Eye For Transport Report

eyefortransport’s Green Transportation
& Logistics Report July 2008
Summary and analysis of

eyefortransport’s survey:
“Green Transportation & Logistics”
July 2008
For further details please contact:

Katharine O’Reilly
koreilly@eft.com
US Toll-free: 1 800 814 3459 ext 329
Rest of world: +44 (0) 207 375 7207
www.eft.com/SustainableSC Page 1
Table of Contents
I. Index of charts and tables ….………………………… 4
II. Introduction ………………….…………………………. 6
III. Methodology and approach………………………….. 8
IV. Profile of respondents ………………………………... 8
V. Green priorities and annual revenue ………………… 9
VI. Green priorities and transportation and logistics
partnerships …………………………………………….. 12
VII. The growing importance of green issues to
transport and logistics processes ……….……………. 14
VIII. Key drivers for instigating green initiatives …………. 15
IX. Effect of supply chain greening on efficiency .…..…. 16
X. Expected ROI on green initiatives …….……...……… 18
XI. Current and planned green transport and
logistics initiatives ……………………………….……… 18
NEW FOR 2008
XII. Who’s responsible for green transportation
and logistics? .…………………………………….………….... 22
XIII. Level of awareness of environmental programs
and initiatives …………………………………………………… 23
XIV. Carbon footprint measurement software …………………. 25
XV. Drivers for measuring carbon footprints ………………….. 26
XVI. Barriers to green transportation and logistics ……………. 27
XVII. Change in scrutiny over corporate green claims ……….. 28
XVIII. Effect of US election results on transport emissions
regulations ……………………………………….…………….. 29
XIX. Overall industry implications and conclusions …………… 30
XX. eyefortransport’s Sustainable Supply Chain Summit …… 31
I. Index of Charts and Tables
i. Respondent Industry
ii. Respondent Annual Revenue
iii. Relative Importance of Green Issues Depending on Annual
Revenue
iv. Importance of Green Issues to Companies’ Overall Strategy
v. Use of Transportation/ Logistics Partner to Help Green
vi. Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and Logistics
Strategy Related to the Use of Logistics Partners
vii. Change of Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and
Logistics Processes Over Next Three Years
viii. Key Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and
Logistics Initiatives
ix. Effect of Green Initiatives on Supply Chain Efficiency
x. Expected ROI on Green Initiatives Over Next Three Years
xi. Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics
Initiatives
xii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and
Logistics Initiatives 2007
xiii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and
Logistics Initiatives 2008
NEW FOR 2008
xiv. Job Title of Person Responsible for Green Transportation and
xv. Level of Awareness of Environmental Programs and Initiatives
xvi. Carbon Footprint Measurement Software Used
xvii. Drivers for Measuring Carbon Footprints
xviii. Barriers to Green Transportation and Logistics
xix. Change in Scrutiny Over Corporate Green Claims
xx. Effect of US Election Results on Transport Emissions
Regulations
II. Introduction
Not long ago $200/barrel oil was a far-off, future scenario. Today it’s closer to
reality then we like to think of, and the implications for the transportation and
logistics industry deserve serious consideration. Part of the solution to the steadily
increasing cost of energy and oil is building sustainability into our operations. A
sustainable operation simply means one that could be maintained at a certain level
indefinitely. For transportation, logistics and supply chain, it means a way of
working that is both environmentally and financially sustainable.
Today, ‘green’ supply chain initiatives are on the rise, and as opposed to five years
ago, it is the minority of companies who have not invested in some kind of
environmental initiative. While environmental logistics initiatives were pioneered in
Europe and Asia, in the last few years North American companies have embraced
the challenge and potential benefits of operational greening, and are now among
the global leaders, with a focus on how to go green and improve the bottom line, to
ensure increased competitiveness in what is a growing market for environmentally
preferable products and services.
And, with increased interest in and adoption of sustainable techniques, the

available technologies and information to help companies do so have also
improved substantially. Nonetheless the exact means of planning, financing,
implementing and benefiting from a greener supply chain are still ambiguous, and
corporate environmental strategies and knowledge is still kept close to home.
With this change in attitude and business strategy in mind, eyefortransport

conducted the first Green Transportation & Logistics Survey in June - July
2007, and the annual follow-up survey in May-July 2008. With up to 75% of a
company’s carbon footprint coming from transportation and logistics, we chose
changes in this area to be the best representation of the planned and current
initiatives companies are implementing to green their supply chains.
The greening of transportation and logistics is still a vague and unsettling thought
for many. With so many factors to consider and still so little practical information
available it’s easy to see why some either get it wrong or never even try. However,
it is now clear that those who are working on environmental efforts have found the
ROI in green transportation and logistics. Based on the responses to the survey, it
is evident that lean and green means gold if done in an informed and strategic
fashion.
Where the cost of implementing green initiatives was once the main barrier to
change, now ROGI: Return on Green Investment is one of the main drivers for a
corporate change of attitude and practice. So, what are the costs involved, and
what is the business case for going green? With so many unknowns, how can you
ensure that your green transportation and logistics initiatives reduce your carbon
footprint and improve your bottom line? It is with these questions in mind that
eyefortransport conducted the survey and compiled this Green Transportation
and Logistics Report in an effort to improve knowledge sharing in the
transportation and logistics industry.
All the data gathered in this report will be discussed and debated at
eyefortransport’s 2nd Sustainable Supply Chain Summit being held at the Stanford
Court Hotel in San Francisco on October 15-17, 2008. For more information on
the survey results or the Summit please see the brochure at the end of this report,
contact Katharine O’Reilly at koreilly@eft.com, 1 800 814 3459 ext 329 or
+44 (0) 207 375 7207 or visit the website at www.eft.com/SustainableSC.
III. Methodology and approach

eyefortransport conducted the “Green Transportation & Logistics” surveys from
June to July 2007, and May to July 2008. Responses were solicited in a targeted
email campaign, which included select trade associations and industry databases.
Respondents were asked a number of questions to establish the key drivers for
transportation and logistics greening, as well as the benefits and risks involved.
IV. Profile of respondents

271 transportation and logistics professionals responded to the survey in 2007,
and an additional 235 responded to the 2008 survey, for a total of over 500
respondents across the two years (including any repeat respondents for year two).
Respondents were senior executives from companies working in various industry
verticals.
45% of the total respondents are in the transport and logistics sector, 8% in hi-tech
& electronics, 6% in food, and 5% in retail & consumer packaged goods. The
automotive, chemical, and healthcare/ pharmaceutical sectors were fairly evenly
represented.
The defense/ aerospace industry was in the minority, which may or may not be an
indication that supply chain greening does not feature high on the list of priorities
for these sectors.
Automotive
Respondent
Respondent Industry
Industry
Food
Automotive
Food
Chemicals
3%
Chemicals
6% 3% 1%
27% 3% 2%
1% 8% Defense/
Defense/ Aerospace
Aerospace
2% 6%
28% 2%
8% Healthcare/ Pharmaceuticals
Health Care/Pharmaceutical
5%6%
Hi-Tech & Electronics
Hi-Tech & Electronics
44%
Retail & Consumer Packaged
Goods
Transportation/ Logistics
Retail & Consumer
45% Service Provider Goods
Packaged
Other
Transportation/ Logistics
Service Provider
Other
V. Green priorities and annual revenue

The majority of total respondents represented companies with annual revenues
either below 50 million US$ or above 1 billion US$.
Respondent Annual Revenue
> 1 billion 41
750 million - 1 billion 3

Revenue (US$)
500-750 million 4
250-500 million 8
50-250 million 11
0-50 million 31
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% of Respondents
Interestingly, however, a correlation was found among the responses between the
degree of importance of green issues and a companies’ annual revenue in both
years.
Relative Importance of Green Issues Depending on Annual Revenue
4
3.9
3.8
Degree of 3.7
Importanceof 3.6
Green Issues 3.5
(out of 5) 3.4 2007
3.3 2008
3.2
3.1
0-50 million
50 million -
1 billion > 1 billion
Annual Revenue (US$)
This suggests both that it is high grossing and highly successful companies who
are prioritizing green issues the most, and that this high prioritization of green
issues likely contributes to their success. This correlation was more pronounced
for the highest revenue companies in 2008 as opposed to 2007, and suggests a
polarization in the industry – those companies who have committed to greening
efforts are moving ahead at a fast pace, while those with lower turnovers have
jumped less between last year and this.
Over half (59%) of respondents reported that green issues were either important or
very important to their companies’ overall strategy in 2007. This figure jumped to
64% in 2008. 20% in 2007 and 21% in 2008 reported green issues as fairly
important, 15% in 2007 and 13% in 2008 as somewhat important, and only 6% in
2007 and lessening to 2% in 2008 designated green issues as not important. This
makes it clear that most companies give green issues great consideration and
weight when devising their business strategies, even more so in 2008 then in the
previous year.
Importance of Green Issues to Companies’ Overall

Strategies
35
30
25
20
% 2007
15
2008
10
0
Very Important Fairly Somewhat Not
important important important important
VI. Green priorities and transportation and logistics

partnerships
20.5% of survey respondents across 2007-2008 represented companies currently

using a logistics partner or service provider to help green their supply chain. An
average of 53.5% are not using a partner company for this process, but a further
average of 26% are actively exploring the possibility of adding a partner company
to help push environmental initiatives forward. This number went down slightly
between the two years, and the number of current partnerships increased,
indicating that companies are taking on logistics partners, in part for this purpose.
Use of Transportation/Logistics Partners to Help Green
60
50
40 2007
% 30 2008
20
10
0
Currently using a Not using a Not using a
logistics partner to logistics partner logistics partner
help but exploring the and no plans to
possibility
Another correlation revealed by the survey responses was that between the
degree of importance of green issues to a companies’ transportation and logistics
strategy and that companies’ use of a transportation/ logistics partner to help them
green their supply chains.
The survey revealed that, not entirely surprisingly, the more importance green
issues were given to a companies’ transportation and logistics strategy, the more
likely they were to either have partnered with a 3PL or other service provider to
help them with green initiatives, or be exploring the possibility of doing so. This
correlation was slightly more pronounced in 2008 then it was in 2007.
Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and

Logistics Strategy Related to the Use of
Transportation/Logistics Partners
4
3.5
Importance of 3
Green Issues to
2.5
Transportation
2 2007
and Logistics
1.5 2008
Strategy
(out of 5) 1
0.5
0
Currently using a Not using a logistics Not using a logistics
logistics partner to partner but exploring partner and no plans
help the possibility to
VII. The growing importance of green issues to transport and

logistics processes
The vast majority of respondents, 70% in 2007 and 73% in 2008, divulged that
over the next three years green issues will become more important to their
transport and logistics processes. An average of 19% expect green issues to
remain as important to their transport and logistics processes as they are now, and
only 1% expect a lessening of importance.
Amazingly, an average of 8.5% of respondents identified green issues to become

the No.1 priority for their transport and logistics processes over the next three
years.
Change of Importance of Green Issues to Transportation

and Logistics Processes Over Next Three Years
80
70
60
50
% 40 2007
30 2008
20
10
0
No.1 priority More Same Less
importance importance importance
VIII. Key drivers for instigating green initiatives

One of the main aims of this survey was to pinpoint the key drivers for transport
and logistics greening. Given the challenge greening is generally perceived to be,
it was important to identify and highlight the reasons why companies have taken on
the challenge and invested in environmental initiatives.
The results reveal that government compliance, improved customer and public
relations, a decreased fuel bill and financial ROI were the most important drivers
for transport and logistics greening, with a more pronounced emphasis on each in
2008 as opposed to 2007. Especially notable is the increase in the importance of
the ability of green initiatives to decrease a company’s fuel bill as a driver in 2008
over 2007.
However, increasing supply chain efficiency, improving investor relations,

decreasing risk and a larger corporate responsibility agenda were also important
factors in the strategic decision to go green, and each was regarded as more
important in 2008 then in 2007. Across the board the factors driving green
initiatives in this industry have become more evident and more pressing, and their
ability to initialize change is reflected in the comparative data here.
The overall suggestion is that companies see an array of factors, rather than one
main factor, as part of the benefits of supply chain greening. The combination of
these positive changes is thus the payback that companies are seeking when they
take on the challenge of green transport and logistics initiatives.
KeyKey Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and Logistics Initiatives

Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and
Part of a larger Corporate Responsibility Agenda

Increasing supply chain efficiency
Part of a larger Corporate Responsibility agenda
Decreasing risk
Increasing supply chain efficiency Very Important
Decreasing your fuel bill
Decreasing risk
Improving investor relations
Important
Decreasing your fuel bill
Improving public relations
Reasonably Important
Improving
Improving investor relations
Customer Relations Slightly Important
Financial
Improving public ROI
relations Not Important 2008
Government compliance N/A
Improving customer relations 2007
Financial ROI 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Government compliance
% Total
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2
Importance (out of 5)
IX. Effect of green initiatives on supply chain efficiency

While increasing supply chain efficiency was rated as either an important or very
important driver for instigating green transport and logistics initiatives by 58% of
respondents (see section VIII), 66% of respondents reported that the green
initiatives they had implemented were not effecting the efficiency of their supply
chains in 2007, decreasing to 57% in 2008.
This implies that improved supply chain efficiency is expected but not yet a reality
for many respondents. Hence, their green initiatives may be at a stage where
increased efficiency has yet to be seen, but the initiative itself is one of the
expected results by its conclusion.
This is supported by the change in reports of increased efficiency between the two
years. In 2007 27% of respondents reported seeing their current green transport
and logistics initiatives improving the efficiency of their supply chains, whereas in
2008 that figure has increased to 38% - an 11% increase in one year. 7% in 2007,
then down to 5% in 2008, reported less efficiency due to green initiatives.
Effect of Green Initiatives on Supply Chain Efficiency
70
60
50
40 2007
%
30 2008
20
10
0
More efficient Not affecting Less efficient
efficiency
Reported Effect
X. Expected ROI on green initiatives

When asked if they expected to see an ROI on their green initiatives within the
next three years, 36% of respondents disclosed that they expect to see both
financial and public relations payback in 2007, rising to 50% in 2008. On the other
hand, 37% in 2007 and 34% in 2008 said that they expect to see financial but not
public relations ROI from their green initiatives in the near future. This suggests
that companies are looking at financial rewards over public image as the main
short-term payback for supply chain greening. The numbers of those expecting to
see little or no ROI on green initiatives have both dropped-off from last year to this.
Expected ROI on Green Initiatives Over Next Three Years
50
45
40
35 2007
30
2008
% 25
20
15
10
5
0
Financial andFinancial but Not much No ROI
public not public expected expected
relations relations
Expected ROI
XI. Current and planned green transport and logistics

initiatives
In order to survey the current green transportation and logistics landscape we
asked respondents to reveal which actual green initiatives they have implemented
or planned. The results reveal that 59% of respondents in 2007 and 72% in 2008
are or are planning to improve energy efficiency, and an average of 42% are or are
planning to both use vehicle re-routing to reduce miles. The use of strategic
warehouse and distribution centre placement to go green dropped from 42% to
37% between 2007 and 2008. A further 39% of respondents reported emissions
measuring and/or reductions as another favoured initiative in 2007, rising to a
dramatic 60% by 2008.
The trialing and/or use of alternative fuels, and the use of more environmentally
friendly logistics providers, were being used or planned by an average of 29.5%
and 27% of respondents respectively. The least frequent choice was moving
freight away from air towards other modes, suggesting that for many companies
this is the least feasible change to make, at least in the short term.
In 2008 we also found out that 38% of respondents are switching to more fuel-
efficient road vehicles, 36% are switching to more fuel-efficient modes of
transport, and 26% are requesting emissions data from suppliers or carriers.
Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics

Initiatives
Emissions measuring and/or reductions
Improving energy efficiency
Trialing and/or use o f alternative fuels
Strategic warehouse & distribution center placement
Vehicle re-routing t o reduce miles
Using more environmentally friendly logistics providers
Other
M oving freight away from road and rail t o other modes
Switching t o more fuel-efficient road vehicles
Switching t o more fuel-efficient modes o f transport
Requesting emissions data from suppliers
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2008
2007 %
In 2007, when asked what other specific transport and logistics initiatives their
companies had or were planning to implement, the individual responses fell into
eighteen categories. The most frequent response was that product design and
packaging was the area being concentrated on. Recycling programs were the second
highest self-reported initiatives being planned or used.
The third most popular write-in responses were the use of returnables, moving air to
surface routes, sustainable and LEED certified buildings, hybrid or electric vehicle
development or usage, the EPA’s SmartWay transport program, and sustainable
transport policies and ‘green thinking’.
Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics Initiatives
Product design and packaging

7
Recycling programs
SmartWay transport program

6 Returnables
Moving air to surface routes
5 Sustainable and LEED certified buildings

Response Frequency
Hybrid or electric vehicle development or usage
4 Sustainable transport policies and 'green thinking'
Waste reduction & asset recovery
3 Leveraging green logistics technologies
Reduced paper and energy consumption
2 Green material usage
Maximizing load and monitoring fuel usage
Responsing to customer requirements

1
RFID and GPS
Going solar
0
Hydrogen enhanced combustion
Initiative
Reductions in toxins and hazardous chemicals
Waste reduction and asset recovery, leveraging green logistics technologies, reduced
paper and energy consumption, green material usage, responding to customer
requirements, technologies like RFID and GPS, and maximizing load and monitoring
fuel usage were all cited an equal number of times.
The least self-reported initiatives were reductions in toxins and hazardous chemicals,
hydrogen enhanced combustion, and going solar. This suggests that, at least at
present, these initiatives are not seen as the most viable to the majority of industry
professionals, or there is less industry knowledge or confidence about their
implementation.
Specific Current or Planned Green Sustainable transport policies and 'green

thinking'
Transportation and Logistics Initiatives
Reducing paper and energy consumption
Sustainable and LEED certified buildings

4
Hybrid or electric vehicle development or
usage
3 Product design and packaging
Response Recylcling Programs

2
Frequency
Green material usage
1 RFID and GPS
Going solar
0
Initiative Reductions in toxins and hazardous
chemicals
The same question asked in 2008 generated some distinctly different write-in
responses. This year sustainable transport policies and ‘green thinking’, as well as
reducing paper and energy consumption topped the list of current or planned initiatives,
demonstrating the perceived importance of a strong company sustainability policy and
the dissemination of those values internally. Sustainable and LEED certified buildings
were also identified, along with hybrid or electric vehicle development or usage.
Product design and packaging, recycling programs, green material usage, RFID and
GPS, going solar and reducing toxins and hazardous chemicals in the supply chain
were also all mentioned.
NEW FOR 2008

For the 2008 survey we wanted to isolate a few key areas of change between last year
and this. The trend for greening transportation and logistics has remained, has
strengthened, and has also shifted in a number of ways, and due to a number of factors.
This section will highlight some of the key areas of focus that have emerged in 2008.
XII. Who’s responsible for green transportation and logistics?

One of the areas we get a lot of questions about is where the responsibility for the
evaluation, adoption and implementation of green transportation & logistics initiatives is
placed within organizations. Our sense that the area of focus is still skewed was
reinforced by the 2008 survey data that showed a broad range of job titles taking or
being allocated responsibility for this important area.
Job Title of Person Responsible for Green Transportation and

25 Logistics Director
Supply Chain Director
20 Operations Director
Transportation Director
15 Environmental Sustainability Director
% Marketing Director
10 Compliance Director
Distribution Director
5
CSR Director
Other
0
Job Title
1
The most common responses were ‘Logistics Director’ and ‘Supply Chain Director’,
followed closely by ‘Operations Director’, ‘Transportation Director’, and recently created
job titles such as ‘Environmental Sustainability Director’ or the like. ‘Marketing Director’,
‘Compliance Director’, then ‘Distribution Director’ and ‘CSR Director’ followed, however
the most common response was ‘Other’.
The range of write-in responses to this option was very broad: over 100 respondents
wrote in the job title relevant to their organization. The most common write-in
responses included ‘CEO’, ‘CSO’, ‘EHS’, ‘Engineering’, ‘Government and Public Affairs’,
‘Internal Consultants’, Logistics Safety and Energy’, ‘Procurement’, ‘Quality’,
‘Technology’, and ‘Asset Management’. Additionally, reports of a ‘Green Team’ or ‘a
combination of executives across business units’ also came in, indicating that despite
the diversity of relevant job titles there is co-ordination in some organizations.
XIII. Level of awareness of environmental programs and initiatives

As the transportation and logistics industry’s grasp of environmental issues strengthens,
we thought it crucial to gauge the level of awareness of certain high profile
environmental programs available to our industry. We asked respondents whether they
were ‘Participating in or using’, ‘Familiar with’, had ‘Heard of’ or had ‘Never heard of’ 11
of the most important programs for the industry.
Level of Awareness of Environmental Programs and Initiatives
Carbon Labeling
Sustainability 360
The Carbon Trust
GHG Protocol
The Chicago Climate Exchange
The Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissions Targets Never heard of

Carbon Offsets Heard of
EU Emissions Trading Scheme Familiar w ith
Carbon Disclosure Project Participating in or using
EPA SmartWay Program
EPA Climate Leaders Program
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%
The results showed that 65% of respondents had never heard of the GHG Protocol,
63% hadn’t heard of Sustainability 360, 59% hadn’t heard of The Chicago Climate
Exchange, 54% had never heard of Carbon Labeling, and 49% hadn’t ever heard of the
EPA Climate Leaders Program. A further 77% of executives were either familiar with or
heard of Carbon Offsets, 79% the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissions Targets, and 53%
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Then, 6% of respondents indicated that they are
participating in or using carbon offsetting, and an impressive 19% reported participation
by their company in the EPA SmartWay program.
What follows are some useful links on these various programs so that if you have not
heard of them, or would like to know more, you can access more information.
Carbon Labeling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_label

Sustainability 360 - http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/6238.aspx
The Carbon Trust - http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/
The GHG Protocol - http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
The Chicago Climate Exchange - http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/
The Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissions Targets -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Carbon Offsets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
EU Emissions Trading Scheme - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm
Carbon Disclosure Project - http://www.cdproject.net/
EPA SmartWay Program - http://www.epa.gov/smartway/
EPA Climate Leaders Program - http://www.epa.gov/stateply/
XIV. Carbon footprint measurement software
Carbon Footprint Measurement Software Used
45 42
40
35 30
30
25
%
20 16
15
10 7
5 2 1 1 1
0 No plans to use Still researching Developed an Other GreenSigma CarbonView EPA SmartWay Carbonalysis
software which software internal system (IBM ) (Supply Chain (Green 2020)
to use Consulting)
With each day bringing the announcement of new software or advancement on software
to help measure and manage the carbon footprint of supply chains, we wanted to know
what tools were being used by the industry currently. Our results showed that while
46% have no current plans to use a software solution for this purpose, another 30% are
actively researching which software to use. 16% have deployed an internal system, and
a handful of respondents are already using each of IBM’s GreenSigma, CarbonView,
EPA SmartWay or WarmModel, and Carbonalysis. The overall results point to the fact
that the industry is by and large still making its mind up on what software tools are most
useful for this purpose.
XV. Drivers for measuring carbon footprints
Considering what looks to be a high level of scrutiny over software to measure the
carbon footprint of logistics and supply chain, the level of interest in doing so still shows
itself to be high. As such we asked respondents what is driving them to look into and
work towards measuring the carbon footprint of their transportation and logistics.
Drivers for Measuring Carbon Footprints
To improve supply chain efficiency
To enhance reputation
To attract investors
Anticipating tighter regulations Top priority

Partner requests Secondary priority
Customer requests
Third priority
A consideration
To cut costs
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%
Our results show that cutting costs and enhancing reputation are the top reasons why
companies are investing in measuring the carbon footprint of their supply chain. The
next most common responses are improving supply chain efficiency and customer
requests. Following this, anticipating tighter regulations and attracting investors were
still common, and partner requests were the least common but still a strong
consideration.
XVI. Barriers to green transportation and logistics

Given the numerous strong drivers for implementing green transportation and logistics
initiatives, we wanted to find out why more companies are not – or have not yet – taken
these steps and initiated projects themselves.
Barriers to Adoption of Green Transportation and

Cost is too high

Payback period is too long
Negative impact on supply chain
Not enough knowledge to start the process
Lack of partner support to start process
LSPs responsibilty
Not a top priority for m anagem ent
Nobody driving the process internally
Not enough people driving the process internally
Not high enough on list of priorities
Lack of necessary customer demand
Not convinced green trend will continue
Customers won't pay a premium
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Big barrier
%
A barrier
Somewhat of a barrier
Not a barrier
The barriers most commonly highlighted include the implementation costs being too
high and/or the payback period being perceived to be too long. From an organizational
perspective respondents cited issues such as nobody driving the process internally, not
enough people driving the process internally, not enough knowledge to start the
process, and green issues not being high enough on the list of priorities as barriers to
moving forward. This is not surprising, as over and over we see that strong leadership
– by a designated team or, often, by one individual – is key to starting green projects
and moving them forward.
Lower down on the list of barriers were the perception that customers won’t pay a
premium for greener services, a lack of necessary customer demand, and/or a lack of
partner support to start the process. The least cited barriers were a perceived negative
impact on the supply chain, the idea that greening is the LSP’s responsibility, and a lack
of conviction in the idea that the ‘green trend’ will continue. Overall the most cited
barriers were those that made adoption more difficult, rather than those that made
green projects unreasonable to embark upon at all.
XVII. Change in scrutiny over corporate green claims

The attention paid to companies’ claims of being ‘green’ or ‘greener’ then their
competitors has certainly increased over the last two years. Accusations of
‘greenwashing’ have led to more serious consideration of the pros and cons of
marketing yourself as a green operation. Thus, we asked respondents how they had
observed the change in scrutiny over companies in the transportation and logistics
industry calling themselves green over the last year.
Change in Scrutiny Over Companies Calling Themselves

'Green'
44
45
40
35
30 26
19
25
%
20
11
15
10
0
5
0
Large Increase Slight No change Decrease
increase increase
Change
Our respondents agree that scrutiny has increased, with 26% observing a large
increase, and a further 44% an increase. 19% saw a slight increase, 11% saw no
change, and no respondents report a decrease.
XVIII. Effect of US election results on transport emissions

regulations
With the US Presidential race well on its way, we wanted to gauge how the transport
and logistics industry felt the election results would effect the governmental regulation of
transport-related emissions. A strong majority, 84%, agreed that tougher regulations
were more likely under the Democrats, while 16% thought the Republicans would bring
stricter environmental rules.
Effect of US Election Results on Transport Emissions

Regulations
16%
Tougher regulations under

Democrats
Tougher regulations under
Republicans
84%
XIX. Overall industry implications and conclusions

The supply chain industry is changing, as are the views of the professionals within it.
With green transportation and logistics initiatives proving to be a challenging yet
rewarding reality for companies if they wish to compete in today’s market, much
uncertainty about how to go about making these changes still exists.
Nonetheless, the industry agrees that success and profitability in the future requires
thinking and acting green today, and that transportation and logistics greening is the
smart way of achieving that goal.
For more information on what leading companies are doing to green their transportation
and logistics, see eyefortransport’s 2nd Sustainable Supply Chain Summit featured
below.

Eye For Transport Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Eye For Transport Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

eyefortransport’s Green Transportation

& Logistics Report July 2008

Summary and analysis of

“Green Transportation & Logistics”

For further details please contact:

I. Index of charts and tables ….………………………… 4

II. Introduction ………………….…………………………. 6

III. Methodology and approach………………………….. 8

IV. Profile of respondents ………………………………... 8

V. Green priorities and annual revenue ………………… 9

VI. Green priorities and transportation and logistics

VII. The growing importance of green issues to

transport and logistics processes ……….……………. 14

VIII. Key drivers for instigating green initiatives …………. 15

IX. Effect of supply chain greening on efficiency .…..…. 16

X. Expected ROI on green initiatives …….……...……… 18

XI. Current and planned green transport and

logistics initiatives ……………………………….……… 18

NEW FOR 2008

XII. Who’s responsible for green transportation

and logistics? .…………………………………….………….... 22

XIII. Level of awareness of environmental programs

and initiatives …………………………………………………… 23

XIV. Carbon footprint measurement software …………………. 25

XV. Drivers for measuring carbon footprints ………………….. 26

XVI. Barriers to green transportation and logistics ……………. 27

XVII. Change in scrutiny over corporate green claims ……….. 28

XVIII. Effect of US election results on transport emissions

XIX. Overall industry implications and conclusions …………… 30

XX. eyefortransport’s Sustainable Supply Chain Summit …… 31

I. Index of Charts and Tables

ii. Respondent Annual Revenue

iii. Relative Importance of Green Issues Depending on Annual

iv. Importance of Green Issues to Companies’ Overall Strategy

v. Use of Transportation/ Logistics Partner to Help Green

vi. Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and Logistics

Strategy Related to the Use of Logistics Partners

vii. Change of Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and

Logistics Processes Over Next Three Years

viii. Key Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and

ix. Effect of Green Initiatives on Supply Chain Efficiency

x. Expected ROI on Green Initiatives Over Next Three Years

xi. Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics

xii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and

Logistics Initiatives 2007

xiii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and

Logistics Initiatives 2008

NEW FOR 2008

xiv. Job Title of Person Responsible for Green Transportation and

xv. Level of Awareness of Environmental Programs and Initiatives

xvi. Carbon Footprint Measurement Software Used

xvii. Drivers for Measuring Carbon Footprints

xviii. Barriers to Green Transportation and Logistics

xix. Change in Scrutiny Over Corporate Green Claims

xx. Effect of US Election Results on Transport Emissions

And, with increased interest in and adoption of sustainable techniques, the

With this change in attitude and business strategy in mind, eyefortransport

III. Methodology and approach

IV. Profile of respondents

V. Green priorities and annual revenue

Respondent Annual Revenue

750 million - 1 billion 3