Challenges and Threats Faced in 2020 by International Logistics Companies Operating on the Polish Market
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper covers an interesting area. I imagine that there is little literature about this topic and so it will be useful to have this paper from a practical perspective.
The scene is set well in the introduction. It is clear that there are indeed many pressures on the TFL Sector in Poland, not to say more widely. The research questions emerge naturally from this although the first paragraph of Discussion would be better integrated here. However, if the paper is about challenges then we should be clearer about how opportunities can be considered to be challenges.
The description of the Polish TFL Sector is useful. I wonder whether, in view of the title of the paper, more time should be spent on describing the nature of international logistics companies’ engagement in the market. Perhaps some examples of companies, their size, their reasons for being in the Polish market, etc might help the reader to grasp the challenges more quickly. It might also be beneficial to explain why the research is specifically relevant to international logistics companies and not national ones.
The paper (line 109) states that it focuses on car transport. It is not clear whether logistics companies operating in other fields are facing the same challenges and therefore whether the challenges they face can be applied more widely. This should be discussed in the Discussion section.
This paper’s title states that it is about challenges faced in 2020. I understand that the 2018 and 2019 surveys were looking 2 years out and so some of the views expressed are relevant for 2020, but I think if possible it should be made more obvious whether earlier views have materialised and/or been addressed, and therefore whether they remain challenges in 2020. Perhaps a table comparing perceptions across the 3 years of surveys would be valuable and help make the case for including them all in the paper.
On line 201, and confirmed on line 261, it suddenly becomes apparent that the purpose of the research was to analyse the results for evidence of sustainable development. This is not previously apparent in the paper, including in the abstract. This feels like a major disconnect.
Overall I feel that the results of 3 years’ surveys, while interesting, are being used somewhat out of context. If the paper is concerned about challenges then the opportunities are not obviously relevant unless a case can be made to incorporate them. And if the paper is actually focusing on sustainable development then the threats should be analysed to extract this specific information in the Discussion – and this focus should be mentioned from the start of the paper if not also in the title.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper covers an interesting area. I imagine that there is little literature about this topic and so it will be useful to have this paper from a practical perspective.
The scene is set well in the introduction. It is clear that there are indeed many pressures on the TFL Sector in Poland, not to say more widely.
Point 1: The research questions emerge naturally from this although the first paragraph of Discussion would be better integrated here.
Response 1:
Thank you for a valuable comment. According to the suggestion we’ve better integrated the first paragraph of Discussion:
The above information shows, on the one hand, the significant impact of the TFL industry on the condition of the entire economy, and on the other hand, the importance of the opinion of TFL managers regarding the prospects for action. Factors that may affect managers' perceptions in 2020 are being presented below.
Point 2: However, if the paper is about challenges then we should be clearer about how opportunities can be considered to be challenges.
Response 2:
To make it more transparent in our article we have focused on challenges and threats only in order to better suit to the subject and to avoid misunderstanding.
Point 3: The description of the Polish TFL Sector is useful. I wonder whether, in view of the title of the paper, more time should be spent on describing the nature of international logistics companies’ engagement in the market. Perhaps some examples of companies, their size, their reasons for being in the Polish market, etc. might help the reader to grasp the challenges more quickly.
Reponse 3:
We really appreciate this comment. Please, look at added parts:
1) Due to the specificity and heterogeneous nature of the TFL market in Poland compared to other markets in the European Union countries, the Polish TFL market was characterized before the presentation of the research results.
2) The significant share of global logistics companies on the Polish market is primarily related to the fact that these companies are looking for opportunities to compete. Poland, as a country geographically located in the center of Europe, with a fairly good linear and point infrastructure as well as a large sales market, is attractive from the cost point of view for global companies. An additional advantage of Poland is also the availability of qualified management staff. Thus, after Poland joined the European Union in 2004, there was a very dynamic development of representative offices of global operators in this market. Their competitive advantage over Polish companies mainly concerns size, advanced management tools and a higher degree of digitization. However, during the 16 years there have been significant changes, which can be reduced to two key ones; by progressing market consolidation (taking over medium-sized Polish companies by global operators) and taking over key management positions by Polish managers in global companies.
Point 4: It might also be beneficial to explain why the research is specifically relevant to international logistics companies and not national ones.
Reponse 4:
There are both, international and national ones. An explanation was added to the text:
Half of the respondents are companies with foreign capital, and half - Polish companies.
Point 5: The paper (line 109) states that it focuses on car transport. It is not clear whether logistics companies operating in other fields are facing the same challenges and therefore whether the challenges they face can be applied more widely. This should be discussed in the Discussion section.
Response 5:
This has been discussed in more detail in the Discussion section.
Please, take a look at the added paragraph:
However, almost all companies also offer other services, based on rail, intermodal, air and sea transport. In addition, they are also indicated as activities of warehousing services (contract logistics), customs and courier services. However, road transport plays a dominant role in the structure of revenues, as in most European Union countries. Therefore, the statements of managers are dominated by issues related to the challenges of road transport.
Point 6: This paper’s title states that it is about challenges faced in 2020. I understand that the 2018 and 2019 surveys were looking 2 years out and so some of the views expressed are relevant for 2020, but I think if possible it should be made more obvious whether earlier views have materialised and/or been addressed, and therefore whether they remain challenges in 2020. Perhaps a table comparing perceptions across the 3 years of surveys would be valuable and help make the case for including them all in the paper.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We have added the summary tables no 7 and 8 presenting the changes of perception during three-year time period and short comments below each table.
Point 7: On line 201, and confirmed on line 261, it suddenly becomes apparent that the purpose of the research was to analyse the results for evidence of sustainable development. This is not previously apparent in the paper, including in the abstract. This feels like a major disconnect.
Response 7: This has been changed and made more coherent.
1) When analyzing the challenges presented in Table 1, it can be noticed that legal factors, as well as related issues of increasing the share of intermodal transport and rail transport, constitute the area of managers' interest. These are the elements that influence the environmental aspects of sustainable development. Such external factors also include the improvement of road infrastructure and the use of new technologies. The above factors contribute to reducing the carbon footprint. However, some of them - such as the increase in exports or offshoring, may lead to increased negative environmental impact, if they are not accompanied by optimization strategies.
2) As shown in Table 2, the number of threats perceived by managers in the next two years is significantly greater than the number of challenges. They focus primarily on issues related to international trade and progressive regulations in trade, which limit free access to other markets, and on political factors. From the point of view of sustainable development - one can pay attention to the issue of deteriorating quality of roads and congestion. These factors negatively affect the carbon footprint. However, the problems related to access to cities mentioned by managers have a positive impact on the environment, which has already been measured in cities that have introduced such restrictions. A very serious threat is the lack of employees, both drivers and qualified warehouse and office workers. The above-mentioned issues of a social nature derive from regulations concerning the profession and development prospects. It is an important element of sustainable development, which can be described as "decent work", which is also adequately remunerated according to the competences held. This is one of the goals listed among the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
3) In 2019, the focus in terms of challenges shifted to issues related to the development of new technologies. Automation and robotization, which is also an important element of Industrie 4.0, and electric cars are used to improve logistics processes. The greater use of digital technologies and warehouse management software has similar effects. These are activities that lead in the long run to reducing the workload, reducing the level of wastage associated with downtime or shortening the time of carrying out specific activities. The released potential of employees who are not forced to perform monotonous and repetitive work can be used for more creative work. This is in line with the goals 8 and 9 of sustainable development Global Compact UN: decent work and economic growth and industry innovation and infrastructure. Among the additional challenges, there is also the possibility of cooperation between competitors. This means the possibility of better use of resources not only within the enterprise but also in the supply chain. And the above-mentioned measures have a positive impact on the environment, among other things, through better use of the cargo space of trucks, which is currently used in about 60-70%. As a result, the number of cars necessary to handle orders will decrease, and thus the carbon footprint will decrease. However, the challenges related to the macro-environment may pose a threat to sustainable development, especially related to the expected increase in the role of Poland as a transit country. In the absence of regulations in this regard, the number of vehicles traveling on Polish roads may significantly increase, which will result in worsening pollution, increasing congestion and noise. The possibility of limiting this scenario is related to the greater use of rail and intermodal transport, which was also reflected in the comments of managers.
4) When it comes to the threats mentioned by managers in 2019, attention is drawn to the fear of the introduction of the mobility package, which changes the conditions of operation of TFL companies on the European market. Polish carriers, thanks to the competitive advantage associated with lower labor costs and a high level of flexibility, have mastered the European market in international transport. Recommendations regarding working time, minimum wage rates, driver's rest in good conditions - were not strictly followed by carriers from Poland, as in the case of other Eastern European countries. As a result, this limited the ability of TFL companies from Western Europe to compete, which had specific standards related to occupational hygiene. The introduction of the mobility package by regulation resulted in the leveling of competition conditions and was in line with the goals of sustainable development (goal no. 8). However, this made it necessary to take into account the cost increases related to the new regulations. Opponents of the mobility package believe that certain provisions regarding the necessity to return the carrier's cars to the country of registration will increase environmental pollution. They are motivated by the necessity to drive an empty vehicle, and thus the increase in the number of vehicles on the road. In the statements of managers, there will also be concerns related to the deterioration of the financial situation of their companies, which are the result of the introduced fiscal solutions, but also the upcoming recession. The inability to freely use employees from other countries, in the absence of qualified employees in Poland, is still a serious threat. The conditions for doing business are changing, and the competition from outside the industry causes companies to try to create better working conditions for employees, thus implementing the goal No. 8 of the sustainable development of the Global Compact UN. Restricting entry to cities, which also appears in this analysis, is the implementation of goal no. 11: sustainable cities and communities. However, it is perceived as a threat by managers, as it can be seen that all areas that may or contribute to a potential increase in costs are treated as priorities. This means that the issues of financial liquidity in this industry are a very important factor in making decisions, with a relatively low level of margins (according to own research, at the level of 2-3%).
5) Thus, challenges related to the organizational environment and new technologies dominate this study. As has been shown before, these challenges fit into the concept of sustainable development, especially in goals 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 13 (climate action).
6) The main threats that are perceived by managers are related to the macroeconomic situation resulting from the recession and pandemic. The risk of bankruptcy and increasing competition from the Baltic countries are increasing, so financial factors are also dominant in this case. In this situation, fear of takeovers is also growing. It can be concluded that in the case of growing concerns related to financial liquidity, other issues, also related to sustainable development, become less important. The comments of managers show greater pessimism than in the case of previous studies, and the speed of digitization and the growth of e-commerce are also perceived as a threat, especially for traditional companies. In this case, goal 13: climate action is not commented on by managers.
7) As previously mentioned, the survey also included a specific area that concerned the sustainable development strategy [14] within the analyzed enterprises. The results of this section are presented below for a complete picture of sustainability in the TFL industry. The authors examined the extent to which the sustainable development strategy is implemented by TFL enterprises in the context of 3 areas: ecology, ethics and economy.
Overall I feel that the results of 3 years’ surveys, while interesting, are being used somewhat out of context. If the paper is concerned about challenges then the opportunities are not obviously relevant unless a case can be made to incorporate them. And if the paper is actually focusing on sustainable development then the threats should be analysed to extract this specific information in the Discussion – and this focus should be mentioned from the start of the paper if not also in the title.
Authors would like to thank for valuable and constructive suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I am glad to read that paper. It has potential but must be improved a bit. Please find my comments below.
Since the paper does not have a robust theoretical lens. You need to provide more details in terms of the literature. You need to read more papers to complete the literature review. Your references are not enough in the paper.
The method and analysis section is well-discussed. However, in the conclusion part, you need to discuss your research and results with some references. The reported conclusion will not be enough to justify your research to publish in the journal.
The above comments require minor changes. As I mentioned, please provide more literature and discuss your results in comparison to the existing literature.
I hope these comments help to improve the paper.
Best wishes,
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I am glad to read that paper. It has potential but must be improved a bit. Please find my comments below.
Point 1: Since the paper does not have a robust theoretical lens. You need to provide more details in terms of the literature. You need to read more papers to complete the literature review. Your references are not enough in the paper.
Response 1: Thank you for the valuable and supportive commentary. We have provided more literature in order to complete state of art part (included in the Discussion section). The paragraph presented below was added.
The issue of risk related to supply chains is discussed in the publication focused on identification and proposing a set of seven risk factors that drive the risks associated with the Belt and Road initiative. Develops the Supply Chain risk and Belt and Road initiative model to help build a theory of risk management in supply chains [22]. An interesting approach is presented by B. Nitsche [23]. Describing the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) case, the author refers to the barrier and development paths for the entire logistics network from a global perspective. Gea, Dollarb i Yuc [24] analyze institutions and participation in global value chains, which in the context of the challenge of shortening supply chains seems to be one of the key elements. The Belt and Road Initiative is also referred to in the publication by Chana et al [25]. It concerns innovation, areas identified as one of the challenges in 2020. The authors of Wang et al. Write about current trends in transportation research in the context of the BRI [26].
In the context of the conducted research, it is also worth paying attention to the issues of sustainable development. This subject was discussed many times, in slightly different angles. Publications from earlier years, 2018-19, mostly focus on ecology in transport and sustainable development. The authors of Beškovnik and Golnar write about the elimination of barriers in the BRI and Baltic-Adriatic Corridor (BAC) projects in relation to the pollution level produced from transport means [27]. This problem seems to be particularly important due to the growing awareness of customers and the resulting increase in expectations of responsible actions taken by logistics operators. A systemic approach to decisions made for urban freight transport, taking into account the elements of sustainable development, is proposed by Nenni, Sforza and Sterle [28]. It is a good complement to the research presented in this article.
Problems in a sustainable supply chain are well analyzed in the example presented in the article by Shareef et al [29] based on the Bangladesh case study.
It is also worth mentioning the challenges of supply chains, widely presented in the literature. They are the insufficient flow of information [30], efficiently supply chain management [31] or the last mile problem [32] [33].
Point 2: The method and analysis section is well-discussed. However, in the conclusion part, you need to discuss your research and results with some references. The reported conclusion will not be enough to justify your research to publish in the journal.
Response 2: References have been completed and the additional commentaries in the Discussion part have been added.
The above comments require minor changes. As I mentioned, please provide more literature and discuss your results in comparison to the existing literature.
I hope these comments help to improve the paper.
Best wishes,
Thank you very much. We appreciate your constructive suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
For this paper to be in an acceptable standard much has to be done
Author Response
We have undertaken a lot of work to improve the quality of our article. We would appreciate if you look at the text again after the changes.
Reviewer 4 Report
The amateurish research design process degrades the quality of this paper. I would strongly recommend authors to go through Qualitative Research Design literature (for example- Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications) before attempting qualitative research papers.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank you for the comment and suggested literature. We put a lot of effort to make the whole process more transparent. We will appreciate if you can take a look at our article once again after changes we have introduced.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taking my earlier comments onboard. I feel the paper is better than before.
It is good to see that the focus now is on challenges not opportunities, and that the relevance of sustainable development has been clarified from the beginning.
I’m still confused on the reference to “car transport”, lines 114 and 143. I originally interpreted this as being the transportation of new cars, for example to dealerships. However, I’m now thinking that this may not be the right interpretation (lines 262 and 283), and that perhaps “containers” is meant. I think this should be clarified before publication.
I do not understand the reference to “cafeteria” on line 177.
Tables 7 and 8 are welcome additions and should be the basis for useful analysis, see below.
Lines 421-426 duplicate the previous paragraph.
Section 5, Discussion, still appears to be a literature review. As such it would be better placed prior to section 3 as per a conventional paper. The Results section could then usefully be renamed Results and Discussion.
Some analysis of why challenges and threats have changed through the years would be very interesting. Since the outlook each year is for the next two years, I think if possible it would be particularly worthwhile to determine which of the 2018 challenges and threats have materialised in 2020. This would provide some context for the 2020 predictions. It might also feed into a more substantial Conclusion.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for taking my earlier comments onboard. I feel the paper is better than before.
It is good to see that the focus now is on challenges not opportunities, and that the relevance of sustainable development has been clarified from the beginning.
Point1: I’m still confused on the reference to “car transport”, lines 114 and 143. I originally interpreted this as being the transportation of new cars, for example to dealerships. However, I’m now thinking that this may not be the right interpretation (lines 262 and 283), and that perhaps “containers” is meant. I think this should be clarified before publication.
Response1: Thank you for your comments. We have changed the indicated term into more appropriate, „road” and „truck” accordingly.
Point2: I do not understand the reference to “cafeteria” on line 171
Response2: We had in mind “cafeteria questions in a survey”. However, after your suggestion and reconsideration we have resigned from this term.
Point3: Tables 7 and 8 are welcome additions and should be the basis for useful analysis, see below.
Response3: We have provided a comment in a form of paragraph in rows: 493-516
Point4: Lines 421-426 duplicate the previous paragraph. (L 403-408).
Response4: We have deleted this paragraph
Point5: Section 5, Discussion, still appears to be a literature review. As such it would be better placed prior to section 3 as per a conventional paper. The Results section could then usefully be renamed Results and Discussion.
Response5: It has been changed according to the suggestions
Point6: Some analysis of why challenges and threats have changed through the years would be very interesting. Since the outlook each year is for the next two years, I think if possible it would be particularly worthwhile to determine which of the 2018 challenges and threats have materialised in 2020. This would provide some context for the 2020 predictions. It might also feed into a more substantial Conclusion.
Response6: Thank you for your comment. We have supplemented the text with the paragraph given below and located at the very end of Conclusions Part:
In the context of the challenges and threats predicted by managers in 2018, the authors have undertaken an analysis to determine to what extent the presented forecasts materialized in 2020. When it comes to challenges, the mobility package was implemented in 2020 and the United Kingdom left the EU European Union, although the terms of the agreement with the EU are not yet fully known. The share of intermodal transport has slightly increased while on the other hand, cargo rail transport has regressed in relation to 2018. The situation is quite complex and does not apply to all countries, but on average there is a noticeable decrease in the share of freight mass transported by the rail transport. The challenges related to the infrastructure improvement have largely materialized with evidence of the growing importance of new technologies. In turn, the threats related to the deficit of drivers are still valid. As a result, some companies are introducing campaigns promoting the profession of truck driver among women. Similarly, the shortage of employees is visible among warehouse workers. In 2020, protectionist measures intensified, and the political situation also worsened. However, the factors related to the development of technology and the rapidly advancing digitization are primarily the result of the pandemic and similar to the relocation of production plants closer to the outlet, although not a subject of discussion with managers in 2018. Thus, 2020 is unusual in terms of managers' forecasts included in surveyed questionnaire. Nobody was able to predict the pandemic that changed the world’s market in such a drastic way. However, as can be seen from the analysis, some forecasts, especially regarding external factors – legal and macroeconomic – have materialized. The breakdown of supply chains as a result of the introduced lockdowns caused quite unexpected changes in both the flow of loads and the flow of loads’ directions. These changes have not been anticipated in advance. As a result, the carbon footprint has also decreased. However, these are not changes consciously introduced by enterprises as a part of their action strategy, but related to the epidemiological restrictions introduced by individual countries locally. Therefore, they could be impermanent.
Reviewer 4 Report
As suggested, major changes have been incorporated. However, please note that there are lots of sentence formation and grammatical errors that need to be corrected.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point1: As suggested, major changes have been incorporated. However, please note that there are lots of sentence formation and grammatical errors that need to be corrected.
Response1: Thank you for your comment. The article was sent for professional proofreading by a translation agency and carefully checked.
