This document summarizes a research paper that investigated strategies companies undertake for supply chain sustainability. It developed a framework to identify sustainability initiatives across the supply chain phases of inbound supply, production, outbound supply, warehousing, and product design. The framework was applied to 10 multinational companies to assess their adoption of initiatives. Interviews with managers from 3 companies provided further insights. The document outlines the methodology and discusses initiatives for each supply chain phase identified from the literature.

1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
Benchmarking
Benchmarking supply chain supply chain
sustainability: insights from sustainability
a field study
705
Claudia Colicchia
Logistics Research Centre, Carlo Cattaneo University – LIUC,
Castellanza, Italy, and
Marco Melacini and Sara Perotti
Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering,
Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – Given the relevance of supply chain sustainability, the aim of the present paper is
threefold: first, to investigate the strategies currently undertaken by companies in the supply chain
sustainability arena, and, second, to find out which phase of the supply chain is at the forefront in the
implementation of initiatives towards more sustainable supply chains. Finally, the criteria commonly
used for priority-setting amongst different initiatives within the same supply chain phase are
identified.
Design/methodology/approach – A three-pronged methodology was adopted. First, a framework
was developed to identify the initiatives towards supply chain sustainability. Second, the framework
was applied to a set of multinational companies by examining their environmental reporting, thus to
assess the adoption of each initiative. Third, a further in-depth investigation of three companies was
finally performed in order to provide additional insights on the obtained results.
Findings – The research offers a benchmark of primary multinational companies with respect to the
supply chain sustainability initiatives and their level of adoption.
Research limitations/implications – The examined set of companies, although representative
(i.e. the analysed companies operate in industries in which the environmental concern is particularly
critical), is limited. However, the present paper contributes to the knowledge on supply chain
sustainability and captures variations in theory, paving the way for new research.
Practical implications – The paper provides an instrument to evaluate and compare companies in
terms of supply chain sustainability and highlights the main challenges that companies have to
confront.
Originality/value – The originality of the paper lies in the adoption of a supply chain perspective to
investigate sustainable initiatives.
Keywords Sustainability, Environment, Benchmarking, Supply chain management, Green logistics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Supply chain sustainability has been more and more in focus during the last years, both
among the organizations (Hendrickson et al., 2006; Mahler, 2007) and as a research topic
¨
(Seuring and Muller, 2008). Originally, many companies have viewed sustainability Benchmarking: An International
initiatives as mandatory and driven by regulation (Melacini et al., 2010) but more recent Journal
Vol. 18 No. 5, 2011
literature would suggest that voluntary environmental programmes are also introduced pp. 705-732
by organizations as possible alternatives for gaining or maintaining a competitive q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
advantage (Sarkis, 2003). DOI 10.1108/14635771111166839

2. BIJ According to the existing literature, the need for analysing environmental
18,5 alternatives and quantifying the sustainable performances of a company is more and
more vital (Sarkis, 2003; Veleva et al., 2001). Dealing with the sustainability
quantification, a key issue regards the system boundaries to be considered (Finkbeiner,
2009), i.e. analysing the single company or the supply chain as a whole (Schmidt and
Schwegler, 2008), focusing only on direct impact of internal processes or also on
706 indirect impact created at the supplier level (Koplin et al., 2007).
Traditionally, a major line of research about supply chain sustainability regards
¨
reverse logistics (Seuring and Muller, 2008), defined from an environmental
perspective as the return of recyclable or reusable products and materials into the
forward supply chain (Sarkis, 2003). In this field, the main focus is on logistics network
design with the aim to optimize the closed-loop manufacturing for product recovery,
reuse and recycling of materials (Quariguasi et al., 2009).
Still, there is little existing literature that addresses sustainability of the “direct”
flows of goods by using a supply chain view (Linton et al., 2007). In this sense,
contributions on life cycle assessment (LCA) for single products or product families can
be considered as the only examples that adopt the broader perspective (Lai et al., 2008).
However, LCA studies are very time consuming and very costly (McKinnon, 2010).
According to Schmidt and Schwegler (2008), such analyses can only be carried out for
products particularly relevant from a strategic or environmental point of view,
avoiding situations in which the LCAs of all products are noted and updated.
Many authors are exploring environmental initiatives within each major phase of
the supply chain. In fact, much of the research is focused predominantly on one
functional area only (Sarkis, 1999), addressing specific aspects such as product design
for environment (Turner and Houston, 2009) or energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions (Hendrickson et al., 2006). To the best of our knowledge, the study by Rao
and Holt (2005) is the only contribution that identifies the initiatives for greening the
different phases of the supply chain.
The present paper aims to fill this void, investigating the current adoption by
companies of environmentally sustainable initiatives from a supply chain perspective,
i.e. considering all the phases of supply chain management.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The purpose and research
questions are outlined in Section 2, while the methodology of the present research is
described in Section 3. After the description of the proposed framework for
environmentally sustainable initiatives (Section 4), the analysis of the environmental
reporting of ten multinational companies follows (Section 5). The case studies are
presented in Section 6 and the paper then discusses the results, provides insights on the
key elements driving the adoption of sustainable programmes by companies, and
concludes with implications for research and management (Section 7).
2. Purpose and research questions
The literature review has revealed the increasing interest that the research community
has progressively shown towards the subject of supply chain sustainability.
Such rising attention may be observed also from the practitioners’ viewpoint, since
companies have started to experience pressure from a variety of stakeholders to
implement new initiatives towards sustainable supply chains.

3. Based on this scenario, the aim of the present paper is threefold: first, to find out Benchmarking
which phase within the supply chain is at the forefront in the development of more supply chain
sustainable supply chains (Research Question 1), and, second, to investigate the
initiatives currently undertaken by companies in the supply chain sustainability arena sustainability
(Research Question 2). Finally, the criteria commonly used for priority-setting amongst
different initiatives within the same supply chain phase are identified (Research
Question 3). 707
3. Methodology
In order to achieve the research objectives, an in-depth review of previous literature on
this topic was initially performed. The three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. social,
economic and environmental (Carter and Rogers, 2008) were explored. Of them, only
the environmental dimension was specifically taken into account for the purposes of
the present study. In order to address the emerged literature void, a supply chain
perspective, that encompasses all the phases of supply chain management, was
adopted within the analysis.
Based on these premises, the following three-pronged methodology was used.
First, a framework was developed to identify the initiatives towards supply chain
sustainability. Second, the framework was applied to a set of companies by examining
their company environmental reporting (CER), thus to assess the adoption level of each
initiative. Third, a further in-depth investigation of three companies was finally
performed.
The framework was built on the earlier study by Rao and Holt (2005) and further
expanded based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature. Two main steps
were detailed:
S1. Identification of a set of environmental initiatives for each phase of the supply
chain.
S2. Identification and computation of an environmental performance index (EPI)
for each phase of the supply chain to benchmark the company environmental
performances.
In order to address the first aforementioned step of the framework (S1), building upon
previous literature (Linton et al., 2007; Rao and Holt, 2005) five different phases of the
supply chain were taken into account, namely:
(1) inbound supply chain (green procurement);
(2) production (“internal” supply chain);
(3) outbound supply chain;
(4) warehousing; and
(5) product design and use.
For each of the above-mentioned phases, a detailed list of initiatives that may be
undertaken to enhance environmental sustainability was prepared based on the
literature review. Reverse logistics was excluded from the analysis, since it is a very
narrow aspect of sustainability, already studied in detail in the extant literature.
The possible solutions and requirements of the reverse logistics channel may

4. BIJ considerably vary depending on the organization, industry and product type (Sarkis,
18,5 2003). For this reason, we considered it beyond the scope of the present research.
As for S2, an EPI for each phase was computed in order to measure the overall effort
currently undertaken by companies to foster the sustainability of their supply chain.
This allows a comparative analysis for benchmarking the sustainability initiatives in
place for each company within each phase of the supply chain.
708 The framework was then applied to a set of ten large multinational companies
(Coca-Cola HBC, Electrolux, Henkel, Ikea, Fiat Group, Kimberly Clark, Levi Strauss
`
& Co, Nestle, Pirelli and Tenaris). The companies, whose features are illustrated in
Table I, were selected based on the following criteria:
.
large companies, which are more inclined to adopt green initiatives (Vachon and
Klassen, 2007);
.
multinational companies with the headquarter, or at least a branch, in Italy;
.
companies operating in industries in which the environmental concern is
particularly critical; and
.
listed companies that communicate to their stakeholders their environmental
strategy and the related obtained performances.
For each of them, the CER available on the internet site of the company was examined to
understand the current environmental initiatives they are adopting within each phase of
the supply chain. The analysis of public sustainability reports is already present in the
extant literature on this topic (Schneider et al., 2010). The main aim is to provide some
insights into the level of understanding and awareness of sustainability issues within
the companies reviewed, without claiming to link the obtained performances with the
related investment (Veleva et al., 2003; Roth and Kaberger, 2002).
Starting from the results obtained from applying the framework, a sub-set of three
companies was finally selected for further in-depth interviews. Those companies
were chosen for a more detailed analysis as they were presenting a significant
Number of Publication Publication year
production year of the first of the examined
Turnover (Italy Industry plants in environmental environmental
Company 2009) (million) sector Italy report report
Coca-Cola HBC 1,228 FMCG – 8 2002 2008
beverage
Electrolux 1,026 Electronics 5 1995 2008
Henkel 900 FMCG 2 2001 2009
Ikea 1,382 Retail 0 2005 2008
Fiat Group 12,726 Automotive 64 2004 2009
Kimberly Clark 282 FMCG 2 2004 2009
Levi Strauss & Co. 89 Fashion 0 n.a. 2007
Nestle´ 1,548 FMCG 12 2006 2009
Pirelli 500 Automotive 4 2005 2008
Table I. – tyres
Features of the Tenaris n.a. Steel 5 n.a. 2009
examined companies industry

5. environmental sensibility, also due to the considerable interest that consumers had in their Benchmarking
sustainable initiatives. Specifically, two companies operate in the beverage industry supply chain
´
(i.e. Coca-Cola HBC and Nestle), and one operates in the electronics industry
´
(i.e. Electrolux). In particular, as for Nestle, the Waters division was specifically examined. sustainability
Companies were asked to discuss the obtained results and share ideas on the
inhibitors that prevent them from pursuing major change programmes.
The interviewees were supply chain managers and/or environment managers, 709
working in Italy. Interviews normally lasted between 3 and 4 hours (plus a further
check for data validation), and were completed in the September-December 2009 time
frame. The interviews were audio-taped and supported by a questionnaire composed of
two macro-sections, respectively, dealing with:
(1) company general information, including logistics and transportation network; and
(2) initiatives in place towards supply chain environmental sustainability,
including performance measurement indicators being adopted and overall
perceived impact on CO2 emissions.
4. Framework for assessing supply chain sustainability
In this section, we present the framework to identify and assess the initiatives towards
supply chain sustainability. A brief description of the initiatives that can be used to
enhance environmental sustainability within each of the above-mentioned supply chain
phases (i.e. inbound supply chain, production, outbound supply chain, warehousing and
product design and use) is initially provided (from Sections 4.1 to 4.5). The identified
initiatives were synthesized in Tables II and III. Then in Section 4.6, we present the EPI
to benchmark company sustainability in the supply chain context.
4.1 Inbound supply chain
The traditional view of purchasing as a tactical function has changed profoundly in the
last years. Globalisation has allowed a deep variety of goods and services to become
available anywhere in the world and it also facilitated offshore outsourcing to low-cost
countries. Therefore, the purchasing function is becoming increasingly critical for
the competitiveness of the firm and its impact on the environmental performance of the
company, through the purchase of materials or selection of suppliers, could
be significantly relevant (Sarkis, 2003).
From the inbound perspective, greening the supply chain comprises initiatives
towards a better management of inbound logistics as well as green purchasing
strategies. However, it should be noticed that the initiatives related to the transportation
phase may also be applied in the outbound supply chain, with the only difference that the
outbound logistics is more critical for stricter service-level requirements to be respected
(Wu and Dunn, 1995). Thus, its management towards an enhanced environmental
sustainability is more difficult. Furthermore, green purchasing strategies represent a
large part of the inbound function in response to environmental concern (Rao and Holt,
2005). For these reasons, we decided to analyse within the inbound supply chain only the
initiatives related to green purchasing, while referring to the outbound phase for a
thorough analysis of environmental initiatives in logistics.
The “green purchasing” can be defined as the process of formally introducing
and integrating environmental issues and concerns into the purchasing process,
seeking to acquire goods and services characterised by a low environmental impact,

6. BIJ
Supply
18,5 chain
phase Approach Initiative Main references
Inbound Green Suppliers’ requirement to have an Bowen et al. (2001), Chen (2005),
supply purchasing environmental certification Christensen et al. (2008),
710 chain Eco-labelled product purchase Darnall et al. (2008), Handfield
Adoption of environmental criteria et al. (2002), Hervani et al. (2005),
into the supplier assessment Matthews (2003), Rao and Holt
system (2005), Rex and Baumann (2006)
Environmental collaboration with and Vachon and Klassen (2008)
suppliers
Production Reduction of Energy: introduction of an energy Florida and Davison (2001),
input resources manager Hilliard (2006), King and Lenox
Energy: choice of green electric (2001) and Veleva and
power suppliers Ellenbecker (2001)
Energy: use of cogeneration plants
Energy: energy efficiency
improvement
Energy: adoption of cleaner
technology
Fuel: district heating system
Water: increase water system
efficiency
Water: waste water treatment
Water: process optimization
Material: reuse of materials
Material: process optimization
Reduction of CO2 capture and storage McKinnon et al. (2010),
wastes and Reduction of hydrofluorocarbons Rothenberg et al. (2005) and
hazardous (HFC) and perfluorocarbons (PFC) Turner and Houston (2009)
emissions Use of CO2 refrigeration systems
Treatment and control of post-
combustion emissions
Use of alternative fuels (e.g. cleaner
fuels)
Treatment and recycle of
hazardous wastes
Table II. Process optimization
Sustainable initiatives Implementation of waste-to-energy
within inbound process
supply chain and Waste reduction, reuse and
production phases recycling approaches
i.e. products environmentally friendly in nature and produced using environmentally
friendly processes (Handfield et al., 2002; Rao and Holt, 2005).
The initiatives to minimize environmental impact in inbound supply chain,
according to the “green purchasing” approach, can be summarised as follows:
.
Suppliers’ requirement to have an environmental certification, e.g. ISO 14001,
EMAS. For example, once certified, the ISO 14001 label indicates that the supplier
has implemented a management system that documents the organization’s

7. Supply chain
phase Approach Initiative Main references
Outbound supply Vehicle optimization Vehicle technological innovation (e.g. McKinnon (2010), Wu and Dunn (1995),
chain cleaner trucks) Langley and Capgemini (2008) and
Vehicle maintenance and disposal Finkbeiner (2009)
Use of alternative fuels (e.g. cleaner fuels)
Carrier selection
Driver skill improvement
Selection of green transportation modes Combined use of road and rail Vannieuwenhuyse et al. (2003) and Wu
transportation and Dunn (1995)
Combined use of road and sea
transportation
Combined use of road and inland
navigation
Logistics optimization Shipment consolidation Aronsson and Brodin (2006), Langley and
Balancing backhaul movements Capgemini (2008), McKinnon (2000),
Increase of the vehicle utilization degree Murphy (1994), Murphy and Poist (2000),
Logistics network redesign Van Hoek (1999) and Wu and Dunn (1995)
Travel distance optimization
Warehousing Green building practices Attention to construction materials Rizzo (2006)
Use of energy-efficient lighting systems
and day lighting
Efficient building thermal insulation
Use of variable-frequency drive HVAC
Use of green energy sources Introduction of solar and photovoltaic Rizzo (2006)
panels
Use of cogeneration plants
Use of wind turbines
Use of rainwater collection systems
(continued)
sustainability
Benchmarking
and product design
chain, warehousing,
Sustainable initiatives
supply chain
and use phases
within outbound supply
Table III.
711

8. BIJ
18,5
712
Table III.
Supply chain
phase Approach Initiative Main references
Operational strategies Travel distance optimization Wu and Dunn (1995)
Container recycle or reuse
Use of energy-efficient material handling
equipment
Product design and Reduction of product impact within the Decrease in the use of material/energy Calcott and Walls (2000), Schvaneveldt
use supply chain Easier product break up and recycle at the (2003), Sherwin (2004), Sroufe et al. (2000),
Reduction of product impact in the end of the life cycle Wever et al. (2007), Wu and Dunn (1995)
consumer use Low energy-consuming products and Zsidisin and Hendrick (1998)
Reduction of packaging impact Design to avoid or reduce the use of
hazardous products
Packaging reduction
Packaging reuse
Packaging recycling

9. environmental aspects and impacts, and identifies a process of continuous Benchmarking
improvement (Chen, 2005; Darnall et al., 2008; Matthews, 2003). supply chain
.
Eco-labelled product purchase. Eco-labels allow buying companies to choose sustainability
products with a low environmental impact. Beyond mandatory eco-labels,
a supplier can use voluntary eco-labelling systems (e.g. green lights, green label)
as tools to improve its market share by communicating the environmental
information of products (Rex and Baumann, 2007). 713
.
Adoption of environmental criteria into the supplier assessment system.
This initiative represents the extension of the supplier assessment process
aimed at incorporating environmental considerations into these activities
(Bowen et al., 2001; Handfield et al., 2002). The company establishes the required
environmental performances of suppliers and monitors them through techniques
such as vendor rating. The required green performances could vary depending
on the context under consideration (Hervani et al., 2005).
.
Environmental collaboration with suppliers. Beyond the assessment of the
environmental suppliers’ performances, this initiative introduces more proactive
measures, such as involving the suppliers in the product design process and/or in
plans to reduce the environmental impact associated with material flows in the
supply chain (Chen, 2005; Christensen et al., 2008; Vachon and Klassen, 2008).
The challenge is to create the conditions in which collaborative working becomes
possible. The underlying principle is information sharing and the willingness to
create partnerships. As pointed out by Rao and Holt (2005) often this initiative is
merely operationalised by holding awareness seminars for suppliers, bringing
together suppliers to share problems, informing suppliers about the benefits of
cleaner production and technologies, arranging for funds to help suppliers to
purchase equipment for sustainability improvement.
4.2 Production
The sustainable production, considering the sole environmental dimension of
sustainability, can be defined as “the creation of goods and services using processes
and systems that are non-polluting, conserving of energy and natural resources”
(Veleva et al., 2001).
There are a number of contributions addressing the environmental impact of the
manufacturing phase. The proposed approaches to greening the production process
can be summarised into the following categories:
.
Reduction of input resources, that is implementation of actions aimed at reducing
utilisation of input resources and, consequently, the wastes of materials and
energy during the production process. In this sense, lean production practices
(King and Lenox, 2001) and total quality management (Florida and Davison,
2001) can lead to improved environmental performances.
.
Reduction of wastes and hazardous emissions to human beings and/or
environment (e.g. solid and liquid wastes, air emissions, noise).
The first category includes initiatives towards reduction of energy consumption,
materials, fresh water and fuel utilisation (Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001). In this sense,
sustainable production can be considered as the application of an environmental

10. BIJ strategy applied to production process to increase the eco-efficiency of the process itself,
18,5 by minimising the input resources needed to obtain the same output. These solutions
may lead to improvements both from an environmental and an economic point of view
and for this reason they are called eco-efficient (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006).
Practices toward the improvement of eco-efficiency can significantly vary for different
processes and industries. In Table I, the generic term “process optimization” refers to
714 this kind of possible environmental initiatives. Other examples of initiatives aimed at
minimising the input resources can be: introduction of an energy manager, choice of
green electric power suppliers, use of cogeneration plants, energy efficiency
improvement. Finally, the integration of environmental protection consideration into
production technologies is broadly known as “cleaner technology” (Hilliard, 2006).
Approaches towards the reduction of wastes and hazardous emissions should
consider different elements: hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, nitrous oxides,
sulphur oxides, solvents, acids, arsenic, mercury, benzene, solid wastes generated from
the production process and carbon dioxide (CO2) (Rothenberg et al., 2005;
McKinnon et al., 2010).
Once again it is difficult to define specific initiatives towards the reduction of
emissions, since they depend strictly on the process under consideration.
The key issues present in the literature are waste management and the greenhouse
gas emissions. Waste management falls within the broad category of reverse logistics,
through the adoption of reduction, reuse and recycling approaches (Turner and Houston,
2009). Greenhouse gas emissions are usually reported in carbon dioxide equivalents.
Furthermore, the literature is mainly concentrated on CO2 emissions since it is well
acknowledged by researches that, in the past few decades, the CO2 emission from human
activities has significantly increased, and, consequently, the problem of global warming
has become an important issue. Many countries are setting out targets to limit the CO2
emission in different industries. A measure of the total amount of CO2 emitted either
directly or indirectly is provided by the carbon footprint (Wiedmann et al., 2006;
Wiedmann and Minx, 2008; Matthews et al., 2008). According to some authors, the
analysis of CO2 emissions can be misleading, since “the information contained in
a carbon footprint varies depending on how it was calculated and how much
responsibility the entity being ‘footprinted’ is willing to take on” (Matthews et al., 2008).
Although assessing the mere carbon footprint of activities and processes can
be reductive, since it can be in conflict with other environmental indicators (e.g. recycling
paper should be stopped, because compared to virgin paper with a carbon footprint close
to “zero”, it comes with a higher burden-unless renewable energy is used for the
processes necessary, many efforts are under way in this direction (Finkbeiner, 2009)).
As it will be explained in detail in the following sections, the analysis of carbon footprint
regards, besides the production process, the transportation phase as well. Furthermore,
the total carbon emissions are not just the direct emissions due to the manufacturing
processes of the company but should consider also the indirect emission, arising from
the consumption of energy. These indirect emissions can be controlled through the
improvement of energy efficiency and low-carbon energy supply (i.e. reduction of input
resources). Other initiatives can be used to achieve savings of direct emissions,
depending on the process under consideration and the fuel type used.

11. 4.3 Outbound supply chain Benchmarking
Outbound supply chain (also known as physical distribution) is one of the major sources supply chain
of environmental problems (European Commission, 2001). The most critical element is
related to CO2 emissions during the transportation. The key role of the carbon footprint sustainability
is even attested by Wal-Mart green supply chain plan. According to Wal-Mart, the global
supply chain footprint is much larger than its operational footprint and presents more
“impactful” opportunities to reduce emissions (Berman, 2010). 715
Possible approaches towards the reduction of the carbon footprint during the
physical distribution may be identified as follows:
(1) Vehicle optimization, by means of:
.
vehicle technological innovation, i.e. energy efficiency, reduction of air
emissions and fuel use, vehicle aerodynamics (McKinnon, 2010);
.
vehicle maintenance and disposal (Wu and Dunn, 1995);
.
use of alternative fuels (Langley and Capgemini, 2008) (e.g. first- and
second-generation bio-fuels, pressurized natural gas, and, as a long-term
strategy, more advanced solutions such as hydrogen fuel cells);
.
carrier selection (i.e. in case of logistics outsourcing, including vehicle
environmental impacts, such as air emissions, among the carrier selection
drivers); and
.
driver skill improvement (e.g. training courses).
(2) Selection of green transportation modes, such as the combined use of road and
either rail, sea transportation or inland navigation (Wu and Dunn, 1995;
Vannieuwenhuyse et al., 2003).
(3) Logistics optimization, aiming to reduce travel distances by means of:
.
shipment consolidation (Aronsson and Brodin, 2006; Langley and
Capgemini, 2008);
.
balancing backhaul movements (Wu and Dunn, 1995);
.
increase of the vehicle utilization degree (Wu and Dunn, 1995; McKinnon,
2000); and
.
logistics network redesign (Murphy, 1994; Van Hoek, 1999; Murphy and
Poist, 2000).
Travel distance optimization is promoted by the implementation of a good information
system (McIntyre et al., 1998). A further indirect transportation improvement may be
achieved through product design (Van Hoek, 1999), aiming to reduce packaging weight
and volume (Section 4.5).
The presence of tax restrictions or fees for the most pollutant vehicles (Greene and
Wegener, 1997; Himanen et al., 2005) have not been considered among the strategies
towards CO2 emission reduction, since the present study adopts a “private”
(i.e. company) viewpoint.
Other possible strategies related to company car fleets – although noteworthy –
have not been taken into account for the purposes of the analysis, since the focus of the
present paper is on goods.

12. BIJ 4.4 Warehousing
18,5 The environmental impact of warehouses is primarily connected to energy
consumption (Andriansyah et al., 2009) and – as an indirect effect – to the CO2
emitted for energy production. Indeed, a number of activities or procedures performed
within a warehouse, such as air conditioning or heating, material handling operations,
lightening, require electrical energy to operate.
716 In the literature, very few papers may be found that specifically address the issue
of energy consumption within warehouses (Rizzo, 2006).
Overall, possible approaches towards the achievement of sustainable warehousing
may be summarized as follows:
.
Green building practices, i.e. attention to construction materials (e.g. use of
recycled concrete, steel, asphalt and other materials), use of energy-efficient
lighting systems and day lighting, efficient building thermal insulation
(Rizzo, 2006), use of variable-frequency drive heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment that allow both a significant reduction of energy
consumption and the performance optimization of appliances such as pumps and
fans, based on the current building requirements.
.
Use of green energy sources (i.e. introduction of solar and photovoltaic panels,
use of cogeneration plants, wind turbines and rainwater collection systems).
.
Operational strategies, e.g. travel distance optimization, container recycle
or reuse (Wu and Dunn, 1995), use of energy-efficient material handling
equipment.
4.5 Product design and use
Although product design is normally a “clean” phase, it contributes significantly to the
overall product environmental impacts. Such criticality is proved by an increasing
number of contributions dealing with “design for sustainability” (Sherwin, 2004) or
“design for environment” (Calcott and Walls, 2000; Sroufe et al., 2000; Schvaneveldt,
2003; Wever et al., 2007). The key objective lies in the achievement of an
environmentally friendly product design.
A reduction in the product environmental impact may be achieved not only through
an appropriate product design, but also a proper use by consumers. In this sense,
consumers must become more aware of the environmental implications related to the
products they are using, so that sustainability may be perceived as a value-added
element for the society, as well as a distinguishing feature for companies.
Two main areas main be identified addressing the available strategies towards
sustainable product design and use, namely product design, and packaging design.
As for product design, possible strategies lie in:
.
Reduction of product environmental impact within the supply chain (intended as a
“closest loop”). For instance, product design may go towards a decrease in the use
of material/energy, or an easier product break up and recycle at the end of the life
cycle (i.e. product design for reuse, recycle, recovery of material, component
parts) (Zsidisin and Hendrick, 1998).
.
Reduction of product environmental impact in the consumer use. It is the case of
low energy-consuming products, or those products designed to avoid or reduce
the use of hazardous of products (Zsidisin and Hendrick, 1998).

13. As for the packaging design, it affects both the generated waste and the overall Benchmarking
environmental efficiency of the whole supply chain (e.g. benefits related to the degree supply chain
of vehicle utilization due to reduced packaging volumes). In this sense, strategies may
be three-pronged: sustainability
(1) packaging reduction (i.e. decrease in packaging volume and weight, thus to
reduce the generated waste and increase supply chain efficiency);
717
(2) packaging reuse (i.e. design packaging which may be easily reused); and
(3) packaging recycling (i.e. design packaging which may be easily recycled).
4.6 Environmental performance index
In order to assess the adoption of the proposed sustainable initiatives for each phase j of
the supply chain, an EPI for each company k can be defined as follows:
PN j
i¼1 S k;i; j · W i; j
EPI k; j ¼ · 100 ð1Þ
Nj
where:
.
Sk,i,j is a Boolean variable equal to 1 if the initiative i is adopted in the phase j by
company k, 0 otherwise.
.
Wi,j is the impact of the initiative i within the supply chain phase j on the overall
sustainable performance.
.
Nj is the total number of initiatives considered within the supply chain phase j.
The value of EPIk,j, as defined, assesses the implementation by companies of the
proposed sustainable initiatives, without considering the intensity in their use. Even if
this latter dimension could represent a valuable information, its evaluation is really
difficult (Schvaneveldt, 2003) and is beyond the scope of the present research.
After having calculated EPIk,j for each phase j of the supply chain, an overall EPI for
each company k (EPIk) can be simply computed as their average value. This index,
expressed as a percentage, is a measure of the effort made by the considered company
k towards supply chain sustainability.
The proposed initiatives could have a different impact on the performances actually
obtained towards sustainability (e.g. within the “product design and use” phase
the initiative “easier product break up” could be considered less effective than “designing
low energy-consuming products”). In order to consider this aspect, it is possible to assign
a different weight (Wi,j) to each initiative in the calculation of EPIk. However, assigning
the weights to the different initiatives is not always an easy task (e.g. considering the
outbound supply chain different viewpoints clearly exist about the debate on whether is
more important to improve vehicle utilization or redesign the logistics network).
Additionally, in the literature, there is no unanimity on the value to be attributed to the
different sustainable initiatives. Therefore, hereafter an equal weight for the proposed
initiatives is considered in the calculation of the EPI, while through the case study
analysis (Section 6) the criteria commonly used for priority-setting amongst different
initiatives within the same supply chain phase will be investigated.
For displaying the EPI results two approaches are proposed, namely: radar chart,
also as known spider chart, and box plots. The first one (i.e. radar chart) is useful to show

14. BIJ each company results separately, and is commonly used in benchmarking applications
18,5 having multiple dimensions of performance (Camp, 1995). For instance, it has been
adopted for evaluating Sony’s environmental performance (Schvaneveldt, 2003) as well
as Hitachi’s (Burritt and Saka, 2006). Each axis of the radar chart represents the score of
one of the examined phases. The value displayed on the jth axis indicates the
corresponding EPIk,j indicator. The centre point indicates a score of 0 (i.e. zero initiatives
718 in place), whereas values within the outer circle indicate a significant adoption level.
Such diagram allows to easily represent the directions towards which the company
is operating. The radar chart may help companies perform a benchmarking with their
competitors, by comparing their average adoption level for each axis (EPIk). Otherwise,
it can be also used for benchmarking the adoption level of a single company along
different time frames. In such latter case, the company performance along different
years may be represented.
However, if the aim is to compare a large number of companies, the radar chart
tends to offer a less clear representation; in such context the box plot tends to offer a better
readability. This representation, developed in statistics for quality control
(Montgomery, 2009), has been increasingly used in logistics and supply chain
management. The bottoms and tops of each “box” are the 25th and 75th percentiles of the
EPIk,j, respectively. The distances between the tops and bottoms are the interquartile
ranges. The line in the middle of each box is the sample median. If the median is not
centered in the box, it shows sample skewness. The features of this plot allow for an
investigation both within each phase of the supply chain and among them. In fact, it is
possible to find out which phase of the supply chain is at the forefront in the
implementation of initiatives towards more sustainable supply chains, and to analyse
the variability in the company behaviour within the same phase.
5. Application of the framework
Based on the proposed framework, the sustainability effort level has been examined for
a set of ten companies (Tables IV and V).
As above observed, results may be analysed for each company or at an aggregate
level. As for the analysis for each company, Figure 1 shows the case of Coca-Cola HBC
using a radar diagram. Company results in terms of EPIk,j have been plotted, as well as
the mean value for the examined set of ten companies (EPIj). Results attest that for three
out of five phases the adoption level of sustainable initiatives is equal or above 50%.
Comparing Coca-Cola HBC with the others, the adoption level is higher, or at least
aligned, to the mean value. Specifically, the company sensitiveness to sustainability
issues within the outbound supply chain phase is considerably higher than the
mean value.
The radar chart representation is generally not suitable for aggregate analysis.
Therefore, we used the box-plot representation to compare the overall results (Figure 2).
On the basis of the results shown in Figure 2, we can provide a first answer to RQ1:
RQ1. Which phase(s) within the supply chain is at the forefront in the development
of more sustainable supply chains.
.
The majority of companies have adopted sustainable initiatives to strengthen
brand image or differentiate their product, confirming the evidence of the extant
literature. As for the “product design and use” phase, the sample median is equal

15. Company
Supply chain phase Initiative A B C D E F G H I J
Inbound supply chain Suppliers’ requirement to have an environmental x x
certification
Eco-labelled product purchase x x
Adoption of environmental criteria into the supplier x x x x x x x
assessment system
Environmental collaboration with suppliers x x x x x x x x
Production Energy: introduction of an energy manager x x x
Energy: choice of green electric power suppliers x x x x
Energy: use of cogeneration plants x x x x
Energy: energy efficiency improvement x x x x x x x x
Energy: adoption of cleaner technology x x x x x
Fuel: district heating system x x
Water: increase water system efficiency x x x x x x x x
Water: waste water treatment x x x x x x
Water: process optimization x x x x x x
Material: reuse of materials x x x
Material: process optimization x x x x x x x
CO2 capture and storage
Reduction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and x x x x x
perfluorocarbons (PFC)
Use of CO2 refrigeration systems
Treatment and control of post-combustion emissions
Use of alternative fuels (e.g. cleaner fuels) x x x x x
Treatment and recycle of hazardous wastes x x x x x
Process optimization x x x x x x x x
Implementation of waste-to-energy process x x x
Waste reduction, reuse and recycling approaches x x x x x x x
´
Notes: A ¼ Coca-Cola HBC; B ¼ Electrolux; C ¼ Fiat Group; D ¼ Henkel; E ¼ Ikea; F ¼ Kimberly Clark; G ¼ Levi Strauss & Co.; H ¼ Nestle;
I ¼ Pirelli; J ¼ Tenaris; x ¼ initiative adopted by company k
Source: Company environmental reporting
sustainability
Benchmarking
for inbound supply chain
environmental initiatives
of the identified
Adoption by companies
supply chain
and production phases
719
Table IV.

16. BIJ
18,5
720
Table V.
and use phases
of the identified
and product design
chain, warehousing,
for outbound supply
Adoption by companies
environmental initiatives
Company
Supply chain phase Initiative A B C D E F G H I J
Outbound supply chain Vehicle technological innovation (e.g. cleaner trucks) x x x x
Vehicle maintenance and disposal x
Use of alternative fuels (e.g. cleaner fuels) x x
Carrier selection x x x x x
Driver skill improvement x x x x
Combined use of road and rail transportation x x x x x x
Combined use of road and sea transportation x x
Combined use of road and inland navigation
Shipment consolidation x x x
Balancing backhaul movements x
Increase of the vehicle utilization degree x x x x x x
Logistics network redesign x x
Travel distance optimization x x x
Warehousing Attention to construction materials
Use of energy-efficient lighting systems and day lighting x x x
Efficient building thermal insulation x
Use of variable-frequency drive HVAC
Introduction of solar and photovoltaic panels x x
Use of cogeneration plants
Use of wind turbines
Use of rainwater collection systems
Travel distance optimization x
Container recycle or reuse
Use of energy-efficient material handling equipment
Product design and use Decrease in the use of material/energy x x x x x x x x x
Easier product break up and recycle at the end of the life cycle x x x x x x x
Low energy-consuming products x x x x x x x
Design to avoid or reduce the use of hazardous products x x x x x
Packaging reduction x x x x x x x x x
Packaging reuse x x x x
Packaging recycling x x x x
´
Notes: A ¼ Coca-Cola HBC; B ¼ Electrolux; C ¼ Fiat Group; D ¼ Henkel; E ¼ Ikea; F ¼ Kimberly Clark; G ¼ Levi Strauss & Co.; H ¼ Nestle;
I ¼ Pirelli; J ¼ Tenaris; x ¼ initiative adopted by company k
Source: Company environmental reporting

17. Inbound supply chain Benchmarking
75% supply chain
sustainability
Product design
Production 721
and use 57%
35%
50%
9%
Coca-Cola HBC
Benchmark
Figure 1.
58% Radar chart
of sustainability efforts
Outbound supply for Coca-Cola HBC
Warehousing
chain
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Values
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Figure 2.
0 Company sustainability
effort for each phase
Inbound supply Production Outbound supply Warehousing Product design of the supply chain
chain chain and use
to 71 per cent. This value, besides being higher than for the other phases, coincides
with the 75th percentile. Furthermore, the value of the 25th percentile is the
highest, thus demonstrating a significant adoption level of such sustainable
initiatives for all the examined companies.
.
Most of companies have concentrated their effort on the inbound supply chain (the
sample median is equal to 50 per cent), or on the production phase (median equal to
40 per cent). As far as the inbound supply chain is regarded, the reasons
underpinning this choice could be related to the ease in the implementation: green
purchasing initiatives in fact do not require any internal re-organization but only

18. BIJ the introduction of environmental criteria into suppliers’ selection and
18,5 assessment. Considering the production phase, it must be remarked that it is
the most internally focused for the company, allowing companies to gather
reliable information to support sustainable initiatives and directly observe the
benefits of them.
.
The initiatives applied in outbound supply chain and warehousing are
722 quite limited, up to values equal to zero for warehousing in nearly every case.
Specifically for this latter phase, the median is equal to 0 and corresponds to the
25th percentile. Only one case has been observed with a remarkable adoption level
(i.e. Ikea). Conversely, as for the outbound phase the median value (equal to
23 per cent) is higher than for warehousing, although lower than for the other
phases.
It is difficult to investigate the reasons underpinning a different level of adoption of the
sustainable initiatives by individual companies. In some cases, the results of the
analysis can be related to the industry in which the company operates. As an example,
being Ikea a retailer, no sustainable initiatives for the production phase have been
detected. As for Tenaris, the inbound supply chain phase is the most neglected since it
is probably difficult to find “green” suppliers of raw materials for the production of
tubes. In other cases, however, it is difficult to explain, with the available data and
information, the adoption of the sustainable initiatives by companies. For example, it is
a counter-intuitive finding that Tenaris does not adopt any initiative in warehousing
and outbound SC phases, according to the examined CER.
Going back to the aims of the present paper, to answer RQ2:
RQ2. What are the initiatives currently undertaken by companies in the supply
chain sustainability arena?
we consider the implementation of sustainable initiatives within each phase of the
supply chain. The following remarks may be pointed out:
.
As a general result, a significant variability in terms of adoption level, partially
due to the sample size.
.
Only two cases have been detected, i.e. with reference to inbound supply chain
(Kimberly Clark) and product design and use (Henkel), with a pervasive adoption
of all initiatives considered within the framework. This implies that companies
have been generally focusing their attention on a sub-set of initiatives rather than
encompassing all those available.
.
Outbound supply chain and inbound supply chain present the highest variability
in terms of adoption level. As for outbound supply chain, results range from
8 per cent (25th percentile) and 54 per cent (75th percentile), with a difference
equal to 46 per cent between the two. Regards inbound supply chain, the
25th percentile is equal to 25 per cent and the 75th percentile equals 75 per cent
(difference equal to 50 per cent).
.
The initiatives being used by most of companies (i.e. initiatives being
implemented by at least 80 per cent of them) are: environmental collaboration
with suppliers, initiatives improving energy efficiency, process optimization,
decrease in the use of material, packaging reduction.

19. Overall, the analysis has confirmed the validity of the proposed framework for Benchmarking
benchmarking the sustainability initiatives towards which companies have started to supply chain
show their attention. It has also revealed the companies choose a sub-set of the
sustainable initiatives to be implemented rather than adopt all of them. At present, sustainability
the method to be used for priority setting (i.e. initiatives with high environmental impact
versus low implementation costs) is not clear yet. Finally, although the great impact of
transportation process on supply chain sustainability (Roth and Kaberger, 2002), the 723
initiatives applied in this sense are not as widespread as it would be expected.
6. Case study analysis
Among the ten companies examined within the study, three have been selected
´
(i.e. Coca-Cola HBC, Electrolux and Nestle) for additional in-depth interviews. The main
aim was to investigate the hurdles to the implementation of sustainable initiatives, as
well as the criteria commonly used for priority-setting amongst different initiatives
within the same supply chain phase. The analysis was mainly focused on the supply
chain phases in which the adoption of initiatives towards sustainability is quite limited
(i.e. outbound supply chain and warehousing) and it refers to the Italian context only.
Within- and across-case analysis are, respectively, performed as follows. For each
case, the distribution network is presented, as well as the environmental initiatives in
place, the performance measurement system being used, and the foremost hurdles from
implementation.
6.1 Coca-Cola HBC
Coca-Cola HBC Italia started operations in Italy in 1995 and operates eight bottling
plants across the country, serving approximately 118,000 customers. Coca-Cola
produces, sells and distributes a wide range of beverages, including mineral water.
All beverages produced in Italian plants are mainly sold within the country.
The distribution is organized as follows: from the factory warehouses the products are
directly delivered to large customers or to one of the five distribution centres of the
country. From here, the goods can be delivered to customers, directly or through
a network of transit points. Since production plants are highly specialized, there is an
inter-plant flow of products in order to ensure the complete product range at the factory
warehouses. The distribution network, with the only exception of factory warehouses,
is outsourced to third parties.
As shown in Figure 1, many of the identified initiatives towards a sustainable
supply chain are implemented.
Considering the supply chain phase product design and packaging, the company
aims to reduce the amount of material used for packaging and to support packaging
lightweighting, using bottles, cans and secondary unit loads characterized by reduced
weight and volume. This led to a better vehicle utilization, a reduction in the
purchasing cost of materials and a reduction in generated wastes (over 100 tonnes of
PET and 1,800 tonnes of cardboard in 2009 over the previous year).
As far as warehousing is regarded, the implemented initiatives are focused on factory
warehouses, since they are directly managed by the company. The rationalization
of the industrial lighting, through the adoption of automated systems, is planned
to be implemented in the next years. This initiative is embedded in the more

20. BIJ general energy saving programme, that has already ensured significant economic and
18,5 environmental benefits.
Other initiatives regard the outbound supply chain phase, aimed to reduce the
environmental impact of distribution and transportation. Through the improvement of
drivers’ skills, the use of cleaner trucks (e4 and e5) and a better vehicle utilization the
company wants to conserve fuel and reduce emissions. Furthermore, supplies and
724 finished goods are transported by rail wherever possible.
The company measures and reports its sustainability performance. For example, the
carbon footprint (total and per litre of product sold) is continuously monitored.
Considering the emissions from fleet and transportation, the performance is reviewed
with data monthly gathered from 3PLs, since the distribution is outsourced. It is
noteworthy to mention that, consistently with the transport rate used, the carbon
footprint is not calculated for backhauls. Also, the planning department, that ensures that
the most efficient routes are taken, does not consider this part of the distribution network.
The company’s perception of the cost impact of the above-described environmental
sustainable initiatives is quite positive: the improvements achieved through product
and packaging design, the energy saving programme and the initiatives towards the
reduction of the carbon footprint are both economic and environmental. The only
exception is represented by the use of rail transportation that, although ensuring
a better environmental performance, is in Italy often disadvantageous from a cost
perspective.
6.2 Electrolux
Electrolux is a global leader in household appliances and appliances for professional
use. Its operations are organized in three core businesses: major appliances, floor care
appliances and professional products.
Since many years, Electrolux Group has been committed to research for its
products and processes better operational performance as well as environmental impact
minimization. The group has been carrying out a worldwide environmental programme,
called “Green spirit”, which aims to reduce energy, water and other resources
consumption as well as CO2 emissions. The programme involves all activities/units
along the supply chain of all business sectors. Managing logistics efficiently is for the
company of utmost importance (De Toni and Zamolo, 2005). The distribution network is
organized and managed by Electrolux Logistics Italy, a group entity acting as a
third-party logistics provider serving customers both within and outside of the
Electrolux Group.
The Italian logistics network consists of four plants, with factory warehouses from
which large customers are served by means of direct shipments. Smaller customers’
orders are fulfilled from central distribution centres through a network of transit
points. The products sold within the Italian country are partly produced abroad and
the foreign plant is responsible for their distribution to Italian warehouses. Since 2000,
Electrolux Logistics Italy is certified ISO 14001. To this extent, it is worth to mention
the recent introduction of audits to logistics partners, to monitor vehicle maintenance
and disposal, use of alternative fuels, and driver skill improvement.
With regard to product design and packaging, an initiative was implemented in
2007 with the aim to reduce the packaging volume, enabling a better vehicle utilization
(an improvement in saturation of 30 per cent in certain vehicle types was achieved).

21. As far as warehousing is regarded, the implemented initiatives are focused on factory Benchmarking
warehouses, since they are directly managed by Electrolux. Besides the rationalization supply chain
of the industrial lighting, low-energy consumption forklift trucks are used.
Great attention is paid to optimize the outbound supply chain performance, both by sustainability
increasing the vehicle fill rate and by the planning of backhauls, trying to reduce
empty running.
Furthermore, the company is building environmental criteria into carrier selection 725
and monitoring vehicle emissions. The carriers’ environmental management system is
checked through periodical audits while yearly target to increase the highest truck
Euro categories is set by the company. Notwithstanding the increasing awareness
regarding this issue, it is challenging for the suppliers to fulfil the requirement as it
results in significant investments in their fleet.
Also, this company measures and reports its sustainability performance.
For example, the carbon footprint (total and per km travelled) is automatically
calculated and continuously monitored for each transport mode, measuring both direct
and indirect emissions (according to a LCA approach). The Euro category of each truck
is registered in the IT system at its arrival at the warehouse. The calculation of the
carbon footprint is somewhat hampered by the inability of the company to have full
visibility on the transportation process. Therefore, while assessing the supply chain
carbon footprint, outsource operations can only be assessed by estimates.
The company’s perception of the cost impact of the environmental sustainable
initiatives is positive in case of initiatives under the direct responsibility of Electrolux.
Conversely, this perception becomes unknown when there is no full visibility on the
process and the resources needed for the implementation of sustainable initiatives and
the related benefits are shared with other companies.
`
6.3 Nestle Waters
` `
Nestle Waters is one of the Nestle divisions operating in Italy, and is focussed on the
production and distribution of water, soft drinks, aperitifs and digestives.
This business unit has its own physical distribution network, which is almost
`
entirely managed by an external provider, owned for 51 per cent by Nestle Waters.
The logistics network is composed of 12 plants, all of them with a factory warehouse
from which large customers are directly served. The complete product range is present
at the nine central warehouses, from which products can be delivered to the customers,
directly or through a network of 30 wholesalers. The goods produced in Italian plants are
sold within the country and abroad. However, this latter flow is out of the scope of the
`
present research. Nestle Waters Italia does not purchase finished goods from foreign
plants. The flows of products from production plants to central warehouses
or wholesalers’ warehouses are managed by the logistics service provider, which
organize more than 180,000 trips per year.
Reducing the weight of packaging and the use of secondary packaging constitutes a
priority area for the company. Furthermore, they are exploring new packaging
solutions that could reduce the environmental impacts even more in the future.
Initiatives related to the warehousing supply chain phase are not implemented.
Conversely, great attention has been paid to the transportation phase.
The company tries to use alternative transport modes wherever possible: rail
transportation is currently used for north-south shipments or, sometimes, for product

22. BIJ deliveries to central warehouses. For its high adoption of the rail transportation mode,
´ ´
Nestle is one of the best performers within the Italian context. Nestle is participating in
18,5 tests of new engines, new fuels, driver training sessions in order to reduce fuel
consumption. In this direction, the company is also requiring drivers to use fuel
additives for modern diesel engines (e.g. AdBlue). The fleet for full truck load (FTL)
transportation has been renewed in recent years and today most of the trucks used are
726 e5. Moreover, new ways of loading trucks to maximize loading capacity are under
examination: the company is currently involved in a pilot project on the introduction of
high volume-carrying capacity vehicles, as already done in other European countries.
Increasing the capacity of trucks can allow the company to consolidate loads, achieving
greater vehicle fill and cutting trucks-kms. Another strategic direction regards the
development of multi-spring brands to bring production sites closer to areas of
consumption, thereby reducing distances travelled and road traffic. This solution would
ensure a better performance from an environmental point of view that has to be balanced
with a possible negative impact on costs, mainly due to a lower level of efficiency
achievable in production plants.
The group monitors the performances trough a multi-criteria environmental
evaluation that includes water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and the use of
energy from non-renewable resources. Once again the lack of a full visibility on local
distribution prevents from an accurate calculation of the carbon footprint generated by
the transportation process.
The company’s perception of the cost impact of the environmental
sustainable initiatives is positive, with the only exception of rail transportation, still
disadvantageous in Italy from an economic point of view. This perception becomes
negative in case of initiatives that entail a logistics network redesign.
6.4 Cross case analysis
The examined cases, although limited in number, provide some interesting insights.
As for warehousing, a low responsiveness has been generally observed. The reason
is twofold. On the one hand, there is often a lack of awareness in terms of warehousing
cost visibility (e.g. energy consumption), as warehouses often belong to third parties
or are located within a production plant (with a consequent lack of disaggregated data).
On the other hand, in case of companies adopting a carbon footprint computation
system, warehousing seems to be the phase with the lowest environmental impact.
It should be noticed that the examined sample does not present environmentally
critical (i.e. high energy consuming) products, such as frozen goods.
The adoption of sustainable initiatives dealing with transportation activities
strongly depends on the level of visibility on the outbound supply chain. The three
considered companies use both FTL for deliveries to large customers or to other facilities
within the network and local distribution for small-sized deliveries. They benefit from a
complete visibility on the process and thus monitor the environmental impact of FTL
transportation (i.e. carbon footprint). On the opposite, local distribution seems to be
under-monitored, due to the fact that trucks normally belong to 3PLs, and therefore
simultaneously distribute goods of multiple companies. This complexity may be
extended to less-than-truck load (LTL) transportation, where forwarders are expected to
collect and concurrently handle products of multiple companies.

23. From this viewpoint, a first new research stream may be identified towards an Benchmarking
effective sustainability of transportation activities. Indeed, sustainable solutions are supply chain
often hampered by the inability of the companies to have full visibility on the process
and to assess their environmental and economic benefit, since the transportation service sustainability
is performed by an external provider who consolidates on a single truck the shipments of
different customers. Furthermore, the single company, not being the owner of the trucks
in most cases, is not willing to invest in renewing the fleet of its logistics service provider 727
in order to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, while examining the supply
chain carbon footprint, the company do not include the effects of LTL transportation
activities, due to the complexity of isolating their related impact.
A second new research stream may be identified, lying in the need for developing a
reporting system assessing the environmental impact of 3PL activities. This may allow
their customers to achieve a higher awareness of the generated environmental impact.
To date, to the best of authors’ knowledge, this aspect seems to be still
under-represented.
Lastly and closely interconnected with the issue regarding the system boundaries to
be considered for quantifying supply chain sustainability, it should be noticed that the
majority of companies do not consider backhauls within the carbon footprint analysis.
As regard to RQ3:
RQ3. The criteria commonly used for priority-setting amongst different initiatives
within the same supply chain phase.
managers have declared that “green” initiatives have been initially adopted that were
simultaneously leading to cost reduction. All of the examined companies have
implemented initiatives dealing with packaging (i.e. weight and volume decrease), thus
to obtain a better vehicle utilisation and a reduction in the purchasing cost.
Great attention has been paid to transportation planning procedures, thus to gain
both improvements in vehicle utilisation and decrease in travel distances. On the
opposite, a lower pervasiveness has been detected in the adoption of 3PL selection
initiatives. Companies are currently monitoring vehicle pollution ranking, but no cases
have been identified looking for cleaner trucks only, possibly because of potential
transportation cost increase.
As for the more “radical” initiatives (e.g. supply chain network redesign), the
trade-off between economic and environmental impact appears to be more significant.
To this extent, developing tools to support managers in the selection of the proper
sustainable initiatives seems to be a key aspect, together with the adoption of
environmental measurement systems.
7. Conclusions
Supply chain sustainability has recently gained an increasing attention in the supply
chain context both from the practitioners’ perspective and as a research area. In the
present paper, a framework was developed, to address the increasing companies’ need
for analysing the available environmental alternatives and quantify the related
sustainable efforts. In particular, through a literature review, the initiatives towards
supply chain sustainability were identified and an EPI to measure the adoption
by companies of these initiatives was proposed.

24. BIJ The framework was applied to ten companies, by examining their CER. Three of
18,5 them were the subject of further in-depth interviews to provide additional insight into
the level of understanding and awareness of sustainability issues within the
companies.
The paper offers a two-pronged contribution: on the one hand, it provides an answer
to the three research questions; on the other hand, it offers a starting point for company
728 benchmarking in terms of supply chain sustainability initiatives and their adoption
level.
Regard RQ1 (i.e. which phase within the supply chain is at the forefront in the
development of more sustainable supply chains), a significant attention has been
detected on product/packaging design, whereas initiatives addressing warehousing
and outbound supply chain seem to be less represented.
As for RQ2 (i.e. which initiatives are currently undertaken by companies to build a
sustainable supply chain) results show a significant variability in terms of adoption
level. Specifically, companies are gradually implementing more sustainable supply
chains, thus selecting the initiatives to be progressively implemented among those
available.
Finally, regard RQ3 (i.e. criteria commonly used for priority-setting
amongst different initiatives within the same supply chain phase), companies have
declared that “green” initiatives have been initially adopted that were simultaneously
leading to cost reduction. However, results also highlight that initiatives have been
initially implemented whose application and benefits could be fully monitored by
the company itself. This has been chiefly experienced for the outbound supply chain
(i.e. transportation) phase, which is one of the most critical phases from the
environmental viewpoint.
The results presented provide both practical and academics implications. First, with
reference to supply chain managers, what has emerged is the importance of a supply
chain viewpoint to look at environmental sustainability issues. Therefore, the need has
been pointed out for measuring the impact in terms of the whole supply chain, rather
than focussing on product families. In this way, companies would benefit from the
adoption of the examined sustainable initiatives. Second, it should be noticed that
the adoption process of sustainable initiatives is usually a step-by-step procedure.
As such, starting from the adoption of initiatives impacting on both an economic and
an environmental level, it is possible to sensitize companies in terms of environmental
issues, thus progressively developing a cultural background. Indeed, after the initial
phase, it will be possible to extend the adoption also to those initiatives whose balance
between benefits and costs is less clear. Third, the present study has provided a
complete list of initiatives towards supply chain sustainability, so that managers may
be aware of the potential actions to take for each supply chain phase.
From the academic viewpoint, the paper confirms the importance of shifting the
viewpoint from the mere LCA analysis also to the entire supply chain, as suggested by
recent studies. Therefore, it seems important to further deepen the motivations to
adoption by extending the sample considered for the analysis.
Finally, the outcome of the present study opens two streams for future research: first,
to include also the effects of transports on consolidation of shipments of more than one
company within the carbon footprint analysis, and, second, to develop a reporting
system assessing the environmental impact of 3PL activities. Future research may

25. go towards the deepening of these aspects. Furthermore, delving deeper in the Benchmarking
computation of the proposed EPI in order to assess the adoption of the sustainable supply chain
initiatives and the intensity in their use as well, could contribute to the body of
knowledge and provide valuable information for companies. sustainability
References
Andriansyah, R., Etman, L.F.P. and Rooda, J.E. (2009), “On sustainable operation of warehouse 729
order picking systems”, in Digesi, S., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G. and Raineri, L. (Eds),
Quaderni della XIV Summer School “F. Turco”: Sustainable Development: The Role of
Industrial Engineering, DIMEG Edizioni, Bari.
Aronsson, H. and Brodin, M. (2006), “The environmental impact of changing logistics
structures”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 394-415.
Berman, J. (2010), “Green logistics: Wal-Mart rolls out ambitious green supply chain”, Modern
Material Handling, 3 March.
Bowen, F., Cousins, P., Lamming, R. and Faruk, A. (2001), “Horses for courses”, Greener
Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 41-60.
Burritt, R.L. and Saka, C. (2006), “Environmental management accounting applications and
eco-efficiency: case studies from Japan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 1262-75.
Calcott, P. and Walls, M. (2000), “Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream
‘design for environment’”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 233-7.
Camp, R.C. (1995), Business Process Benchmarking, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Carter, C. and Rogers, D. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-87.
Chen, C. (2005), “Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 927-33.
Christensen, J., Park, C., Sun, E., Goralnick, M. and Iyengar, J. (2008), “A practical guide is to
green sourcing”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 14-21.
Darnall, N., Jolley, G. and Handfield, R. (2008), “Environmental management systems and green
supply chain management: complements for sustainability?”, Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-45.
De Toni, A.F. and Zamolo, E. (2005), “From a traditional replenishment system to
vendor-managed inventory: a case study from the household electrical
appliances sector”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
European Commission (2001), European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Finkbeiner, M. (2009), “Carbon footprinting – opportunities and threats”, The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 91-4.
Florida, R. and Davison, D. (2001), “Gaining from green management: environmental
management, greening industry, 2000”, World Bank Report, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Greene, D.L. and Wegener, M. (1997), “Sustainable transport”, Journal of Transport Geography,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 177-90.
Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S. (2002), “Applying environmental criteria to
supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 70-87.

26. BIJ Hendrickson, C., Cicas, G. and Matthews, H. (2006), “Transportation sector and supply chain
performance and sustainability”, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1983 No. 1,
18,5 pp. 151-7.
Hervani, A., Helms, M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply chain
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-53.
Hilliard, R.M. (2006), “The role of organizational capabilities in cleaner technology adoption:
730 an analysis of the response of the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector in Ireland to
IPC licensing regulations”, European Environment, Vol. 16, pp. 336-49.
Himanen, V., Lee-Gosselin, M. and Perrels, A. (2005), “Sustainability and the interactions
between external effects of transport”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 23-8.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.
Koplin, J., Seuring, S. and Mesterharm, M. (2007), “Incorporating sustainability into supply
management in the automotive industry – the case of the Volkswagen AG”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 Nos 11/12, pp. 1053-62.
Lai, J., Harjati, A., McGinnis, L., Zhou, C. and Guldberg, T. (2008), “An economic and
environmental framework for analyzing globally sourced auto parts packaging system”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1632-46.
Langley, J. and Capgemini (2008), Third-party Logistics – The State of Logistics Outsourcing
Results and Findings of the 13th Annual Study, US Capgemini, available at: www.us.
capgemini.com/DownloadLibrary/files/factsheets/Capgemini_3PL_study_HighTech_
FS0209.pdf (accessed 18 January 2010).
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.
McIntyre, K., Smith, H., Henham, A. and Pretlove, J. (1998), “Environmental performance
indicators for integrated supply chains: the case of Xerox Ltd”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 149-56.
McKinnon, A. (2000), “Sustainable distribution: opportunities to improve vehicle loading”,
Industry & Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, p. 26.
McKinnon, A. (2010), “Product-level carbon auditing of supply chains: environmental imperative
or wasteful distraction?”, Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 42-60.
McKinnon, A., Cullinane, S., Browne, M. and Whiteing, A. (2010), Green Logistics: Improving the
Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, Kogan Page, London.
Mahler, D. (2007), “The sustainable supply chain”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 11
No. 8, pp. 59-60.
Matthews, D.H. (2003), “Environmental management systems for internal corporate
environmental benchmarking”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 95-106.
Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T. and Weber, C.L. (2008), “The importance of carbon footprint
estimation boundaries”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 42 No. 16, pp. 5839-42.
Melacini, M., Salgaro, A. and Brugnoli, D. (2010), “A model for the management of WEEE reverse
logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Montgomery, D.C. (2009), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, Wiley, New York, NY.
Murphy, P.R. (1994), “Management of environmental issues in logistics current status and future
potential”, Transportation Journal, September, pp. 48-56.