Sustainable Supply Chain Practices- A Qualitative Investigation of Green Logistics Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates green logistics strategies adopted by businesses to enhance sustainability within their supply chains, particularly focusing on reducing carbon footprints and environmental impacts associated with transportation and distribution activities. Through qualitative analysis and interviews with supply chain managers, industry experts, and sustainability officers, this research provides insights into motivations, strategies, challenges, and benefits related to green logistics practices. Key findings highlight the critical role of aligning green logistics with corporate sustainability goals. Advanced technologies such as telematics, GPS tracking, and data analytics are instrumental in optimizing transportation routes, reducing fuel consumption, and minimizing emissions. Additionally, strategies like using eco-friendly vehicles, energy-efficient warehouse operations, and implementing reverse logistics are identified as effective means to mitigate environmental impacts. Collaboration and partnerships with suppliers, logistics providers, and stakeholders are essential for sharing best practices and fostering joint initiatives. Despite benefits such as cost savings and enhanced corporate reputation, challenges include high initial investments, the absence of standardized metrics for environmental impact, and regulatory complexities. However, regulatory compliance also acts as a driver for green logistics adoption and presents opportunities for improving sustainability performance. The integration of sustainability goals with logistics strategies underscores the interdisciplinary nature of sustainable supply chain management. This holistic approach encompasses aspects of entrepreneurship, emotional intelligence, marketing, and supplier relationship management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".