Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process

  • S.I. : Sustainable supply chain design and Mgt.
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In practice, manufacturers select their logistics service providers mainly based on total procurement cost. In addition to this, they will also consider allied services such as cargo insurance, electronic documentation, even though practitioners emphasize importance of other factors such as on time delivery and carbon emissions. This study proposes sustainable decision model which includes various non-price and environmental sustainability factors and analyzes their influences in allocating typical routes to the carriers,while establishing a truck load contract. Multiple case studies are carried out in automotive and logistics companies to prioritize factors using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Factor prioritization is used to formulate carrier assignment problem as a multiple objective optimization model using the influencing factors identified and applies a heuristic methodology to derive the near-optimal solution. This study reveals that carbon footprint, route optimization and on time delivery will have huge impact on procurement decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ballot, E., & Fontane, F. (2010). Reducing transportation CO2 emissions through pooling of supply networks: Perspectives from a case study in French retail chains. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 21(6), 640–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, R. J., Subramanian, N., & Cheikhrouhou, N. (2015a). Review of full truck load (TL) transportation service procurement. Transport Reviews. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1038741.

  • Basu, R. J., Bai, R., & Palaniappan, P. L. K. (2015b). A strategic approach to improve sustainability in transportation service procurement. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 74, 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjaafar, S., Li, Y., & Daskin, M. (2013). Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 10(1), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaeser, J., & Whiting, G. (2012). Environmental sustainability benchmark study: Leaders find green ROI. Research report by American Shipper Society.

  • Buer, T., & Pankratz, G. (2010). Solving a bi-objective winner determination problem in a transportation procurement auction. Logistics Research, 2(2), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buer, T., & Kopfer, H. (2014). A Pareto-metaheuristic for a bi-objective winner determination problem in a combinatorial reverse auction. Computers and Operations Research, 41, 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplice, C., & Sheffi, Y. (2003). Optimization-based procurement for transportation services. Journal of Business Logistics, 24(2), 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, A., Beil, D., & Sinha, A. (2008). Using implicit bidding to solve truckload procurement auctions. In Proceedings of NSF engineering research and innovation conference, 7–10 January, Knoxville, TN.

  • Colicchia, C., Marchet, G., Melacini, M., & Perotti, S. (2013). Building environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from Logistics Service Providers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, R. L., Darden, W. R., Coulter, M. K., & Brown, G. (1989). Freight transportation carrier selection criteria: Identification of service competitive positioning. Journal of Business Research, 19, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalalah, D., & AL-Oqla, F., & Hayajneh, M., (2010). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of cranes. Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 4(5), 567–578.

  • Dey, A., LaGuardia, P., & Srinivasan, M. (2011). Building sustainability in logistics operations: A research agenda. Management Research Review, 34(11), 1237–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, C., Shen, B., Chow, P., Yang, L., & Ng, C. T. (2014). Sustainability investment under cap-and-trade regulation. Annals of Operations Research,. doi:10.1007/s10479-013-1514-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergun, O., Kuyzu, G., & Savelsbergh, M. (2007). Reducing truckload transportation costs through collaboration. Transportation Science, 41(2), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Y., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., & Zhu, Y. (2006). Carrier assignment models in transportation procurement. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 1472–1481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo, J., & Zhang, L. (2006). Savings based algorithm for full truckload vehicle routing problem with time window. Issue: Industrial Engineering and Management. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klumpp, M., Bioly, D.S., & Zelewski, S. (2009). Sustainability and technology innovation in Logistics–friends or foes? In Proceedings of second international conference on multinational enterprises and sustainable development, 4–6 November, Nancy-Mets, France.

  • Lee, C. G., Kwon, R. H., & Ma, Z. (2007). A carrier’s optimal bid generation problem in combinatorial auctions for transportation procurement. Transportation Research Part E, 43(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., You, S., Ritchie, S. G., Saphores, J. D., Jayakrishnan, R., & Ogunseitan, O. (2012). Assessing air quality and health benefits of the clean truck programin the Alameda corridor, CA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46, 1177–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieb, K. J., & Lieb, R. C. (2010). Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL) industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(7), 524–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. Y., & Ho, Y. H. (2008). An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(1), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, A. (2010). Green logistics: The carbon agenda. Electronic Scientific Journal ofLogistics, 6(3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, A. C., & Piecyk, M. (2010). Measuring and managing \({\rm CO}_2\) emissions. Edinburgh: Logistics Research Center Heriot-Watt University.

  • Ozener, O. O., & Ergun, O. (2008). Allocating costs in a collaborative transportation procurement network. Transportation Science, 42(2), 146–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozener, O. O., Ergun, O., & Savelsbergh, M. (2011). Lane-exchange mechanisms for truckloadcarrier collaboration. Transportation Science, 45(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, D. L. (2006). Sustainable business development: Inventing the future through strategy, innovation, and leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregationin the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 33, 1289–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remli, N., & Rekik, M. (2013). A robust winner determination problem for combinatorial transportation auctions under uncertain shipment volumes. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 35, 204–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm, T. (2002). Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence, 135(1–2), 1–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis, J., Helms, M. M., & Hervani, A. A. (2010). Reverse logistics and social sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathaye, N., Horvath, A., & Madanat, S. (2010). Unintended impacts of increased truck loads on pavement supply-chain emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbihi, A., & Eglese, R. W. (2010). Combinatorial optimization and green logistics. Annals of Operations Research, 175, 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwind, M., Gujo, O., & Vykoukal, J. (2009). A combinatorial intra-enterprise exchangefor logistics services. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7(3), 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. (2004). Combinatorial auctions in the procurement of transportation services. Interfaces, 34(4), 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheu, J. B., Chou, Y. H., & Hu, C. C. (2005). An integrated logistics operational model for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E, 41, 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorna, A. C. H., & Fleisch, E. (2012). Loss prevention in transportation to ensure product quality: Insights from the Cargo insurance sector. Advances in Production Management Systems., 384, 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., & Regan, A. (2003). Combinatorial auctions for transportation service procurement: The carrier perspective. Transportation Research Record, 1833, 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., & Rahman, S. (2014). Sourcing complexity factors on contractual relationship: Chinese suppliers’ perspective. Production & Manufacturing Research, 2(1), 558–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., Pan, S., & Ballot, E. (2012). Allocation of transportation cost & CO2 emission in pooled supply chains using cooperative game theory. INCOM 2012 (pp. 1–18). Romania: Bucharest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadati, C., Oliveira, C. A. S., & Pardalos, P. M. (2007). An approximate winner determination algorithm for hybrid procurement mechanisms logistics. Advances in Computational Management Science, 9(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied social research methods series. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process-A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16(4), 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., Ding, H., Li, H., Wang, W., & Yao, T. (2014). A sampling-based Stochastic winner determination model for truckload service procurement. Networks and Spatial Economics, 14(2), 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2012). Green supply chain management innovation diffusion and its relationship to organizational improvement: An ecological modernization perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(1), 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very much grateful to the special issue editors and the anonymous reviewers for their critical and very insightful comments that have certainly helped in improving the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sethu Institute of Technology, Virudhunagar, India

    R. Jothi Basu

  2. Nottingham University Business School China, The University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo, 315100, China

    Nachiappan Subramanian

  3. Department of Decision and Information Sciences, Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, North Dartmouth, MA, 02747-2300, USA

    Angappa Gunasekaran

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, India

    P. L. K. Palaniappan

Authors
  1. R. Jothi Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nachiappan Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angappa Gunasekaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. L. K. Palaniappan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nachiappan Subramanian.

Appendix: Questionnaire

Appendix: Questionnaire

Part A: Questionnaire for analytic hierarchy process

  • Influence of environmental sustainability and non price factors in truckload procurement—Determination of preference for environmental sustainability factors and non price objective factors involved in transportation service procurement for truckload. (Please use Saaty (1980) scale between 1.....9 as explained)

  • Q1. Influence of environmental sustainability and non price factors on truckload transportation service procurement according to your view which factor between environmental sustainability and non price is more important? And to what extent (Please use scale between 1.....9 as explained)

  • Environmental sustainability factors preference— Determination for preference of sustainability factors considered in truckload service procurement. (Please use Saaty (1980) scale between 1.....9 as explained)

  • Q2. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between route optimization and energy efficiency) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q3. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between route optimization and carbon foot print) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q4. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between route optimization and electronic documentation) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q5. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between energy efficiency and carbon foot print) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q6. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between energy efficiency and electronic documentation) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q7. Influence of sustainability factors in establishing truckload contract according to your view which factor (between carbon foot print and electronic documentation) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Non Price Factors preference– Determination for preference of non price factors involved in truckload transportation service procurement. (Please use Saaty (1980) scale between 1.....9 as explained)

  • Q8. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between On time Delivery and Equipment Availability) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q9. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between On time Delivery and Area Coverage) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q10. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between On time Delivery and Cargo Insurance) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q11. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between Equipment Availability and Area Coverage) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q12. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between Equipment Availability and Cargo Insurance) is more important? And to what extent?

  • Q13. Influence of non price factors in determining winners in truckload contract auction according to your view which factor (between Area Coverage and Cargo Insurance) is more important? And to what extent?

  • General open—ended questions:

  • Q14. Any further comments on environmental sustainability in truckload transportation service procurement:

  • Q15. Any other comments on non price factors involved in truckload contract auction:

  • Q16. Any other general comment:

Part B: Respondent and company profile

  • Q1. Position in the organisation

  • Q2. Education

  • Q3. Years of experience you have in Logistics and Supply Chain Management

  • Q4. Years of experience you have in Transportation Service Procurement

  • Q5. Age

  • Q6. Types of organisation

  • Q7. Number of staff involved in Logistics and Supply Chain functions

  • Q8. Types of certification your organisation registered

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basu, R.J., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A. et al. Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process. Ann Oper Res 250, 363–388 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2170-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2170-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation