Abstract
The key aim of this research paper is to provide a summary of how sustainable approaches are used in logistics operations. The following actions were undertaken in order to achieve this goal: The assessment of relevant works on logistics processes and sustainability of logistics operations. A compilation of sustainability reports was also released by identified logistics firms worldwide, a quality overview of the information collected, a description of the observations, cross-checked with the research, and interpretation of assumptions. There were 22 sustainable activities identified, which were then divided into five macro-regions. However, the information provided here will assist experts and academics in implementing sustainable logistics activities.
Introduction
Sustainability has been an essential part of corporate governance since the United Nations (UN) initiated 17 sustainability targets (Tsalis et al., 2020, p. 23, Bao, Dogterom and Ettema, 2020, p. 69; Han, and Trimi, 2018, p. 56). The World Commission on Environment and Development’s concept of sustainability is widely agreed upon in research and commerce. This new sense of business administration necessitates companies to critically examine their practices concerning ethical, social, and economic factors. Using the industrial environment as an example, Ahmet et al. (2021); Tsalis et al. (2020, p. 103) suggest that sustainability has become a key element in a company’s competitive edge. Society is progressively demanding that businesses develop sustainability methods through their production, procurement, and delivery processes (Walsh and Dodds, 2017, p. 12; Li et al., 2021, p. 24; Wieland, 2021, p. 36; Formentini, 2021, 86; Kopnina, 2020, p. 6; Shulla et al., 2020, p. 46). This viewpoint is supported by Ahmet et al. (2021, p. 101), Lee, Noh and Khim, (2020, p. 44), who emphasize the importance of correctly understanding the position of sustainability in the growth of logistics operations. In particular, the logistics industry has been increasingly expanding and integrating in recent years to achieve higher operational efficiency.
Researchers are increasingly interested in incorporating sustainable guidelines into the administration of logistics operations. Tsalis et al. (2020, p. 62) and Mani, Gunasekaran, and Delgado, (2018, p. 9), also contend that measuring logistics operations’ long-term viability will help the United Nation achieve its objectives. This is especially true in regards to target 12, which is to maintain accountable manufacturing and use standards since improvements in manufacture and delivery habits are seen as necessary undertakings for reducing environmental effects.
However, the need and value of sustainability targets are evident, as per Forestier and Kim (2020, p. 77), Nigri and Del Baldo (2018, p. 36), but further research is needed to understand how these strategies will better address current and potential sustainability issues. As per DlouhĂĄ and PospilovĂĄ (2018, p. 97), Chen et al. (2020, p. 72), there is still much to learn about how to use logistics operations resilience. These scholars point to the need to further discuss the social dimensions of these events, for instance. Forestier and Kim (2020, p. 9) contend that rigorous tools for analyzing the environmental and social impact of logistics operations inactive processes are still lacking.
Academics, companies, and authorities have been focusing on sustainable logistics in recent years. The study and creation of green procurement, green shipping, sustainable production, green distribution, reverse logistics, as well as the architecture and administration of green supply chain operations are all part of this process (ArsiÄ et al. (2020, p. 86; Larson, 2021, p. 43; Shao et al., 2021, p. 21; Kannan, 2021, p. 104). It is essential to remember that most studies in this sector focus on reducing the environmental effects of logistics activities (DlouhĂĄ and PospilovĂĄ, 2008, p. 37; Moldabekova et al., 2021, p. 16; Kim and Park, 2021, p. 206; Karmaker et al., 2021, p.22). As a result, it is necessary to point out that this study often includes social considerations in addition to evaluating efficient logistics processes from an environmental standpoint.
Martins et al. (2019, p. 61), Garcia-Torres, Rey-Garcia, and Albareda-Vivo (2017, p. 88) stress the importance of evaluating overviews relating to sustainable logistics in scholarly debates. Based on a literature review, no study included analyzing sustainable activities developed by organizations in logistic systems. In light of this, this analysis’s primary aim was to compile a summary of the sustainable logistics activities established by businesses (Sakalasooriya, 2021, p. 23; Gutberlet, 2021, p. 60; Kouhizadeh, Saberi and Sarkis, 2021, p. 73; Qian, Li and Tan, 2021, p. 44). That said, the literature review was used to evaluate 80 sustainability reports released by enterprises worldwide to accomplish this aim.
This report has four parts in addition to the introductory section. Section two is devoted to the introduction of hypothetical references in logistics structures as well as logistics operation sustainability. To facilitate replications, Section 3 illustrates the methodological techniques used. The report’s results are outlined in Section 4. The findings and final considerations are discussed in Section 5 of the paper. In the end, the sources used are listed.
Review of the Literature
This portion is composed of two distinct sections. Business terms, meanings, and their application to business performance are clarified, as well as the value of logistics structures are presented in the first segment. In the second potion, the study is carried out concerning existing sustainability initiatives in logistics actions.
Systems of logistics
Logistics relates to the management facets of goods, persons, equipment procurement, maintenance, and shipping. To respond to consumer requests, the optimized movement of goods, resources, and information are planned, implemented, and regulated from source to destination (Sumantri, 2020, p. 84; Govindan et al 2021, p. 70; Amiri et al., 2021, 83; Abdussalam et al., 2021, p. 111). The logistics structure consists of several modules, as per Ignaccolo et al. (2020), which can be classified into primary operations. Logistics is essential to enterprises and essential to corporate growth. Logistic planning is critical for the company’s positioning, and it is critical to optimize activities, merge company sectors and provide reliable logistics services (Guarnieri, Cerqueira-Streit and Batista, 2020, p. 206; RichnĂĄk and GubovĂĄ, 2021, p. 87; Autry, 2021, p. 38; Sharma, Chadha and Kautish, 2021, p. 46). The effect of logistics on sustainability should also be recognized by corporations (Ignaccolo et al. 2020, p. 88; Ruel et al., 2021, p. 361; PĂ©rez-Mesa et al., 2021, p.39).
Modal transport’s preference and concept are critical facets of a logistics framework to be addressed (Kazancoglu, 2021, p. 79; Kazancoglu et al., 2021, p. 55; Devi, Mathiyazhagan and Kumar, 2021, p. 30). This approach is vital for the company’s growth, as per Martins et al. (2019). The right option of modes of transport makes for improved economic and environmental outcomes (Guarnieri, Cerqueira-Streit, and Batista, 2020, p. 96; Liu et al., 2017, p. 57; Luthra and Mangla, 2018, 81). Kazancoglu (2021, p. 61) also confirms that this factor is crucial for a greener logistics scheme.
The quality of support provided to consumers in the logistics sector should also be evaluated. Orji, Kusi-Sarpong and Gupta (2020, p. 601) suggest that efficient resource usage can be treated as a service standard provided to consumers to fulfill the demands. In recent years, the need to satisfy customers’ demands has drawn interest in the company’s logistical strategies, as per Karaman, Kilic, and Uyar (2020, p. 62); Patel and Desai (2019, p. 49); Al-Minhas, Ndubisi and Barrane, (2020, p. 71). The whole distribution sector will also benefit from effective warehouse management. The preparation for the organizational configuration of a warehouse taking into account operational strategy is essential for achieving strategic operations (Bosona, 2020, p. 58; Yang et al., 2021, p. 31; Rebs, Brandenburg and Seuring, 2019, p. 2).
The aspects of classification, assessment, and supply relationships and methods for determining purchasing periods and quantities are routine components of a logistics framework. Suppliers’ right choice significantly increased market chances and improved competition, as per Centobelli, Cerchione, and Esposito (2020, 94). There have also lately been packaging ventures in several businesses. The right packaging design optimizes product processing, enables different store setups, prevents fault losses, and provides better protection, among other things (Alkaabneh, Diabat, and Gao, 2020, p. 56; Bell, 2021, p. 79; Silvestre et al., 2018, p. 40; Moktadir et al., 2018, p. 21). Efficient package architecture reduces operating distribution expenses, promotes greater efficiency, and guarantees economic benefits, respectively (Freichel, Wollenburg, and Wörtge, 2020, p. 75; Moktadir et al., 2021, p. 62; Ansari and Kant, 2017, p. 80; Koberg and Longoni, 2019, p. 49). The difficulty of operating a logistics system is substantial, taking into account the above described. In this sense, successful efforts will, therefore, increase the efficiency and competitiveness of firms.
Logistics systems sustainability
This segment is intended to provide the latest up-to-date, sustainable studies in logistics. By summarizing the research discussed, the societal, economic, and environmental recommendations can be considered. Eroglu et al. (2016 p. 40) analyzed capital market reactions to sustainability honors’ success for logistics in an attempt to show the importance of sustainable management of logistics frameworks to competition by enterprises. The results revealed that the capital market is responding favorably to the prizes (Anderson and Forslund, 2018, p. 49; Liu et al., 2021, p. 60; Shanker and Barve, 2021, p. 94; Raut, Narkhede and Gardas, 2017, p. 68; Wang, Zhang and Goh, 2018, p. 49; Li et al., 2021, 106). Furthermore, this optimistic response was found to be more important than the reaction to other related conditions. Also, shareholders acknowledge the value of sustainability as a competitive consideration in the longevity of businesses.
The incorporation of sustainability in container terminal logistics activities was studied by Lambrechts et al. (2019, p. 94); Zimon, Tyan and Sroufe, 2019, p. 8; Ansari and Kant, 2017, 19; GĂłmez-Luciano et al., 2018, 90; Karaman, Kilic and Uyar, 2020, p. 56; Trivellas, Malindretos and Reklitis, 2020, p. 66). The results on sustainable production were examined empirically through existing processes and cooperation with external practices. The results show that the sustainability of activities has a beneficial effect on both internal and external activities. Moreover, Lim et al. (2019, p. 48) studied the impact on port activities of sustainable logistics management. The findings strengthened the beneficial relationship between external cooperation and internal control, which positively affects the profitability of container terminals.
The research on sustainable logistics described above can be analyzed, and the various goals presented can be checked. This demonstrates the literature’s attempts to widen the discourse on this topic. These initiatives should be emphasized in the following areas: Proposal of metrics for the assessment of logistics operation; evaluation of the effect of sustainability on business performance; recognition of factors affecting sustainable logistics systems process; analyses of the environmental implications of transport and absence of sustainability requirements of logistics operations. Only one report had its primary goal analysis of logistics’ social facets, but it centered differently from our studies. However, no paper shows an outline of the incorporation of sustainability into logistic operations as per the analysis provided, and as such, this study is intended to fill the gap.
Methodology
The systematic evaluation’s methodological approach was used in this analysis to gather as much data as possible systemically and to solidly interpret it (Caiado et al., 2018, p. 67, Zhang et al., 2020, p. 39). A research procedure to improve replicability, openness, reliability, and internal validation was established in the analysis’s early stage. It explained the collection, analysis, and reporting of the results. Then guidelines for selecting publications, including all articles, were created. To eliminate coding complexity, a content classification scheme has been established. The method of analysis is defined and presented in Fig. 1.
Findings and Associate Discussion
The evaluated sustainability studies were released by businesses worldwide. The firms belong to thirteen separate economic sectors with a focus on transport, food and beverage, and e-commerce (see Figure 2). Much of the studied papers adopt the GRI framework, which enabled the study. The author of the article claims that using the GRI norm for certain firms gives the knowledge given more legitimacy.
The sustainability practices established in the five macro-areas by corporations are presented in Table 1. Section 3 defined the method used for grouping the procedures. The five macro zones mentioned in the logistics framework elements proposed by Yavas and Ozkan-Ozen (2020, p. 73) should be highlighted. In some of the author’s parameters, we have not defined sustainable activities, so some features present in Yavas and Ozkan-Ozen (2020, p. 76) have not been included in Table 1. Macro category five provides for expansive governance, environmental policies, and social services. Figure 3 shows the percentage of businesses that grow each sustainable logistics activity defined in the macro-region.
The analysis of macro-region 1 of logistics shows that the analyzed businesses create four distinct sustainability practices. Both include: (a) the use of policies to identify transport modalities to be used in the sense of transport capabilities and to reduce the environmental effect and (b) the preparation of delivery routes to maximize and reduce emissions of gaseous pollutants. Just 27 percent of the businesses surveyed established both approaches. In the other two practice areas, the efficiency of mapping the electricity and fuel usage of used cars is much poorer, with just 7 percent of businesses utilizing hybrid vehicles and 10 percent of these. Consequently, a limited number of enterprises can be seen based on published results, evolving sustainability initiatives linked to modal choices, car usage, and direction-planning. As such, this is an alarming discovery. The planning and routing of vehicles will make a considerable contribution to sustainable growth, as per Larsson and Larsson (2020, p. 84).
Concerning macro-area 2, the most considerable diversity of established sustainability solutions can be found (6 in summation). There are two things to highlight: (a) ergonomics and factory operating protection to enhance conditions of employment (17 percent of the businesses employed with this exercise) and (b) waste mapping during picking processes. The other activities are timely as only one business is covered by the 3 percent index. The following activities apply rainwater storage for warehouse usage, use for power production of photovoltaic panels, usage of electric carts, and the least environmentally harmful fuel in forklifts. Relative to the prior macro-region, the number of firms developing sustainability approaches is still inadequate for storage activities. As per Stanitsas, Kirytopoulos and Leopoulos (2020, p. 73), the possibilities of developing green storage activities that will lead to a more sustainable future are high. Van and Thijssens (2020, p. 51) claim that sustainable warehouse operations increase efficiency, safeguard and reduce adverse effects on the ecosystem.
Four distinct, sustainable strategies established by the evaluated companies are defined in macro-region 3. The most conventional approach by businesses with an event of 57 percent was the practice of choosing vendors that take into account ecofriendly practices, conformity with employment laws, code of ethics, anti-corruption policy, and green accreditations. In contrast, just 23 percent of organizations are involved in offering supplier development programs with sustainable components. Just 10 percent of the businesses have established other activities in this macro-area. The assessment and diligent selection system of suppliers, as per Mio, Panfilo, and Blundo (2020, p. 81), meets sustainable needs and even places the supplier at the logistics business as the strategic collaborator. Most of the companies surveyed were adopting ElAlfy et al. (2020) recommendations and were carefully choosing the suppliers, which may be noticed from Practice one of this macro-segment. Given the positive outcomes that have been obtained in practice 1, more possibilities of progress may be observed sustainably. ElAlfy et al. (2020, p. 79) claims that cooperative efforts between businesses and their suppliers are essential to accomplish sustainability objectives. However, it is still unusual worldwide, given the proportion stated in practice 2.
Concerning macro-area 4 (packaging-related activities), the second most significant variety of sustainability solutions has been established in this area (5 in total). Reuse, recycle, and reverse packaging logistics (27 percent of firms implemented) and a decrease in the usage of inputs in packaging development are the most frequently used strategies in this macro field (being developed by 17 percent of the companies). The realistic packaging initiatives centered on enhanced transport (7 percent), utilization of recycled materials in packaging manufacturing (3 percent), and designing campaigns aimed at encouraging the use of reusable packaging were considerably less widespread for the companies in the sampling surveyed (3 percent). These figures are perplexing for the author of this article since few organizations are developing practices that are vital to sustainable growth. Yavas and Ozkan-Ozen (2020, p. 4) claim that package management encourages constructive efficiency incorporation and sustainability dimensions to be addressed in logistics activities.
By evaluating macro-region 5, the lowest variety of environmental activities can be found here. Just 10 percent of the organization sets strategic policies for accountability and anti-corruption and social and ecological values. There is an even lower number of free transportation provided for social programs, and just 3 percent of companies are growing. However, the number of firms developing operations is minimal for widespread management schemes and social services practices. The value of management processes for continued and successful market development is emphasized by Larsson and Larsson (2020, p. 63).
Finally, the research did not find proof of sustainability solutions for the following logistical activities in contrasting the literature with the findings we obtained: the concept and charging of freight, the degree of services provided to customers, the operationalization process, and the division of shipments. There is, therefore, much scope for developing and implementing sustainable practices in such activities.
Conclusions
Based on the findings, it can be inferred that this study’s primary goal was met since it was possible to establish an analysis of sustainable approaches used in logistics activities. Several sustainability activities were identified within the five macro fields, but most organizations analyzed have a low utilization level. “Supplier selection taking into account sustainability policies, labor regulations, code of ethics, anti-corruption policy, and green accreditations” was among the practices that stuck out. 57 percent of the firms in the study establish this approach.
In terms of the study’s weaknesses, it should be remembered that the findings and recommendations were based on knowledge presented by 30 organizations in their sustainability studies. Other samples created by various businesses can yield different findings and conclusions. Furthermore, the findings were conducted using data from these studies, so the results solely depended on them. Another drawback to this research is the material interpretation. This type of study can be rather dynamic, and the researchers are in charge of defining the free categories and classes.
The results discussed in this paper have consequences for theories and practice in terms of theoretical and functional contributions. The findings include an outline of how organizations implement sustainability strategies in their logistical operations and places where improvements may be made. The findings discussed here should be used by academics and experts who deal with logistics programs. Academics may use the findings in lectures or potential studies, and companies may use the results to boost their businesses’ sustainability.
Finally, the study identified several avenues for potential research: creating sustainability practices and instruments to enhance sustainable incorporation into logistics operations and the development of roadmaps to support businesses in their shift to sustainable logistics. We also developed a proposal of frameworks to evaluate the sustainability sophistication of logistics networks and perform business studies with particular characteristics.
References List
Abdussalam, O., Trochu, J., Fello, N., and Chaabane, A., 2021. âRecent advances and opportunities in planning green petroleum supply chains: a model-oriented reviewâ, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1(1), pp. 1-16.
Ahmet Demir, Taylan Budur, Hiwa M. Omer and Almas H., 2021. âLinks between knowledge management and organizational sustainability: does the ISO 9001 certification have an effect?â Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), pp. 1-14, Web.
Alkaabneh, F., Diabat, A., and Gao, H., O., 2020. âBenders decomposition for the inventory vehicle routing problem with perishable products and environmental costsâ, Computers & Operations Research, 113(4), pp. 62-45.
Al-Minhas, U., Ndubisi, N.O. and Barrane, F.Z., 2020. âCorporate environmental management: A review and integration of green human resource management and green logisticsâ, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(2), pp. 431-450.
Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., Ghahremanloo, M., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E., K., and Banaitis, A., 2021. âA new fuzzy BWM approach for evaluating and selecting a sustainable supplier in supply chain management. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(2), pp. 125-142.
Andersson, P., and Forslund, H. 2018. âDeveloping an indicator framework for measuring sustainable logistics innovation in retailâ, Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), pp. 11-17.
Ansari, Z., N., and Kant, R. 2017. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of cleaner production, 142(56), pp. 2524-2543.
ArsiÄ, M., JovanoviÄ, Z., TomiÄ, R., TomoviÄ, N., ArsiÄ, S., and Bodolo, I., 2020. âImpact of logistics capacity on economic sustainability of SMEsâ, Sustainability, 12(5), pp, 89-93.
Autry, C., W., 2021. Supply chain research: considering the disciplineâs evolving relationship with marketing, current issues, and future research directions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(1), pp. 1-13.
Bao, Y., Xu, M., Dogterom, N., and Ettema, D., 2020. âEffectiveness investigation of travel demand management measures in Beijing: Existing measures and a potential measureâtradable driving creditâ, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 72(6), pp. 47-61.
Bell, M., G., (2021). âCity logistics and the urban environmentâ, In Urban Form and Accessibility 3(1), pp. 359-378.
Bosona, T., (2020). âUrban Freight Last Mile LogisticsâChallenges and Opportunities to Improve Sustainability: A Literature Reviewâ, Sustainability, 12(21), pp. 101-109.
Caiado, R., G., G., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O., L., G., de Mattos Nascimento, D., L., and Ăvila, L., V., 2018. âA literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goalsâ, Journal of cleaner production, 198(3), pp. 1276-1288.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., and Esposito, E., 2020. âEvaluating environmental sustainability strategies in freight transport and logistics industryâ, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), pp. 1563-1574.
Chen, T., L., Kim, H., Pan, S., Y., Tseng, P., C., Lin, Y., P., and Chiang, P., C., 2020. Implementation of green chemistry principles in circular economy system towards sustainable development goals: Challenges and perspectives. Science of the Total Environment, 716, pp. 132-141.
Devi, A., Mathiyazhagan, K., and Kumar, H., 2021. Additive Manufacturing in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Review. Advances in Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, pp. 455-464.
DlouhĂĄ, J., and PospĂĆĄilovĂĄ, M., 2018. âEducation for Sustainable Development Goals in public debate: The importance of participatory research in reflecting and supporting the consultation process in developing a vision for Czech educationâ, Journal of Cleaner Production, 172(3), pp. 4314-4327.
ElAlfy, A., Palaschuk, N., El-Bassiouny, D., Wilson, J., and Weber, O., 2020. âScoping the evolution of corporate social responsibility (Csr) research in the sustainable development goals (Sdgs) eraâ, Sustainability, 12(14), pp. 55-64.
Eroglu, C., Kurt, A., C., and Elwakil, O., S., 2016. âStock market reaction to quality, safety, and sustainability awards in logisticsâ, Journal of Business Logistics, 37(4), pp. 329-345.
Forestier, O., and Kim, R., E., 2020. âCherryâpicking the Sustainable Development Goals: Goal prioritization by national governments and implications for global governanceâ, Sustainable Development, 28(5), pp. 1269-1278.
Formentini, M., 2021. âSustainable Supply Chain Managementâ, In Corporate Sustainability in Practice 89(4), pp. 207-223.
Freichel, S., L., Wollenburg, J., and Wörtge, J., K., 2020. âThe role of packaging in Omni-channel fashion retail supply chains-How can packaging contribute to logistics efficiency?â, Logist. Res., 13(1), pp. 1-5.
Garcia-Torres, S., Rey-Garcia, M., and Albareda-Vivo, L., 2017. âEffective disclosure in the fast-fashion industry: from sustainability reporting to actionâ, Sustainability, 9(12), 2256.
GĂłmez-Luciano, C., A., DomĂnguez, F. R. R., GonzĂĄlez-AndrĂ©s, F., and De Meneses, B. U. L. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management: Contributions of supplies markets. Journal of cleaner production, 184, pp. 311-320.
Govindan, K., Kilic, M., Uyar, A., and Karaman, A., S., 2021. âDrivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigationâ, International Journal of Production Economics, 231(1), 107835.
Guarnieri, P., Cerqueira-Streit, J., A., and Batista, L., C., 2020. âReverse logistics and the sectoral agreement of packaging industry in Brazil towards a transition to circular economyâ, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153(24), pp. 104-541.
Gutberlet, J. 2021. âGrassroots waste picker organizations addressing the UN sustainable development goalsâ, World Development, 138(2), pp. 4-9.
Han, H. and Trimi, S., 2018. âA fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse logistics in social commerce platformsâ, Expert Systems with Applications, 103(9), pp.133-145.
Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Giuffrida, N., Torrisi, V., and Cocuzza, E. 2020. âSustainability of freight transport through an integrated approach: the case of the eastern sicily port systemâ, Transportation Research Procedia, 45(13), pp. 177-184.
Kannan, D. (2021). âSustainable procurement drivers for extended multi-tier context: A multi-theoretical perspective in the Danish supply chainâ, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 146(7), pp. 102-112.
Karaman, A., S., Kilic, M., and Uyar, A., 2020. âGreen logistics performance and sustainability reporting practices of the logistics sector: The moderating effect of corporate governanceâ, Journal of Cleaner Production, 258(12), pp. 45-56.
Kazancoglu, Y., Ekinci, E., Mangla, S., K., Sezer, M., D., and Kayikci, Y., 2021. âPerformance evaluation of reverse logistics in food supply chains in a circular economy using system dynamicsâ, Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), pp. 71-91.
Kim, Y., and Park, J. 2021. âA Structural Relationship Between Environmental Uncertainty, Dynamic Capability, and Business Performance in a Smart Supply Chain Environmentâ, In Data Science and Digital Transformation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution 45(5), pp. 13-24.
Koberg, E., and Longoni, A. 2019. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. Journal of cleaner production, 207(46), pp. 1084-1098.
Kopnina, H. 2020. Education for the future? Critical evaluation of education for sustainable development goals. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 280-291.
Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., and Sarkis, J. 2021. âBlockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriersâ, International Journal of Production Economics, 231(6), pp. 107-131.
Lambrechts, W., Son-Turan, S., Reis, L., and Semeijn, J., 2019. âLean, green and clean? Sustainability reporting in the logistics sectorâ, Logistics, 3(1), pp. 1-3.
Larson, P., D., 2021. âRelationships between Logistics Performance and Aspects of Sustainability: A Cross-Country Analysisâ, Sustainability, 13(2), pp. 600-623.
Larsson, J., and Larsson, L., 2020. âIntegration, application and importance of collaboration in sustainable project managementâ, Sustainability, 12(2), pp. 580-585.
Lee, K., H., Noh, J., and Khim, J., S., 2020. âThe Blue Economy and the United Nationsâ sustainable development goals: Challenges and opportunitiesâ, Environment international, 137, pp. 520-535.
Li, X., Sohail, S., Majeed, M. T., and Ahmad, W., 2021. âGreen logistics, economic growth, and environmental quality: evidence from one belt and road initiative economiesâ, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 3(1), pp. 1-11.
Lim, S., Pettit, S., Abouarghoub, W., and Beresford, A., 2019. âPort sustainability and performance: A systematic literature reviewâ, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 72(23), pp. 47-64.
Liu, W., Bai, E., Liu, L., and Wei, W., 2017. A framework of sustainable service supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Sustainability, 9(3), pp. 416-421.
Liu, Z., Zheng, X. X., Li, D. F., Liao, C., N., and Sheu, J., B., 2021. âA novel cooperative game-based method to coordinate a sustainable supply chain under psychological uncertainty in fairness concernsâ, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 147(3), pp. 102-237.
Luthra, S., and Mangla, S., K., 2018. âWhen strategies matter: Adoption of sustainable supply chain management practices in an emerging economyâs contextâ, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 138(4), pp. 194-206.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., and Delgado, C., 2018. âEnhancing supply chain performance through supplier social sustainability: An emerging economy perspectiveâ, International Journal of Production Economics, 195(23), pp. 259-272.
Martins, V., W., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O., L., & Leal Filho, W., 2019. âSustainable practices in logistics systems: an overview of companies in Brazilâ, Sustainability, 11(15), pp. 41-40.
Mio, C., Panfilo, S., and Blundo, B., 2020. âSustainable development goals and the strategic role of business: A systematic literature reviewâ, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), pp.3220-3245.
Moktadir, M., A., Ali, S., M., Rajesh, R., and Paul, S., K., 2018. Modeling the interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181(5), pp. 631-651.
Moktadir, M. A., Dwivedi, A., Khan, N. S., Paul, S., K., Khan, S., A., Ahmed, S., and Sultana, R. 2021. âAnalysis of risk factors in sustainable supply chain management in an emerging economy of leather industryâ, Journal of Cleaner Production, 283(6), pp. 124-141.
Moldabekova, A., Philipp, R., Satybaldin, A., A., and Prause, G., 2021. Technological readiness and innovation as drivers for logistics 4.0. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(1), 145-156.
Nigri, G., and Del Baldo, M., 2018. âSustainability reporting and performance measurement systems: How do small-and medium-sized benefit corporations manage integration?â, Sustainability, 10(12), pp. 44-99.
Orji, I., J., Kusi-Sarpong, S., and Gupta, H., 2020. âThe critical success factors of using social media for supply chain social sustainability in the freight logistics industryâ, International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), pp. 1522-1539.
Patel, A., B., and Desai, T., N., 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of recent developments in sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(4), pp. 349-370.
Pérez-Mesa, J., C., Piedra-Muñoz, L., Galdeano-Gómez, E., and Giagnocavo, C., 2021. Management Strategies and Collaborative Relationships for Sustainability in the Agrifood Supply Chain. Sustainability, 13(2), pp. 749.
Qian, Y., Li, Z., and Tan, R. 2021. Sustainability analysis of supply chain via particulate matter emissions prediction in China. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, pp. 1-14.
Raut, R., D., Narkhede, B., and Gardas, B., B., 2017. To identify the critical success factors of sustainable supply chain management practices in the context of oil and gas industries: ISM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68(13), pp. 33-47.
Rebs, T., Brandenburg, M., and Seuring, S., 2019. System dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and systems thinking approach. Journal of cleaner production, 208(26), pp. 1265-1280.
RichnĂĄk, P., and GubovĂĄ, K., G., 2021. âReverse Logistics in Conditions of Sustainable Development in Enterprises in Slovakiaâ, Sustainability 21(13), pp. 581.
Ruel, S., El Baz, J., Ivanov, D., and Das, A. 2021. Supply chain viability: conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validation. Annals of Operations Research, 1-30.
Sakalasooriya, N., 2021. âConceptual Analysis of Sustainability and Sustainable Developmentâ, Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(03), pp. 396.
Shanker, S., and Barve, A., 2021. âAnalyzing sustainable concerns in diamond supply chain: a fuzzy ISM-MICMAC and DEMATEL approachâ, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 19(2), pp. 1-17.
Shao, X., F., Liu, W., Li, Y., Chaudhry, H. R., and Yue, X. G., 2021. âMultistage implementation framework for smart supply chain management under industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162(45), pp. 120-154.
Sharma, S., K., Chadha, S., and Kautish, P., 2021. A theoretical framework of socially responsible supply chain for future research: from a literature study perspective. International Journal of Procurement Management, 14(1), 30-61.
Shulla, K., Filho, W., L., Lardjane, S., Sommer, J., H., and Borgemeister, C., 2020. Sustainable development education in the context of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(5), pp. 458-468.
Silvestre, B., S., Monteiro, M. S., Viana, F., L., E., and de Sousa-Filho, J., M., 2018. Challenges for sustainable supply chain management: When stakeholder collaboration becomes conducive to corruption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194(4), pp. 766-776.
Stanitsas, M., Kirytopoulos, K., and Leopoulos, V., 2020. âIntegrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of construction industryâ, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123(1), pp. 74-78.
StojanoviÄ, Ä., IvetiÄ, J., and VeliÄkoviÄ, M., 2021. Assessment of International Trade-Related Transport CO2 EmissionsâA Logistics Responsibility Perspective. Sustainability, 13(3), pp. 1138.
Sumantri, Y. (2020). âAnalyzing the Three Supply Chain Flows in the Maritime Logistics and Distribution Industryâ, Journal of Distribution Science, 18(12), pp. 45-54.
Trivellas, P., Malindretos, G., and Reklitis, P., 2020. Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability, 12(24), pp. 10515.
Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K., E., Koulouriotis, D., and Nikolaou, I., E., 2020. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), pp. 1617-1629.
Tsalis, T.A., Malamateniou, K., E., Koulouriotis, D., and Nikolaou, I., E., 2020. âNew challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goalsâ, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), pp. 1617-1629.
Van der Waal, J., W., and Thijssens, T., 2020. âCorporate involvement in sustainable development goals: exploring the territoryâ, Journal of Cleaner Production, 252(45), 119-125.
Walsh, P., R., and Dodds, R., 2017. âMeasuring the choice of environmental sustainability strategies in creating a competitive advantageâ, Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), pp. 672-687.
Wang, J., Zhang, Y., and Goh, M., 2018. Moderating the role of firm size in sustainable performance improvement through sustainable supply chain management. Sustainability, 10(5), pp. 1654.
Wieland, A., 2021. âDancing the supply chain: Toward transformative supply chain managementâ, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), pp. 58-73.
Yang, Q., C., Feng, G., F., Chang, C., P., and Wang, Q., J., 2021. âEnvironmental protection and performance: A bi-directional assessmentâ, Science of The Total Environment, 774(23), pp.145-147.
Yavas, V., and Ozkan-Ozen, Y., D., 2020. âLogistics centers in the new industrial era: A proposed framework for logistics center 4.0â, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 135(4), pp. 64-67.
Zhang, M., Sun, M., Bi, D., and Liu, T. 2020. Green Logistics Development Decision-Making: Factor Identification and Hierarchical Framework Construction. IEEE Access, 8, pp. 127897-127912.
Zimon, D., Tyan, J., and Sroufe, R. 2019. Implementing sustainable supply chain management: reactive, cooperative, and dynamic models. Sustainability, 11(24), pp. 7227.