1. Introduction
The social and environmental costs of transport increasingly attract the attention of researchers and politicians across the world. A study conducted by the International Energy Agency in 2018 points out that transportation is responsible for about 26% of CO
2 emissions globally, which is equivalent to running more than 37 million trucks for a year (
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-by-sector-2018 (accessed on 3 July 2021)). Hence, businesses’ and citizens’ transportation practices need to be carefully scrutinised and accordingly reshaped. For example, road freight transport still accounts for 25% of the world’s energy consumption, with conventional diesel still being the predominant fuel used for heavy-duty trucks [
1]. The increasing awareness of sustainability, as well as escalating environmental standards, have boosted organisations’ responsibility to take into account sustainability concerns when choosing their suppliers [
2]. Yet, the purchase of services, which includes freight transportation, remains a difficult subject because of its intangible nature [
3].
Transportation purchasing processes incorporating environmental concerns have been the subject of research carried out in Italy [
4], France [
5], Finland [
6], Sweden [
7,
8] and the Netherlands [
9]. All these studies examine the freight transport logistics purchasing process between the shippers (the owners of the goods) and the carriers (sometimes called transporters or logistics services providers). Therefore, various criteria based on qualitative and quantitative information seem to be taken into account when shippers deploy freight transport bidding strategies. These criteria are the cost of the service, the transportation mode proffered, and the associated social and environmental costs before selecting the carrier that best suits their requirements [
10,
11]. Although environmental protection does not as yet seem to be one of the selection criteria [
12,
13,
14], some sustainable transport indicators are gradually being taken into account when choosing a carrier. A recent study reveals that the EU emissions standards Euro 5 and Euro 6, trucks’ fuel consumption and carriers’ adherence to the voluntary charter to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are being slowly adopted as “less-polluting alternative solutions” [
14]. However, these elements are difficult to quantify, and it is often difficult to formalise these initiatives and assess carriers’ environmental performance. In this perspective, several studies highlight the lack of a continuous sustainability assessment capacity as well as the lack of monitoring tools that freight transporters could adopt to evaluate their sustainability practices [
6,
15].
In another vein, as pointed out by [
16], we observed a real mismatch between shippers’ needs and current service providers’ offerings. This remains an important research gap and is also highlighted by [
5] when assessing the impact of the voluntary FRET21 commitments charter in France.
Based on these observations, we decided to formulate the following research question:
Which sustainable freight transport indicators would best suit shippers when selecting their carriers?
The purpose of this qualitative study is two-fold: One objective is to evaluate the feasibility and pertinence of the indicators presented from the shippers’ point of view. A second objective is to increase the understanding by producers of future technological innovations of shippers and carriers’ needs. Hence, the results of this study are addressed to both private companies and public authorities.
Although the research gap highlighted is applicable to all countries, we decided to lead this exploratory investigation in France, as we are employed by French higher education institutions. A French report published in 2015 estimates that CO
2 emissions generated by freight transport could be multiplied by a factor of four between 2010 and 2050 (Rapport de l’OCDE: Perspectives des transports 2015, Editions OCDE, Paris, France,
http://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/perspectives-destransports-fit-2015-9789282107805-fr.htm (accessed on 12 July 2021)). Since 90% of freight transport is carried by road in France (Rapport du Ministère de l’Environnement, de l’Energie et de la Mer intitulé
Les infrastructures linéaires de transport: évolutions depuis 25 ans, décembre 2016), the government strengthened its efforts to reverse the trend by providing innovative solutions with the adoption of a series of voluntary and mandatory measures:
The “Objectif CO2” introduced in 2008 and developed by the French Ministry of Ecology with ADEME and other freight transport professional organisations is aimed at all carriers that voluntarily agree to reduce their CO2 emissions. Their actions can be assessed in four areas: (1) vehicle standards; (2) fuel consumption; (3) driver behaviour; and (4) logistical efficiency. Compliance certification can be obtained after an independent audit if CO2 emissions have been reduced during three consecutive years.
In parallel, a mandatory measure was launched in 2013 by decree n°2011-1336. It obliges all carriers to calculate their CO
2 impact according to one of four possible levels of accuracy, from level 1 based on estimations to level 4 involving accurate data collection in respect of each journey’s exact operating conditions. These two voluntary and mandatory French programmes concern essentially carriers and reveal information asymmetries, as pointed out by [
14].
In addition, the French Ministry of the Environment decided on a programme to increase sustainability awareness by shippers. Since they entrust their merchandise to carriers, they should also be cognisant of the CO
2 emissions generated by their freight operations. This gave rise to the FRET21 project, launched in 2015 by the French government with 10 pilot companies. The project was deployed through four main lines of action (
Figure 1).
Analysing the four lines of actions deployed in the FRET21 charter, one can notice that axis n°4 is entirely dedicated to the “transport purchasers”. Accordingly, by questioning the managers in charge of the transport services procurement from the 10 pilot companies, the aim of this work is to provide them with relevant indicators that they can monitor regularly. These indicators should be transposable to all shippers regardless of their size or sector of activity, thereby promoting sustainable transport purchasing practices.
Thus, the objective of this study is to propose, at the request of ADEME, a series of reliable, operational, sustainable transport indicators that would strengthen the FRET21 charter programme. Investigating the 10 involved pilot companies allows gathering a heterogeneous data collection relating to transportation environmental assessment grids, internal freight services purchasing documents, and the results of the programme participants brainstorming activities. The set of final indicators that we have obtained through this research has been elaborated with the assistance of French transport purchasing managers from Carrefour, Coca-Cola, Saint-Gobain, Renault, Fleury Michon, Air Products, Henaff, Ferrero, SCA Hygiene Products, and Orrion Chemicals, the 10 pilot companies that signed up to the FRET21 charter. However, the authors of this paper take full responsibility for the results of the study.
The paper is organised as follows.
Section 2 provides a literature review focused on decision-making levers as well as sustainable transport indicators.
Section 3 presents the research design and methodological approach, based on the ECOGRAI method, a method designed to implement Performance Indicator Systems (PIS) for industrial organisations [
17,
18]. In
Section 4, the results are presented, and open issues are discussed. The concluding section summarises the main conclusions of this paper and suggests future research avenues to be explored.
3. Methodology
The purpose of this research is to propose sustainable transport indicators that would best suit shippers signing up for the FRET21 charter. We decided to conduct a mixed-study method, using both surveys and interviews of transport purchasing managers (through phone calls), ending up with a face-to-face brainstorming session with them.
The methodology used to propose suitable indicators relies on the ECOGRAI approach. The ECOGRAI method, initiated to implement Performance Indicator Systems (PIS) for industrial organisations [
17,
18], can be applied to different production functions. Initially designed to boost production efficiency, the ECOGRAI method has been used in various sectors, e.g., to develop the performance evaluation of healthcare services [
50] or of product design activities [
51]. This methodology is also used to set up sustainable development performance indicators in the forestry industry [
52]. It seems, therefore, appropriate for our research topic, helping us to lead this exploratory investigation in France. The 6 ECOGRAI steps, synthesised in the research conducted by [
53,
54], can be deployed to our research, as
Figure 2 shows.
Step 1 consists of scrutinising the grids in order to determine the principal control centres and their influence. At a strategic level, the modes of transport for the reception of raw materials and a load of finished products are determined according to market studies communicated by the sales representatives who calculate the costs, the environmental impacts, and various performance indicators via statistics and forecasts. Tactical decisions are then made on the basis of the selection criteria used in the calls for tenders addressed to carriers. Access to internal documents as well as site visits allowed the researchers to understand how the selection criteria were organised among the 10 pilot companies. As for operational decisions, these are the result of the contracts signed with transport companies.
Step 2 aims at setting the objectives and evaluating their coherence. The reference [
5] point out various objectives advocated by the French companies that signed up to the FRET21 charter, such as: improve the company’s image by promoting its environmental values; uniting the teams of the various internal divisions; exchanging information on some best practices with other shippers; enhancing the value of environmental initiatives already undertaken; achieving better scheduling of transport operations; supporting carriers in their efforts to reduce CO
2 emissions; adapting the practices to future new constraints; being supportive in terms of sharing information on collection tools and working methods. We retain this list of objectives for the present research.
Step 3 consists of identifying decision variables. As already mentioned, based on the previous literature review, the seven decision variables identified above can be divided into two groups: (1) the technical and operational dimension, (2) and the managerial dimension. Steps 4, 5, and 6 are discussed in the following sub-section.
3.1. Indicators Set Up through an Extensive Literature Review
Step 4 from the ECOGRAI method consists of identifying the most relevant indicators. The literature review presented in the second section allowed us to select worldwide research that has been conducted specifically on sustainable freight transport indicators. This detailed work has resulted in the establishment of 21 indicators, as outlined in
Section 2.2.1,
Section 2.2.2,
Section 2.2.3,
Section 2.2.4,
Section 2.2.5,
Section 2.2.6 and
Section 2.2.7 above.
Step 5 aims at formatting the scoreboard in a synthetic and structured way. In addition, it is necessary to determine the person responsible for updating the indicator, what his or her function in the company is as well as its precise objectives. We partly applied step 5, synthesising the data required to construct each performance indicator and the processes required to update the information system accordingly, and this is summarised in
Table 3.
However, we did not determine which employee in every pilot company could update the indicator. We suggest that each organisation signing up to the FRET21 charter sets its own target rates according to its size, industry sector, human and material resources, and environmental ambitions. Furthermore, although the proposed indicators are intended to significantly improve the procurement of sustainable transport, they are not all applicable to all shippers regardless of their organisational features.
Step 6 consists of integrating the indicators in every company’s information system. This operational work will be carried out following the results centralised in this study.
3.2. Selection of the Respondents
The ten companies that constitute the pilot project of the FRET21 charter are a particularly appropriate sample for two main reasons: firstly, as pointed out by [
5], many of them have already started to implement the tools and management methods internally in order to reduce their transport impact. Thus, although their sustainable transport purchasing practices are of recent origin, because of their expertise in this area, their critiques and advice will be more constructive than those by any other company that has never initiated such actions; secondly, as mentioned previously, the indicator table is intended to be used and deployed in many companies in the future, regardless of their size and sector of activity. Therefore, these 10 pro-active companies that voluntarily signed up to the FRET21 charter constitute an ideal sample as their sizes and sectors of activity are very diverse (
Table 4).
3.3. Modalities to Submitting the Indicator Grids
Following previous contacts and correspondence, the grid of indicators was submitted by e-mail to each of the companies’ transportation purchasing decision-makers. Each indicator was clearly explained to avoid any ambiguity. In order to gather an accurate opinion on the relevance and feasibility for each indicator, the deployment of the Likert method seemed rather intuitive [
55] (p. 22). The number of possible modalities generally varies from 3 to 7, and it is common to present an odd number in order to suggest a relatively neutral or non-polarised modality in the centre of the scale. Multiple categories do not necessarily mean an increase in accuracy [
56], which is why we chose to establish a scale with 5 modalities: 1—not at all, 2—little, 3—no opinion, 4—rather, and 5—very much.
For each indicator, the respondents were asked about its feasibility and its relevance.
3.4. Data Analysis
After collecting the indicator grids, the SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used to analyse the data. Using the Likert scale with 5 modalities, respondents’ answers represent a variety of numbers. These ratings are then converted to numbers and used to generate a numerical evaluation. Telephone discussions were also carried out to deepen and better interpret some of the answers.
Among the 21 indicators submitted to respondents, following the ECOGRAI methodology, only 12 are retained since a too-long list would overwhelm transport buyers.
Once the data were analysed, a face-to-face brainstorming session with the 10 participants was carried out in the premises of the French National Association of Road Transport Users (AUTF). This initiative helped to enrich our understanding of the outcome and provided external validity to this research [
57].
4. Results
In this section, the main outcomes of this qualitative study are provided. The results obtained for each pilot company vary depending on its size or sector of activity. However, the overall rating, as well as the brainstorming session with the 10 pilot companies together, allow us to point out the most relevant decision variables as well as the indicators that make the most sense to shippers.
4.1. Most Relevant Decision Variables
In the first instance, it seems appropriate to assess the average score of every decision variable, exploring their relevance as well as the feasibility perspectives. In general, and as can be observed in
Figure 3, although most of the indicators seem relevant for the transport purchasers, they are rather difficult to implement.
In terms of relevance, both decision variables “alternative modes of transportation” and “external management practices” have the highest score with a respective average score of 4.5/5 and 4/5 on the Likert scale. On the other side, scrutinising the feasibility score of the decision variables, the “internal management practices” and the “external management practices” seem to be the two easiest variables to implement.
In the second instance, it seems appropriate to select the 12 most relevant and feasible indicators according to the respondents. Some indicators, although very relevant for shippers, may be difficult to implement due to the lack of technical or technological means. Our results are elaborated on in the two following sub-sections.
4.2. Preferred Indicators by Order of Relevancy
The 12 “most relevant” indicators are shown in
Table 5, in ascending order of relevance, with the corresponding decision variable.
Of the 12 most relevant indicators, five relate to external and internal management. These include the frequency of external meetings with carriers and internal meetings with various divisions regarding environmental issues, the percentage of drivers receiving eco-driving training during the preceding two years, the percentage of pallets received and sent by “CO2-chartered” carriers, as well as the number of carriers who have obtained the “CO2 objective” certification.
The next decision variable concerns the optimisation of volume (two indicators), in particular finding out the loading ratio of the trucks carrying shippers’ goods and the number of kilometres travelled empty for trucks carrying no goods. The “fuel consumption” decision variable accounts for two of the indicators retained. The most relevant indicators for this theme aim to monitor the percentage of transport carried out using alternative energy sources, as well as knowing the fuel consumption per truck per km.
4.3. Preferred Indicators by Order of Feasibility
In interviewing the 10 companies that first signed up to the FRET 21 charter about the feasibility of the indicators, it appears that 8 of the 12 indicators cited in the “relevancy table” also appear on the “feasibility table” (
Table 6).
Crossing
Table 5 and
Table 6, it appears that the eight most relevant indicator proposals seem fairly easy to implement from an operational point of view.
These results are in line with the work of [
5], who conducted a study specifically with the 10 companies that signed up to the FRET21 charter. In addition, these operational indicators converge with the indicators set up in the private organisation TK’Blue (2021).
The four “relevant” indicators that do not appear in the list of “feasibility” indicators are:
Percentage of journeys carried out using alternative energy sources (biofuels, biomethane, hybrid vehicles, gas);
Loading ratio of the trucks transporting shippers’ goods;
Number of empty kilometres for full trucks;
Fuel consumption per truck per km.
The common features of these four indicators, which are missing in the “feasibility table”, lie in the fact that they could be implemented if the shippers had extensive access to the carriers’ telematics. Customer trends and requirements are now moving towards access to the carriers’ onboard telematics. Ref. [
58], who provide a thorough analysis of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) for road freight transport, discuss telematics applications that may be of interest to the different actors in a transport chain (both the management of transport companies and the end customers). It is, therefore, possible to imagine the FRET21 charter signatories applying, together with their main carriers, a requirement in their transportation contracts specifications to have access to data corresponding to these four indicators. As a consequence, we will retain the 12 most relevant indicators (
Table 5) as the ones to be widely transposed to all shippers regardless of their size or sector of activity.
5. Conclusions
This research proposes a specific operational framework to strengthen “sustainable transport procurement practices” in the context of the FRET21 charter deployment. We were able to implement five of the six steps of the ECOGRAI method: (1) determining the steering structure, (2) identifying the objectives, (3) identifying the decision variables, (4) identifying the indicators, and (5) identifying the layout of the dashboard.
Step 6, which consists of integrating the indicators in every company’s information system, represents a lot of fieldwork and may be the subject of future research.
Our study proposes 21 indicators to the pilot companies that signed up to the FRET21 charter. The 12 most relevant indicators, designed to assist transport buyers, were presented and discussed during the brainstorming session with the signatory companies, ADEME as well as AUFT members. These 12 indicators to be transposed to all shippers, regardless of their size or sector of activity, represent a concrete guideline to promote sustainable transport purchasing practices.
Our results underline the need for more efficient inter-organisational collaboration between shippers and carriers. Thus, several indicators require a more transparent transmission of the data, in particular through the use of truck telematics. Although carriers can access a large amount of information, a certain amount of disappointment is noticeable on the shippers’ side as they face difficulties accessing this type of information. However, transport telematics technologies are becoming more widespread, and transport buyers can prioritise carriers that can provide this type of data.
This work, although empirical and useful, presents some limitations. It would be advisable in the future to interview another representative group, comparing their responses with these initial results. Moreover, it would be relevant to scrutinise if the 12 indicators could be more easily implemented according to special features such as the size or a specific industry. One may fear that such a dashboard could be more difficult to apply for small- and medium-sized shippers.