business practices, trends of certain models and tools aiding businesses to create more sustainable business performance have emerged.
. Just-In-Time and Lean practices enable businesses to minimise costs and environmental
impact (Rodrigues and Kumar 2019)
. Integration of a 4PL increases stakeholder value (Mehmann and Teuteberg 2016)
. Circular Economy and sharing economy business models (Khandelwal 2020)
. Logistics Performance Indices (LPI) aid in identifying focus areas (Anser et al. 2020)
. Decision Support Systems (DSS) to create more sustainable logistics (Qaiser et al. 2017)
3.3.2. Logistics system GLPs
The practices included in this category target one or multiple aspects of the logistics system with the
goal of creating a holistically more productive system while reducing its environmental impact.
Three subcategories have been identified within this group, each of which will be discussed further:
Modes & Vehicles, Infrastructure & System Design, and Minimisation & Optimisation.
Modes & vehicles: These practices either encourage a modal change or adjustments in the transport
vehicles attempts of reinventing certain modes to become greener.
. Investigation into efficiency of dry ports as part of an intermodal system (Awad-Núñez et al.
2015; Demir et al. 2019; Eng-Larsson and Kohn 2012)
. Truck Platooning to increase energy efficiency (Paddeu et al. 2020; Pająk and Cyplik 2020)
8
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
.
Longer Heavier vehicles (Rodrigues et al. 2015)
Drones for last mile transport (Kirschstein 2020)
Infrastructure & system design: GLPs that fall into this category change or modify an aspect of the
current infrastructure or network design.
. General modernisation of existing infrastructure (Kayikci 2021)
. Freight villages and inland container terminals (Merlak, Groznik, and Al-Mansour 2019)
. Reverse logistics and centralised logistics providing better cost and service performance possibly minimising carbon emission (Lopes Ferri et al. 2015; Yuchi et al. 2019)
Minimisation & optimisation: This category addresses the practices that concern methods in
which the transport mode utilised can be minimised or optimised in some manner.
. Route optimisation maximising deliveries while minimising fuel use (Zhu, Nowak, and Erikstad 2014)
. Horizontal collaborations by pooling similar orders from different (Tiwari et al. 2021)
. Crowdshipping to utilise free transport capacity (Gatta et al. 2018)
.
3.3.3. Social GLPs
These practices are put into effect by actors that typically have little supply chain knowledge and are
connected to a separate larger body such as government or international legislation. The two practices categorised as Social GLPs are: Policies and Taxation.
Policies: The focus of many policies is the greenification of road transport.
. Reluctancy to adopt policies (Jaller, Otero-Palencia, and Yie-Pinedo 2019)
. Lack of policy addressing freight transport (Stelling 2014)
Taxation: As taxation is typically included in the enactment of policies, little is researched about the
role of taxation in the efforts of creating more sustainable logistics practice norms making it
difficult to separate taxation and policies.
. Alignment of taxes across the supply chain is called for (Henkow and Norrman 2011)
3.3.4. Energy & emissions GLPs
Practices included in this category have the goal of minimising emissions emitted and introducing a
long-term sustainable manner to conduct business. Many of these practices are a result of technical
or innovative progression of previously discussed GLPs. Three subgroups have emerged: Overall
System Solutions, Mode Specific Solutions, and Alternative Fuel Sources.
Overall system solutions: Practices that lie in this group attempt to bring attention towards the
importance of decreasing pollution, conserving energy and decarbonising logistical activities.
. Propose strategy or models rather than concrete solutions (Vasiliauskas, Zinkevičiute, and
Šimonyte 2013)
. Publication and distribution of Carbon Emission Reports (Kalenoja, Kallionpää, and Rantala
2011)
Mode specific solutions: Every mode utilised in transport carries advantages and disadvantages to
its use, these practices attempt to maximise advantages while minimising disadvantages.
. Low carbon emitting vehicles for road transport (Dioha and Kumar 2020)
. Greener road transport in cities (Athena, Seraphim, and Vandelslander 2014)
Alternative fuel sources: Over the years, research has provided multiple alternatives to fossil fuels.
These practices are investigations into which fuels can successfully replace fossil fuels in freight
transport.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
.
.
.
.
9
Sustainable jet fuel (SJF) (Smith et al. 2017)
Wind-powered electricity (Poulsen and Hasager 2016)
Electrification of urban freight fleet (Watrobski et al. 2017)
Bio-based fuels i.e. biomass, torrefied biomass, biogas/biomethane (Crawford et al. 2016; Rehl
and Müller 2011; Thrän et al. 2016)
Among the GLPs mentioned above, the last group addresses alternative fuels – expected to minimise fossil carbon emissions – directly and the results mirror the relatively low interest for this
question in earlier logistics research. Albeit the question of fossil-free fuels – as any other part of
the logistics system – cannot fully be understood in isolation. Other GLPs are closely or indirectly
connected to the fuel-issue, which will be addressed below.
4. Actors’ perspectives on biomethane as alternative fuel
This section presents the findings from the explorative interviews and discusses them in relation to
literature review. First the actors that were interviewed are introduced, and their respective drivers
for using biomethane are discussed. Second the GLPs mentioned in the interviews are presented
and discussed in the context of the actors’ roles and the findings from literature.
4.1. Actors and drivers
The interviewed actors, their network and relation amongst each other are visualised in Figures 4
and 5. The interview study includes five actors with experience using biomethane in road transport.
The Forwarder is the only actor that is included in both networks. Forwarder is an international
freight transport provider with a strong presence in Sweden. It provides freight transport services to
customers by engaging contracted haulier companies, which in turn perform the transport operations. The organisation has strong sustainability goals of reducing carbon emissions by 50% in
2030 compared to their 2006 levels.
Figure 4. A logistics network with actors using biomethane for freight transport.
10
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Figure 5. Logistics network of Forwarder, Haulier 2 and the market.
Customer is a major manufacturer of material handling equipment with a global market presence. Its main production facility lies in the region. Forwarder is Customer’s logistics provider, and
Haulier 1 provides the transport services. Customer’s sustainability work is ambitious and wellintegrated with the internal management systems, for example utilising biomethane as an energy
source for energy intense production. Customer continually strives to identify possible sustainable
solutions for its operations.
Haulier 1 is a regional haulier owning about 37 trucks. Haulier 1 is a transporter while most of
their transports are organised by Forwarder (≈95%). Customer is the largest shipper they serve. All
transports for Customer are operated on biomethane upon their request. Figure 4 displays the
described network using arrows as to indicate communication and flow of goods.
Fuel Supplier is the regional provider of biomethane, owned by one of the municipalities in the
region. It provides biomethane based on organic waste collected from households and various
regional industries (ie animal farming, slaughterhouses). Biomethane is marketed as a climatewise superior energy source, possibly providing the user with a negative carbon emission/output
depending on the process. Fuel Supplier can provide biomethane at a stable price level, which
they consider a unique selling point. Fuel Supplier and Customer collaborate to provide Customer
with a more sustainable operation.
In the second network, Haulier 2 is introduced. Haulier 2 is the largest haulier contracted by
Forwarder, operating solely in the Swedish market. Like Haulier 1, Haulier 2 operates transport
on behalf of Forwarder. Despite being fully owned by Forwarder, Haulier 2 is not preferred by Forwarder over other contracted hauliers and actively collaborates with the other hauliers contracted
by Forwarder. No particular customer of Network 2 was interviewed, but Haulier 2 and Forwarder
discuss terms of the Market which is shown in Figure 5.
In comparison with the findings from the literature review, the interview study focused on actors in
the freight transport industry: two hauliers and one forwarder. Actors from governing bodies were not
part of the study, however, they were mentioned in the interviews when the impact of public policies
was discussed. From the final group of actors identified in the literature review – general stakeholder
groups – one customer within the industry sector was interviewed. In addition, the interview study
included an actor not present in the literature review: the Fuel Supplier. As such the Fuel Supplier is
seldom part of the core actor set-up in general supply chains, however, when alternative fuels are in
focus the fuel supplier plays a crucial role on the network. In relation to previous multi-actor studies
on GLPs in general (Jazairy and von Haartman 2020; Martinsen and Huge-Brodin 2014), this study
has a stronger focus on the transport provision side. The literature findings for freight transport industry suggested that shifting to greener modes and intermodal transportation (Iannone 2012; Kumar and
Anbanandam 2020), alongside a cost focus (Niu et al. 2018; Tiwari et al. 2021) were most addressed. In
this study the intermodal dimension is excluded, as the focus is on road freight.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
11
As seen in the literature, certain drivers promote the implementation of GLPs. Implementation
of GLPs is often considered as a comprehensive method to reduce costs, respond to market demand
and comply with regulations (Geng et al. 2020; Hakawati et al. 2017; Pålsson and Kov 2014; Pashkevich et al. 2019b). These three pillars inspired the interview study, but the categories were slightly
altered after the interviews, see Table 2. The Costs group includes aspects that relate to costs and
does not refer only to financial costs but aspects in the service offering that will force organisations
to change or reevaluate their service offering. The studied actors serve various Markets as well as
Customer demands so analyzation of demand trends of these groups may reveal a common driver
that spans across the entire network. The Regulations driver refers foremost to those laid out by
Swedish government and European Union, additionally any guidelines or expectations set by an
organisation’s board in relation to moving the company towards environmental sustainability.
Table 2 outlines the driver’s presence for each actor.
From these drivers, trends arose amongst the actors. Keeping costs low has been deemphasised
while providing quality service and setting an appropriate price to meet the market demand. The
costs related to biomethane are not as high compared with fossil fuel alternatives. Trucks running
on biomethane do not have the same high demand for investment when compared with electric
vehicles. Fuel supplier can provide biomethane at a stable price in turn creating predictable costs
for production providing price security de-coupled from the oil market price. Nevertheless, costs
appear to diminish in importance according to Customer and Forwarder, but there is an urgency
to keep costs low at both Haulier 1 and 2, and Fuel Supplier. This finding is not reflected in the
literature study, where cost savings were more frequently addressed among 3PLs (Niu et al.
2018; Tiwari et al. 2021) than among transport companies, such as Haulier 1 and 2 (Iannone
2012; Kumar and Anbanandam 2020).
The demands coming from the market may be one of the strongest drivers, as described by all the
respondents. Customers in general are requiring more environmentally sustainable solutions for
logistics services, without pinpointing any particular fuel solution. An exception is Customer
specifically requesting biomethane for freight transport, since they use it for other industrial proposes. All actors report a general increase in environmental sustainability awareness amongst
their customers.
All actors find government regulations, while a present driver, relatively weak and easy to meet.
Forwarder and Customer state that the company’s owners set strong demands that go beyond current government regulations.
The findings above at large confirm the situation described by (Geng et al. 2020; Hakawati et al.
2017; Pålsson and Kov 2014; Pashkevich et al. 2019). It is evident that the three main pillars are
adequate as such for the case of using biomethane for freight transport, however, the cost driver
differs from the general considerations. Using biomethane can contribute to save costs over
time, but costs are not of major importance for neither the actors nor their customers. The
Table 2. How the actors perceive different drivers.
Forwarder
Customer
Haulier 1
Fuel
supplier
Haulier 2
Cost
Time & quality promise,
cost is secondary
Price not a main issue,
allows cost to fluctuate
Cheaper than electric
vehicles
Stable foreseeable costs,
stable fuel price
Market & customer demand
Customers request
sustainable logistics
Customers request
sustainable logistics
Customer requests
biomethane
Increasing among haulier
firms
Environmental
sustainability may
increase cost
Customers request
sustainable logistics,
increasing awareness
Regulations
Strong demands
from owners
Strong demands
from owners
N/A
Government
subsidises
biomethane
Easy to meet
Other
Employee initiatives
Internal intra-departmental
competition driving
overarching initiatives.
12
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
combination of public regulation perceived as weak and owners’ directives being perceived as stronger suggests that the development towards increased use of biomethane for freight transport is driven by strategic initiatives alongside customer demands, rather than by public regulation solely. The
presence of customer demands is clearer and bring about direct change whereas public regulation
and government incentives appear to work towards securing future change. As in the literature
review, the respondents did not differentiate between potential effects of policy instruments, regulation and taxation.
A driver found in the interviews but not arising in the literature is the involvement of employees
while implementing GLPs. Customer encourages employees to come with suggestions on how to
create more environmentally friendly operations and work premises. Haulier 2 has an internal competition among drivers on reducing their fuel use thereby emissions. This involvement of employees
has led organisations to take steps forward in their sustainability plans. This finding strengthens the
result above, that the development and use of biomethane for freight transport is driven among and
between the actors themselves rather than by public regulation.
4.2. GLPs
Taking the GLP groups which formed from the literature analysis, the interviews of the five actors
were broken down and analyzed in the frame of these four groups allowing the researchers to begin
to explore the relationship among the different practices and their role in enabling each actor to
become more sustainable.
4.2.1. Business strategy GLPs
The five actors interviewed displayed multiple business strategies including both competencies and
business models and tools. Centobelli, Cerchione, and Esposito 2017 list several possible GLPs
logistics organisations may offer depending on their position and function in the network; organisations in the management position have the ability to steer greenification of the supply chain
through service offerings, employee engagement and sustainability training additionally implementation of performance measurements which all five actors have done in some manner.
Customer has the competencies of encouraging their employees to come with suggestions on
how to create more sustainable operations while also collaborating with their stakeholders resonating with what is written in (Rodrigues and Kumar 2019). As a business model and tool, Customer
has an overall company sustainability goal and focused on operations in that the contracted customers require energy efficient transport. Forwarder places their competency not on the price of the
solution but the quality of the sustainable transport solution, they provide understanding that their
customers want to be sustainable. The business models & tools of the Forwarder places an emphasis
on creating services based upon the needs of the customer placing delivery time and service quality
at a higher importance than cost. From the interviews, Haulier 1 revealed one competency: meeting
the requirements of the customer which was driving shipments with biomethane trucks.
Haulier 2 discussed several competencies such as finding solutions to meeting customer requests
of emission reduction, setting an organisational goal of reducing emissions even though the growth
of the business. Haulier 2 stated that route optimisation was at the core of their operations. While
Haulier 2 considers environmental improvement at the centre of their business model, it is a competency that there is not an end-goal yet a constantly moving goal allowing improvements to always
be made and the bar to be raised. Haulier 2 supports internal competition among truck drivers to
encourage eco-driving which is supported by site managers. Haulier 2 collaborates with other hauliers serving Forwarder in providing quality sustainable service rather than competing. Within their
business model, the use of biomethane may reduce costs in certain areas, but it also may increase
other costs. Therefore, they allow costs to eventually trickle down to the customers stating, there is
‘no such thing as free shipping’.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
13
Finally, Fuel Supplier comes with its own competencies and Business models & tools. Fuel Supplier’s ability to provide biomethane at a stable price has had many positive effects such as the
growth of liquid biomethane and expanding customer base to new industries. Their business
models and tools prove to also have enabled a growth in biomethane use for freight transport
via the introduction of a tank card giving the truck drivers the ability to tank their trucks across
the country and keeping a regional circular focus on the production of biomethane.
4.2.2. Logistics systems GLPs
The Logistics systems GLPs used by the actors varied but they agreed that a more stable network
needs to be built in order to switch to fossil-free fuel on a wide-spread level.
Customer remarks in its interview that the routes of biomethane trucks are carefully planned in
order to optimise their use due to certain routes having limited access to appropriate tanking
stations for pure biomethane. Tanking stations providing a biomethane mix appear more frequently along routes. However, pure biomethane provision is more restricted.
Haulier 1 has not experienced any major change or need for adjustments when maneuvering
biomethane vehicles, only a somewhat longer tanking time, thus no changes in system design
have been made from their side. Additionally, Hauiler 1 has made no changes to routes whereas
when speculating over purchasing an electric delivery van, many changes to the routes would
need to be made according charging times and driving time between charges. Haulier 2 has
made changes to the trucks in their fleet, like those described by Latham (1998) so that they include
high performance, Euroclass standard engines. Haulier 2’s trucks have also undergone changes to
become as aerodynamic as possible, such as removing any frivolous décor and placing a rubber skirt
around the edge of the truck cabin. Haulier 2 finds it difficult to promise one alternative fuel
throughout a delivery sequence as the availability differs across the country. The pooling of consignments from different customers also adds to this complexity. Additional challenges occur, according to Haulier 2, in optimising routes as trip planning must sync with available re-fuelling and
regulated rest time for truck drivers. As Haulier 2 attempts to optimise routes to the best of
their ability integrating alternative fuels, costs may reflect the lack of fuelling infrastructure. Importance of infrastructure towards the strength of the sustainability of the supply chain is reported in
Kayikck (2020) stating that there is a positive correlation between resilience of the logistics infrastructure and sustainability of transport.
4.2.3. Social GLPs
Social GLPs typically are seen as a strong ally in pushing industry towards a more sustainable
business operation (Stelling 2014), however, the actors interviewed expressed different views.
Both Haulier 1 & 2 stated that existing policies were weak influencers and easily met; the requirements of their customers or the Forwarder are stricter. Fuel Supplier remarks that the government
subsidies for use of fossil-free fuels promotes biomethane use.
An additional policy mentioned by Haulier 1, yet not mentioned in literature collected in the
search, was the quietness of biomethane trucks enabling a reduction for noise pollution for cities
and for fragile ecosystems both of which have protective measures in action.
Haulier 2 remarked that municipalities would have the ability to further encourage the development and use of fossil-free fuels by allotting strategically located land for tanking stations. Reluctancy to meet such needs of hauliers is disappointing.
4.2.4. Energy & emissions GLPs
From the literature analysis, this GLP group was pinpointed as the most progressive in moving
organisations towards reduction of greenhouse gases and reaching sustainability goals. The GLP
alternative fuels is the focus, possibly affecting the discussion around GLPs that could be classified
as Energy & Emissions GLPs.
14
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Customer agrees that there will be a mixture of modes and alternative fuels utilised to reach prescribed sustainability goals which was not specifically mentioned in the literature review yet discussed in (Karlsson 2020). Statement from both Customer and Forwarder support the idea that
biomethane as a fuel is better suited for long-haul trucking and electrification is better suited for
passenger cars. Haulier 1 has additionally used HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) to fuel trucks.
Haulier 2 writes reports for truck emission based on their energy consumption and strives towards
an overall switch to fossil-free fuels not preferring one over another.
5. Conclusions and future research
The themes of this article are fossil-free fuel and GLPs (green logistics practices) with the purpose to
explore the transition from fossil fuels to fossil-free fuels in freight transport through the prism of
GLPs. It was addressed through a literature review and an explorative interview study. For the interview study, the use of biomethane was selected as the particular focus. The study was performed
among actors in one regional network and one more generic and national network, to explore similarities, differences and interrelations among the actors.
The purpose was addressed through three research questions (RQs). The first research question
reads: Which GLPs are used and suggested for designing more environmentally sustainable logistics
systems, and what is the role of fossil-free fuel? From the literature review four groups of GLPs
were identified: Business strategy GLPs, Logistics systems GLPs, Social GLPs and Energy and Emission GLPs. The Energy & Emissions GLP group is most progressive in tactic and innovation compared to the other groups. These practices enable and inspire companies to drastically reduce
carbon emissions, pushing their operations towards reaching climate neutral goals of multiple governing bodies. In relation to fossil-free fuels, the literature review revealed only a few examples in
the context of GLPs. While selection of fossil-free fuel is often mentioned to reach the climate and
environmental goals, very little, if any, detail is provided. This indicates that more research into
specific fossil – free fuels is needed, to understand the specifics of the wide variety of alternative
fuels that emerge in freight transport and logistics.
The second research question reads: How do different actors experience various drivers when
changing from traditional to fossil-free fuel in their freight transport and logistics systems? In the
analysis of actors and drivers, the results point to the relatively low influence of cost as a driver
for increased use of biomethane. This was explained by the fact that investigated actors perceive
their customers as becoming increasingly aware of environmental sustainability. Sustainability outbalanced the cost argument, and the cost for biomethane is neutral or even lower than that for fossil
or traditional solutions. Customers tend to require sustainable solutions and not any particular solution, hence the stable costs of biomethane are appreciated by the actors. With respect to biomethane, according to the interviewees the market drives the use of biomethane much more
than public regulations. Owners’ directives as well as employee initiatives were also proposed as
important for increased use of biomethane, thus strengthening the role of corporate stakeholders
driving the development rather than public regulation. The findings expand the three groups of drivers suggested in literature: cost, market demands and regulations (Geng et al. 2020; Hakawati et al.
2017; Pålsson and Kov 2014; Pashkevich et al. 2019).
The third research question reads: How are GLPs influenced from changing to fossil-free fuels
among actors in the supply chain? The first group – Business strategy GLPs – was considered important by all actors, and the different actors’ business models were directly related to their respective
drivers for using biomethane: costs decrease in priority for their customers, while customer requirements on service and sustainability increase. Contrary to many expectations, a switch to biomethane did not entail any major influence on the System design or optimisation of routes, as
part of the second group of GLPs. However, this related strongly to access to tanking infrastructure,
where insufficient infrastructure could constitute a major hindrance to expansion. Regarding Social
GLPs, the actors consider regulations as weak in supporting the use of biomethane, although some
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
15
subsidies are in play. The final group Energy and Emission GLPs come out very strongly, partly as
an effect of the study’s focus on biomethane. In particular, biomethane is considered an attractive
fossil-free fuel for long-haul freight transport for the future.
The interviews revealed that while the implementation of these practices yields less carbon emission and similar operational costs, the switching costs are high. Knowledge and infrastructure costs
of converting entire systems to fossil-free fuels, such as biomethane, are among the largest barriers
described by (Takman and Andersson-Sköld 2021). However, as organisations move towards these
practices on a large-scale, these high switching costs can be interpreted as beneficial long-term
investments.
In this study, the empirical focus was on one of the many GLPs suggested in logistics literature,
namely fossil-free fuel using biomethane as an illustration. Taking one of the GLPs as a starting
point allowed the researchers to unveil relationships among other identified GLPs. Such a strategy
may also prove to be successful with another fossil-free fuel in focus.
5.1. Implications
This literature review and complementary interview study provides both managerial and research
implications. From a managerial point of view, this research begins to identify the challenges in
introducing and implementing fossil-free fuels, as that relates to many different GLPs. The identification and description of them can inspire and support customers, forwarders and hauliers to
explore the potential of fossil-free fuels – and biomethane in particular – in their own specific network. The access to fuel and to infrastructure is critical for cost performance and viability, however,
the actors in our investigation experience a growth in availability as well as in customer interest. In
connection to this, the inclusion of the fuel supplier in this study solidifies the importance of the fuel
supplier’s role in the freight transport system especially in cases where new propulsion has been
introduced. Hence, any supply chain actor considering biomethane as a fuel for their freight transport should be prepared to re-evaluate their analysis repeatedly.
The literature review was limited to logistics-related literature and little information on the
implementation of fossil-free fuels was found. Still, biomethane is utilised, however, not common
in freight transport. A suggestion for future research is to expand the literature search by also taking
the perspective of biomethane and its usage in freight transport.
This explorative study was performed in Sweden, and mainly with a regional focus. More
research is required to go deeper into each facet of implementation, preferably with different
geo-political views. This study collects and attempts to bring clarification to the different GLPs
and their relative importance for fossil-free fuel, allowing researchers to understand the status of
research in the field.
While this paper addresses various GLPs in groups per se, the research revealed numerous
relationships between the GLP groups. Some examples are:
.
.
.
.
The resting time for truck drivers is stipulated in regulations (Social GLP). At the same time, this
works as a limiting factor in planning systems (Logistics system GLP) based on biomethane, if it
takes time also to tank.
Availability of resources restricts the possibilities to optimise the system (Logistics system GLP),
and also to meet customer requirements (Business strategy GLP).
Joint tank card with other fuel suppliers is an important market competency (Business strategy
GLP) which also improves the system performance (Logistics system GLP)
Municipalities could support better (Social GLP) by allowing land for tanking stations, which
would improve systems performance (Logistics system GLP)
These examples illustrate synergies and conflicts among the GLPs, and further research into
these mechanisms would be useful for researchers but also for practitioners.
16
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Although operational costs appear to be less of a problem for using biomethane for freight transport, other costs may be more of a barrier. Future research may include further investigation into
switching costs and re-design of logistics networks post-biomethane adoption.
Finally, prior research into GLPs typically involves shippers, and transport and logistics companies. This investigation expanded the actor set-up by including the Fuel Supplier, which was interesting because the major change studied was that of fuel switch. The Fuel Supplier in the interview
study stood out in the GLP analysis as it is not a typical logistics actor. However, their circular
business model was considered as a major strategic advantage, alongside the stable market price
of biomethane. The inclusion of the Fuel Supplier in the study contributed to these explanations
to the attractiveness of biomethane, and it was confirmed by the other actors. This highlights the
importance of including various actors and their relationships into further research, to expand
the understanding of how alternative and fossil-free fuels can support the transition to more environmentally friendly logistics.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Trafikverket.
Data availability statement
The results of the literature review can be made available upon request. The notes from the interviews conducted can
also be made available upon request. However, the interview participants were promised anonymity, so recordings of
the interviews will not be available and certain deductions that could lead to organisation or participation identification will be redacted.
ORCID
Maria Huge-Brodin
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8554-0687
References
Ammenberg, J. 2020. Country Report - Sweden. Linköping, Sweden: Biogas Research Center.
Anser, M. K., M. A. Khan, U. Awan, R. Batool, K. Zaman, M. Imran, Indrianti Sasmoko, Y. Khan, A. & Bakar, and Z.
A. 2020. “The Role of Technological Innovation in a Dynamic Model of the Environmental Supply Chain Curve.”
Processes 8: 9. doi:10.3390/pr8091033.
Athena, R., K. Seraphim, and T. Vandelslander. 2014. “Green City Logistics: Systems of Innovation to Assess the
Potential of e-Vehicles?” Research in Transport Business & Management 11: 43–52.
Awad-Núñez, S., N. González-Cancelas, F. Soler-Flores, and A. Camarero-Orive. 2015. “How Should the
Sustainability of the Location of Dry Ports be Measured? A Proposed Methodology Using Bayesian Networks
and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.” Transport 30 (3): 312–319. doi:10.3846/16484142.2015.1081618.
Beškovnik, B. 2010. “Challenges of Green Logistics in Southeast Europe.” Promet-Traffic&Transportation 22: 2.
Bressers, H., T. de Bruijn, and V. Dinica. 2007. “Integration and Communication as Central Issues in Dutch
Negotiated Agreements on Industrial Energy Efficiency.” European Environment 17 (4): 215–230. doi:10.1002/
eet.454.
Bryman, A., and E. Bell. 2007. Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castelein, B., R. van Duin, and H. Geerlings. 2019. “Identifying Dominant Stakeholder Perspectives on Sustainability
Issues in Reefer Transportation. A Q-Method Study in the Port of Rotterdam.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 11: 12.
doi:10.3390/SU11123425.
Cebrat, G., A. Karagiannidis, and A. Papadopoulos. 2008. “Proposing Intelligent Alternative Propulsion Concepts
Contributing to Higher CO2 Savings with First Generation Biofuels.” An International Journal 19 (6): 1477–
7835. doi:10.1108/14777830810904957.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
17
Centobelli, P., R. Cerchione, and E. Esposito. 2017. Environmental Sustainability in the Service Industry of
Transportation and Logistics Service Providers: Systematic Literature Review and Research Directions. doi:10.
1016/j.trd.2017.04.032.
Crawford, D. F., M. H. O’Connor, T. Jovanovic, A. Herr, R. J. Raison, D. A. O’Connell, and T. Baynes. 2016. “A
Spatial Assessment of Potential Biomass for Bioenergy in Australia in 2010, and Possible Expansion by 2030
and 2050.” GCB Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12295.
Demir, E., M. Hrušovský, W. Jammernegg, and T. Van Woensel. 2019. “Green Intermodal Freight Transportation:
Bi-Objective Modelling and Analysis.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (19): 6162–6180. doi:10.
1080/00207543.2019.1620363.
Dioha, M. O., and A. Kumar. 2020. “Sustainable Energy Pathways for Land Transport in Nigeria.” Utilities Policy 64:
101034. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2020.101034.
Durach, C. F., J. Kembro, and A. Wieland. 2017. “A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain
Management.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 53 (4): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
Eng-Larsson, F., and C. Kohn. 2012. “Modal Shift for Greener Logistics-the Shipper’s Perspective.” International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42 (1): 36–59. doi:10.1108/09600031211202463.
European Comission. 2018. Our Vision for A Clean Planet for All, European Commission.
Evangelista, P. 2014. “Environmental Sustainability Practices in the Transport and Logistics Service Industry: An
exploratory Case Study Investigation.” Research in Transportation Business and Management 12: 63–72. doi:10.
1016/j.rtbm.2014.10.002.
Fernández Vázquez-Noguerol, M., I. González-Boubeta, P. Dominguez-Caamaño, and J. Carlos Prado-Prado. 2018.
“Best Practices in Road Transport: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
JIEM 11 (2): 2018–2029. doi:10.3926/jiem.2525.
Fraske, T., and B. Bienzeisler. 2020. “Toward Smart and Sustainable Traffic Solutions: A Case Study of the Geography
of Transitions in Urban Logistics.” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16 (1): 353–366. doi:10.1080/
15487733.2020.1840804.
Gallo, A., R. Accorsi, G. Baruffaldi, and R. Manzini. 2017. “Designing Sustainable Cold Chains for Long-Range Food
Distribution: Energy-Effective Corridors on the Silk Road Belt.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 9: 11. doi:10.3390/
su9112044.
Gatta, V., E. Marcucci, M. Nigro, and S. M. Patella. 2018. Public Transport-Based Crowdshipping for Sustainable City
Logistics: Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts. 1–14. doi:10.3390/su11010145.
Geng, J., R. Long, G. E. Birhane, L. Yang, and J. Zhu. 2020. “Drivers’ Intentions Toward Green Transport in China:
Understanding Associations Between Demographic and Policy Factors.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
161. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104981.
Gold, S., and S. Seuring. 2010. “Supply Chain and Logistics Issues of Bio-Energy Production.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 19: 32–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.009.
Hakawati, R., B. M. Smyth, G. McCullough, F. De Rosa, and D. Rooney. 2017. “What is the Most Energy Efficient
Route for Biogas Utilization: Heat, Electricity or Transport?” Applied Energy 206: 1076–1087. doi:10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.08.068.
Hanaoka, S., and M. B. Regmi. 2011. “Promoting Intermodal Freight Transport Through the Development of Dry
Ports in Asia: An Environmental Perspective.” IATSS Research 35 (1): 16–23. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2011.06.001.
Harris, I., M. Naim, A. Palmer, A. Potter, and C. Mumford. 2011. “Assessing the Impact of Cost Optimization Based
on Infrastructure Modelling on CO2 Emissions.” International Journal of Production Economics 131 (1): 313–321.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.03.005.
Havenga, J. H., and Z. P. Simpson. 2018. “Freight Logistics’ Contribution to Sustainability: Systemic Measurement
Facilitates Behavioural Change.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 58: 320–331.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.08.035.
Henkow, O., and A. Norrman. 2011. “Tax Aligned Global Supply Chains Environmental Impact Illustrations, Legal
Reflections and Crossfunctional Flow Charts.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 41 (9): 878–895. doi:10.1108/09600031111175834.
Huge-Brodin, M., and E. Sweeney. 2021. “Delivering Sustainability Through Supply Chain Management.” In Global
Logistics – New Directions in Supply Chain Management, edited by Edward Sweeney and Donald Walters, 231–245.
London: Kogan Page.
Iannone, F. 2012. “The Private and Social Cost Efficiency of Port Hinterland Container Distribution Through a
Regional Logistics System | Elsevier Enhanced Reader.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0965856412001085?token=8DD986FCB586BA8BEB455D929649D38D
CDDBF5E36606E7F59198CA6FA0561F663F331D6A23523948515139B6F4D36DEA&originRegion=eu-west1&originCreation=20210416133956.
Jaller, M., C. Otero-Palencia, and R. Yie-Pinedo. 2019. “Inventory and Fleet Purchase Decisions Under a Sustainable
Regulatory Environment.” Supply Chain Forum; An International Journal 21 (1): 53–65. doi:10.1080/16258312.2019.
1664257.
18
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Jazairy, A., and R. von Haartman. 2020. “Measuring the Gaps Between Shippers and Logistics Service Providers on
Green Logistics Throughout the Logistics Purchasing Process.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2019-0237.
Ji, S., and Q. Sun. 2017. “Low-Carbon Planning and Design in B&R Logistics Service: A Case Study of an ECommerce Big Data Platform in China.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 9: 11. doi:10.3390/su9112052.
Kalenoja, H., E. Kallionpää, and J. Rantala. 2011. “Indicators of Energy Efficiency of Supply Chains.” International
Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 14 (2): 77–95. doi:10.1080/13675567.2010.551111.
Karlsson, J. 2020. Triple F Etableringsprojekt Omvärldsanalys Logistik Innehåll.
Kayikci, Y. 2020. “Stream Processing Data Decision Model for Higher Environmental Performance and Resilience in
Sustainable Logistics Infrastructure.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 34 (1): 140–167. doi:10.1108/
JEIM-08-2019-0232.
Kayikci, Y. 2021. “Stream Processing Data Decision Model for Higher Environmental Performance and Resilience in
Sustainable Logistics Infrastructure.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 34 (1): 140–167. doi:10.1108/
JEIM-08-2019-0232.
Khandelwal, A. 2020. “Case Studies of Sustainable Road Transport Practices in Different Industry Sectors in India.”
International Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management Sciences 5 (6): 1091–1107. doi:10.33889/
IJMEMS.2020.5.6.083.
Kirschstein, T. 2020. “Comparison of Energy Demands of Drone-Based and Ground-Based Parcel Delivery Services.”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 78. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.102209.
Klumpp, M. 2016. “To Green or Not to Green: A Political Economic and Social Analysis for the Past Failure of Green
Logistics.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 8: 5. doi:10.3390/su8050441.
Kumar, A., and R. Anbanandam. 2020. “A Flexible Policy Framework for Analysing Multimodal Freight
Transportation System in India: SAP-LAP and Efficient IRP Method.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management 321 (1): 35–52. doi:10.1007/s40171-019-00226-5.
Kumar, A., and R. Anbanandam. 2021. “Environmentally Responsible Freight Transport Service Providers’
Assessment Under Data-Driven Information Uncertainty.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 34
(1): 506–542. doi:10.1108/JEIM-12-2019-0403.
Kumar, K. M., A. A. Rahman, K. Jayaraman, and S. A. Rahim. 2017. “Conceptualization of a Research Model for
Sustainable Logistics Practices and Logistics Transport Performance.” Jurnal Pengurusan 51: 147–158. doi:10.
17576/pengurusan-2018-51-13.
Laari, S., T. Solakivi, J. Töyli, and L. Ojala. 2016. “Performance Outcomes of Environmental Collaboration Evidence
from Finnish Logistics Service Providers.” Baltic Journal of Management 11 (4): 430–451. doi:10.1108/BJM-032015-0081.
Lammgård, C. 2012. “Intermodal Train Services: A Business Challenge and a Measure for Decarbonisation for
Logistics Service Providers.” Research in Transportation Business and Management 5: 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.
rtbm.2012.11.001.
Latham, Stephen. 1998. “Prospects for Reductions in Truck and Bus Fuel Consumption in the UK.” International
Journal of Vehicle Design 20: 4.
Lee, S.-Y., R. D. Klassen, A. Furlan, and A. Vinelli. 2014. The Green Bullwhip Effect: Transferring Environmental
Requirements Along a Supply Chain. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.05.010.
Lopes Ferri, G., G. De, L. D. Chaves, and G. Mattos Ribeiro. 2015. Reverse Logistics Network for Municipal Solid Waste
Management: The Inclusion of Waste Pickers as a Brazilian Legal Requirement. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.036.
Mangina, E., P. K. Narasimhan, M. Saffari, and I. Vlachos. 2020. “Data Analytics for Sustainable Global Supply
Chains.” Journal of Cleaner Production 255: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120300.
Martinsen, U., and M. Huge-Brodin. 2014. “Environmental Practices as Offerings and Requirements on the Logistics
Market.” Logistics Research 7: 115. doi:10.1007/s12159-014-0115-y.
McKinnon, A. 2018. Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing Goods in a Low Carbon World. Kogan Page. https://login.e.
bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=
cat00115a&AN=lkp.1043422&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Mehmann, J., and F. Teuteberg. 2016. “The Fourth-Party Logistics Service Provider Approach to Support Sustainable
Development Goals in Transportation a Case Study of the German Agricultural Bulk Logistics Sector.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 126: 382–393. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.095.
Merlak, J., A. Groznik, and F. Al-Mansour. 2019. “Determination of Environmental Footprint of Inland Container
Terminals.” Journal of Applied Engineering Science 2 (589): 144–156. doi:10.5937/jaes17-20711.
Nathanail, E., I. Karakikes, L. Mitropoulos, and G. Adamos. 2021. “Case Studies on Transport Policy A Sustainability
Cross-Case Assessment of City Logistics Solutions.” Case Studies on Transport Policy 9 (1): 219–240. doi:10.1016/j.
cstp.2020.12.005.
Niu, Y., Z. Yang, P. Chen, and J. Xiao. 2018. “Optimizing the Green Open Vehicle Routing Problem with Time
Windows by Minimizing Comprehensive Routing Cost.” Journal of Cleaner Production 171: 962–971. doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.001.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
19
Orji, I. J., S. Kusi-Sarpong, H. Gupta, and M. Okwu. 2019. “Evaluating Challenges to Implementing Eco-Innovation
for Freight Logistics Sustainability in Nigeria.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 129: 288–305.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.001.
Paddeu, D., J. Denby, D. Paddeu, and J. Denby. 2020. Decarbonising Road Freight: Is Truck Automation and
Platooning an Opportunity? Graphic Abstract Keywords Decarbonisation Road Freight Transport Platooning
Stakeholder Perspective Multi-Scenario Analysis Policy Implications. 1, 3. doi:10.1007/s10098-020-02020-9.
Pająk, M., and P. Cyplik. 2020. “Truck Platooning in the Context of Sustainable Development’s Targets Defined in
European Union’s Strategies.” LogForum 16 (2): 311–321.
Pålsson, H., and D. Hellström. 2016. “Packaging Logistics in Supply Chain Practice – Current State, Trade-offs and
Improvement Potential.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19 (5): 351–368. doi:10.1080/
13675567.2015.1115472.
Pålsson, H., and G. Kov. 2014. “Reducing Transportation Emissions A Reaction to Stakeholder Pressure or a Strategy
to Increase Competitive Advantage.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44 (4):
283–304. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2012-0293.
Pashkevich, N., D. Haftor, M. Karlsson, and S. Chowdhury. 2019. “Sustainability Through the Digitalization of
Industrial Machines: Complementary Factors of Fuel Consumption and Productivity for Forklifts with
Sensors.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 11: 23. doi:10.3390/su11236708.
Patton, M. Q. 2014. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publication.
Pieters, R., H.-H. Glöckner, O. Omta, D. A. Weijers, and S. Lecturer. 2012. “Dutch Logistics Service Providers and
Sustainable Physical Distribution.” In International Food and Agribusiness Management Review (Vol. 15).
Poulsen, T., and C. B. Hasager. 2016. “How Expensive is Expensive Enough? Opportunities for Cost Reductions in
OffshoreWind Energy Logistics.” Energies 9: 6. doi:10.3390/en9060437.
Qaiser, F. H., K. Ahmed, M. Sykora, A. Choudhary, and M. Simpson. 2017. “Decision Support Systems for
Sustainable Logistics: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 117 (7):
1376–1388. doi:10.1108/IMDS-09-2016-0410.
Rakhmangulov, A., A. Sladkowski, N. Osintsev, and D. Muravev. 2018. “Green Logistics: A System of Methods and
Instruments-Part 2.” NAŠE MORE: Znanstveni Časopis Za More i Pomorstvo 65 (1): 49–55. doi:10.17818/NM/
2018/1.7.
Rehl, T., and J. Müller. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas Digestate Processing Technologies.” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 56 (1): 92–104. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.08.007.
Roddy, D. J. 2013. “Biomass in a Petrochemical World.” Interface Focus 3: 1. doi:10.1098/rsfs.2012.0038.
Rodrigues, V. S., and M. Kumar. 2019. “Synergies and Misalignments in Lean and Green Practices.” Production
Planning & Control 30 (5–6): 369–384.
Rodrigues, V. S., M. Piecyk, R. Mason, and T. Boenders. 2015. “The Longer and Heavier Vehicle Debate: A Review of
Empirical Evidence from Germany.” Transport Research Part D 40: 114–131. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2015.08.003.
Sallnäs, U., and M. Huge-Brodin. 2018. “De-Greening of Logistics? – Why Environmental Practices Flourish and
Fade in Provider-Shipper Relationships and Networks.” Industrial Marketing Management 74 (June): 276–287.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.001.
Smith, P. M., M. J. Gaffney, W. Shi, S. Hoard, I. I. Armendariz, and D. W. Mueller. 2017. “Drivers and Barriers to the
Adoption and Diffusion of Sustainable Jet Fuel (SJF) in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” Journal of Air Transport
Management 58: 113–124. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.10.004.
Stelling, P. 2014. “Policy Instruments for Reducing CO2-Emissions from the Swedish Freight Transport Sector.”
Research in Transportation Business and Management 12: 47–54. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.08.004.
Takman, J., and Y. Andersson-Sköld. 2021. “A Framework for Barriers, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions for
Renewable Energy Diffusion: Exemplified by Liquefied Biogas for Heavy Trucks.” Transport Policy 110: 150–
160. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.05.021.
Thrän, D., J. Witt, K. Schaubach, J. Kiel, M. Carbo, J. Maier, C. Ndibe, et al. 2016. “Moving Torrefaction Towards
Market Introduction – Technical Improvements and Economic-Environmental Assessment Along the Overall
Torrefaction Supply Chain Through the SECTOR Project.” Biomass and Bioenergy 89: 184–200. doi:10.1016/j.
biombioe.2016.03.004.
Tiwari, S., H. M. Wee, Y. Zhou, and L. Tjoeng. 2021. “Freight Consolidation and Containerization Strategy Under
Business as Usual Scenario & Carbon Tax Regulation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 279. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.123270.
Vasiliauskas, A. V., V. Zinkevičiute, and E. Šimonyte. 2013. “Implementation of the Concept of Green Logistics
Reffering to it Applications for Road Freight Transport Enterprises.” Business: Theory and Practice 14 (1): 43–
50. doi:10.3846/btp.2013.05.
Watrobski, J., K. Małecki, K. Kijewska, S. Iwan, A. Karczmarczyk, and R. G. Thomspon. 2017. “Multi-Criteria
Analysis of Electric Vans for City Logistics.” Sustainability 9: 1453. doi:10.3390/su9081453.
Wu, J., and H. D. Haasis. 2018. “The Freight Village as a Pathway to Sustainable Agricultural Products Logistics in
China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 196: 1227–1238. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.077.
20
M. C. OSMAN ET AL.
Yin, R. 2011. Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yuchi, Q., N. Wang, S. Li, Z. Yang, and B. Jiang. 2019. “A Bi-Objective Reverse Logistics Network Design Under the
Emission Trading Scheme.” IEEE Access 7. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2898213.
Zhang, D., R. He, S. Li, and Z. Wang. 2017. A Multimodal Logistics Service Network Design with Time Windows and
Environmental Concerns. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185001.
Zhao, F., F. Liu, Z. Liu, and H. Hao. 2019. “The Correlated Impacts of Fuel Consumption Improvements and Vehicle
Electrification on Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 207: 702–716.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.046.
Zhu, W., M. P. Nowak, and S. O. Erikstad. 2014. “Emission Allocation Issues in Repositioning Transportation.”
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 10 (4): 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2014.
960114.