Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20
Transportation as a loosely coupled system: a
fundamental challenge for sustainable freight
transportation
Michael Browne, Anna Dubois & Kajsa Hulthén
To cite this article: Michael Browne, Anna Dubois & Kajsa Hulthén (2022): Transportation as a
loosely coupled system: a fundamental challenge for sustainable freight transportation, International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2022.2103756
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2103756
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 03 Aug 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 528
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Transportation as a loosely coupled system: a fundamental challenge for
sustainable freight transportation
Michael Browne
a
, Anna Dubois
b
, and Kajsa Hulth
en
b
a
Department of Business Administration, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
b
Department of Technology Management and
Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
ABSTRACT
In view of the pressing need to reduce the negative environmental impact of freight transporta-
tion we argue that it is essential to take account of the organization of the freight transportation
system when considering how to address various individual activities and parts of the system. To
support a transition to a more sustainable freight transportation system this paper examines the
way in which different parts of the system interact and the way this can impact the scope for pro-
found change. Taking loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976) as a starting point, we scrutinize the
couplings within and between three system layers of the freight transportation system: the supply
chain layer, the transportation layer, and the infrastructure layer. In addition, we address two inter-
faces connecting these layers: the market for transportation services, and the traffic using the
infrastructure. We find that tight couplings dominate in the supply chain and infrastructure layers
and that these couplings depend on loose couplings in the transportation layer and the two inter-
faces. The pattern of couplings identified in the freight transportation system can explain several
positive outcomes, such as flexibility and efficiency. But there are also major negative aspects of
the loosely coupled nature of the system that create resistance to change and present a barrier in
the drive for increased sustainability. The paper concludes that the identified couplings and sys-
tem features have important implications for policies aiming to change the freight transportation
system in ways that lead to significant reduction in the reliance on oil.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 June 2021
Accepted 16 July 2022
KEYWORDS
freight; loosely coupled
system; policy; supply
chain; transportation system
1. Introduction
In an analysis of the education system, Weick (1976)drewon
parallels between an unconventional soccer game and school-
ing. He conjured up a picture of apparently random move-
ment, unpredictable behavior and a disordered playing field:
“Imagine that you’re either a referee, coach, player or spectator
at an unconventional soccer match: the field for the game is
round; there are several goals scattered haphazardly around the
circular field; people can enter and leave the game whenever
they want to; they can throw balls in whenever they want; they
can say “that’smygoal”whenever they want to, as many times
as they want to, and for as many goals as they want to; the
entire game takes place on a sloped field; and the game is
played as if it makes sense.”(Weick, 1976,p.1)
In this paper we argue that this image that Weick went on
to refer to as a loosely coupled system could apply equally well
to the freight transportation system. Consider the trucks, vans,
trains, and vessels in any urban (or other) area loading,
unloading, and moving about in a seemingly uncoordinated
fashion. Consider also all the effort to coordinate transporta-
tion services and make good use of the resources involved in
theoperations.Whilethecurrentwayofcoordinatingand
organizing all these transportation activities seems to work, the
need for change has become increasingly apparent.
According to Weick (1976), it is likely that a sense of
efficacy may be greater in a loosely coupled system with
autonomous units than it would be in a tightly coupled sys-
tem, since there is room for self-determination by the actors.
Therefore, loosely coupled systems are relatively inexpensive
to run since loose couplings require little coordination and
therefore generate low operational costs. However, this also
implies that it may be a non-rational (and/or non-optimal)
system for the allocation of resources and also un-modifiable
and incapable of being used as a means of change.
The biggest driver of the need for change in and of the
freight transportation system is the heavy reliance on fossil
energy. As noted by the European Energy Agency (EEA,
2020) transportation remains highly dependent on oil with
oil-derived fuels accounting for 95 percent of energy con-
sumption in transportation. In this respect all transportation
is problematic but freight transportation, in particular, has
become an increasingly important polluter and contributor
to climate change since it relies very heavily on fossil energy
CONTACT Kajsa Hulth
en kajsa.hulthen@chalmers.se Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, SE-41296, Sweden
ß2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in
any way.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2103756
sources (Lin, 2019). Energy use in the transportation sector
is expected to continue to increase with oil comprising the
largest share through 2050 (wri.org, 2019). Hence, the trans-
portation sector’s reliance on fossil fuels needs to be dramat-
ically reduced:
“To keep temperature rise within a range that averts the worst
climate impacts, IEA modelling suggests that transportation
emissions need to peak around 2020. Transitioning to zero-
emission transport is a crucial step toward a livable future.
Getting there requires a comprehensive suite of improvements,
addressing clean fuels, vehicle efficiency, how we build cities,
and how we move people and goods.”(wri.org, 2019)
In terms of transportation modes, 72 percent of global
transportation emissions are generated by road vehicles, which
accounted for 80 percent of the rise in emissions from 1970-
2010 (wri.org, 2019). Furthermore, the transportation sector is
growing rapidly, with emissions projected to double by 2050
(Creutzig et al., 2015). As part of the challenge, freight trans-
portation is considered an engine of growth and owing to the
continuing specialization in industry it increases at a faster
pace than the GDP in most countries. According to Sims et al.
(2014, p. 603): “Reducing global transport greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions will be challenging since the continuing
growth in passenger and freight activity could outweigh all
mitigation measures unless transport emissions can be strongly
decoupled from GDP growth.”Figueroa et al. (2014) noted
that the total amount of freight movements continues to rise
steeply despite various regulations on exhaust emissions, green
vehicle technologies, and efficiency measures taken by compa-
nies to save money at the same time as they yield environmen-
tal co-benefits. As McKinnon (2016,p.16)noted:“Ever more
radical options will have to be explored in an effort to meet
the required reductions.”
Hu et al. (2019) argued that transportation may be one
of the more difficult sources of emissions to address.
Focusing on freight transportation, they noted that the
extent of the ‘embodied’emissions can be exemplified by
the situation in Sweden where these are nearly equivalent to
all the private vehicle transportation of citizens (excluding
package holidays and flights). The way in which consump-
tion creates derived demand for transportation far away
from the consumer entails particular challenges. Owing to
specialization and globalization, materials can cross over the
world multiple times before ending up with a final con-
sumer, pointing to the importance of understanding the
organizing of the freight transportation system. This, in
turn, emphasizes the need for analytical frameworks that
can be used to scrutinize different measures taken to tackle
the many problems identified with transportation, without
hampering the social and economic benefits.
Within the broader debate of climate change mitigation
Creutzig et al. (2015) stressed the importance of transportation
as a potential roadblock, because of both growth in demand
and reliance on oil as the main energy source. Their analysis
included both passenger and freight transportation considera-
tions and the points they made are relevant to the issue of
how to approach questions of change when looking at systems
that exhibit inertia and apparent resistance to change.
Research applying system dynamics modeling to trans-
portation problems emphasize the desirability of a holistics
approach. For example, focusing on city logistics and urban
freight transportation, Kunze et al. (2016) applied a partial
system dynamics approach as one element in research with
the goal of developing a holistic understanding of the poten-
tials to reduce freight and service traffic in an urban context.
The research had a strong focus on the “interdependencies
of the different decision realms of the different stakeholders”
(ibid., p. 695). Exploring the interrelationships between
logistics and transportation operations, Aschauer et al.
(2015) used a systems dynamics approach. They noted that
interdependencies between logistics and transportation oper-
ations can occur in different ways and may influence the
whole system in direct and indirect ways. The approach dis-
cussed in their research emphasized the need to consider
systems and relationships in a comprehensive way to better
understand opportunities to create positive changes.
Yet despite references to the need for a suite of improve-
ments and the importance of a systems approach it is clear
that the pace of change is slow and most initiatives only
focus on small parts of the total freight transportation sys-
tem. To enable a system level change a framework is needed
to describe and understand the system and the organization
and interactions within that system. In this paper we make
an attempt to provide such a framework.
Analyzing the transportation system as a loosely coupled
system means addressing the combination of loose and tight
couplings between elements since this pattern of couplings
determines the conditions for the dynamics within the sys-
tem. Hence, certain changes may be relatively easy to make
while others may be very difficult or even impossible if the
pattern of couplings remains. Understanding the pattern of
couplings may therefore help to frame more effective policy
initiatives and other actions to reduce the climate change
impacts of transportation activity, and thereby contribute to
more sustainable transportation. We consider that oil plays
a key role as an embedded resource in the transportation
system. However, to change this reliance on oil it is not suf-
ficient to have alternatives available - more fundamental
understanding of the couplings and interfaces in the trans-
portation systems is also required to identify possible paths
supporting the transition to a sustainable transporta-
tion system.
A related approach dealing with ‘low-carbon transitions’
is the socio-technical analysis based on a multi-level per-
spective (MLP) introduced into transportation studies by
Geels (2012) and Geels et al. (2012). According to Geels
(2012, p. 472), transitions are non-linear processes resulting
from the interplay of multiple developments at three levels:
landscapes, regimes, and niches; “The MLP provides a way
of addressing the core analytical puzzle of transitions,
namely stability and change. On the one hand, existing sys-
tems are characterized by stability, lock-in, and path
dependence, which give rise to incremental change along
predictable trajectories. On the other hand, radical alterna-
tives are being proposed, developed and tried by pioneers,
entrepreneurs, social movements and other relative outsiders
2 M. BROWNE ET AL.
(to the existing regime). These alternatives typically face an
uphill struggle against existing systems [ …]”.M
€
uller and
Blanquart (2018) based their study of the conditions for rad-
ical innovation in freight transportation in France and
Germany on MLP and identified several mechanisms pro-
tecting status quo. In particular, they found that: “[…]
avoidance of radical new solutions and “unbreakable”link-
ages between policy and incumbents, resulting in negative
lobbying”together with lack of capital, hindered innovation
(ibid., p. 231).
In relation to the MLP approach, we focus mainly on the
existing regimes in the freight transportation system,
together with some examples of niches as attempts at
‘radical innovation’to transform the system. Furthermore,
Geels (2012) focused his analysis on auto-mobility which
displays both differences and similarities with freight trans-
portation (see M€
uller & Blanquart, 2018). Since transporta-
tion of people and goods to a large extent share the same
infrastructures, the landscape level including e.g., spatial
structures, political ideologies, and macro-economic trends,
can be seen as shared between the two.
Inquiring into how the pattern of tight and loose cou-
plings produces certain system outcomes is a way to
improve the understanding of the conditions for change in a
system. The aim of the paper is therefore to analyze the
organizing of the freight transportation system regarding its
pattern of loose and tight couplings and to inquire into the
consequences of this pattern for change in and of the freight
transportation system. We do not present new empirical
data from surveys or case studies. Instead, we base our ana-
lysis and discussion on previous studies of different parts of
the system.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section,
we present the framework which includes an overall descrip-
tion of the transportation system and of the main attributes
of loosely coupled systems. This is followed by a section
where we address the pattern of couplings in each system
layer and the interfaces between them. Thereafter we discuss
implications for policies directed at freight transportation
sustainability, suggesting that some policies have failed
because they conflict with the current pattern of couplings.
The last section contains a concluding discussion.
2. Framework
The notion of a transportation system is often used in
research as well as in policy documents as an implicitly
‘known’system although the content of, and perspectives
applied to, this system varies greatly. But what kind of sys-
tem is the transportation system and what components does
it contain? We have found inspiration in the literature on
loosely coupled systems (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick,
1976), originally developed to describe organizations such as
the educational system. However, since we focus on an
interorganizational system rather than on a formal organiza-
tion we also draw on notions developed in the industrial
network approach (Håkansson et al., 2009) which captures
how activities, resources and actors belonging to different
formal organizations are subject to interdependence across
organizational boundaries (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995).
Drawing on these ideas in combination enables scrutiny of
the freight transportation system as an open system i.e.,
without starting out in a precise definition of all its elements
or of any clear boundary in relation to other systems or
contexts. The open nature of the system follows from how
the freight transportation system is part of the broader
transportation system that also includes personal and public
transportation, and that these share some vital resources
such as transportation infrastructure. In addition, many of
the system elements that will be addressed in the paper have
links to other contexts.
Orton and Weick (1990, p. 219) argue that that the con-
cept of loosely coupled system should not be applied in a
superficial way but that researchers should scrutinize the
system: “What elements are loosely coupled? What domains
are they coupled on?”Loosely coupled systems may contain
elements that vary in the number and strength of their
interdependencies. For example, every single industrial activ-
ity is to some extent interdependent with many other activ-
ities –they are coupled in various ways. Some of these
couplings are tight while others are loose.
An important characteristic of loose couplings is that
“coupled events are responsive but that each event also pre-
serves its own identity and some evidence of its physical or
logical separateness”(Weick, 1976, p. 3). The attachment
between the events may be “circumscribed, infrequent, weak
in its mutual effects, unimportant, and/or slow to respond”
(ibid.). Loose couplings may occur in a number of dimen-
sions: between individuals, sub-units, organizations, hier-
archical levels, organizations and environments, ideas,
activities, and between intentions and actions. Furthermore,
Weick (1976) analyzed the potential effects of loose cou-
plings, which may be functional and/or dysfunctional. Below
we briefly describe the attributes associated with loose cou-
plings and with loosely coupled systems.
A loosely coupled system may be a good system for local-
ized adaptation where “any one element can adjust to and
modify a local unique contingency without affecting the
whole system”(Weick, p. 6-7). Hence, localized adaptations
may be “swift, relatively economical and substantial”(ibid.,
p. 7). Weick furthermore suggested that the antithesis of
localized adaptation is standardization. However, standard-
ization of parts or tasks in a system may also work as a
decoupling mechanism in that it can enable independence
between (certain) elements and in that case foster loose cou-
plings (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Loose couplings also serve
as a buffering mechanism against unfavorable conditions in
the environment owing to the system as a whole not having
to respond to every minor change that occurs in the
environment.
Loosely coupled systems tend to preserve their identity,
uniqueness, and separateness of elements. Therefore, the sys-
tem can potentially retain a greater number of mutations
and novel solutions than would be the case with a tightly
coupled system. The greater freedom in a loosely coupled
system requires the actors to deal with problems in a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 3
multitude of ways. This, in turn, favors variety and experi-
mentation which may, under the right conditions, result in
innovation. However, such innovations are not easily spread
due to the preservation mechanisms that also characterize
loosely coupled systems.
The transportation system has been described as a com-
plex open system consisting of a set of sub-systems or layers
(ALICE, 2015; Manheim, 1967; Wandel et al., 1994).
Drawing on these layered system descriptions we focus our
analysis of the freight transportation system on three main
system layers: first, the supply chain layer wherein the pro-
duction, buying and selling of products take place; second,
the transportation layer wherein the actual transportation
activities are coordinated and carried out; and third, the
transportation infrastructure layer containing roads, ports,
railways, and other resources. In addition, we identify two
interfaces connecting these system layers: the market for
transportation services where the supply and demand meet,
and the traffic as the use(s) of the transportation infrastruc-
ture (see Figure 1).
The framework for analysis of the pattern of couplings in
the freight transportation system takes its starting point in
this description of the system to enable scrutiny of the main
couplings among activities, resources and actors in each
layer as well as across the layers, i.e. in the interfaces
between them. In the next section the couplings are ana-
lyzed for each layer and interface. Furthermore, initiatives to
increase sustainability taken by private and public actors are
brought up to exemplify how the couplings in the layers and
interfaces impact on the possibilities to make substantial and
long-lasting changes in the freight transportation system.
3. The pattern of couplings in the
transportation system
The focus of our analysis of loose and tight couplings is the
actors, activities, and resources that we define as the ele-
ments in the system. In this section we identify the main
characteristics of the pattern of couplings following the five
domains identified, i.e. the three freight transportation sys-
tem layers and the two interfaces connecting these layers.
Furthermore, we describe examples of sustainability initia-
tives in each domain. We end the section by summarizing
the pattern of couplings identified in the freight transporta-
tion system.
3.1. The supply chain layer
Over time, the developments in supply chains have resulted
in increasing integration of activities and resources within as
well as across organizational boundaries. These general
developments relate to overall industrial trends, for example
increasing specialization, demands for customization, and
globalization. Based on various kinds of adjustments in
inter-organizational arrangements such as just-in-time solu-
tions and make-to-order production, interdependencies
between buyers and suppliers in supply chains have become
strengthened over time (see e.g., Gadde et al., 2010; van
Weele, 2010). However, these interdependencies do not only
occur within but also across supply chains (Dubois et al.,
2004) and, thus, supply networks have been suggested as a
more suitable term to describe this system layer (Carter
et al., 2015). Consequently, the couplings are typically tight
in the supply chain layer for all three kinds of system ele-
ments: activities, resources, and actors. These tight couplings
are associated with business relationships that are often
characterized by collaboration rather than being of an arm’s
length ‘market transaction’nature (Gadde et al., 2010).
Collaborative relationships have been discussed in the supply
chain literature as involving both vertical (within supply
chains) and horizontal (across supply chains) collaboration
(Barratt, 2004; Mason et al., 2007).
Sustainable supply chain management has attracted a lot
of attention in recent years (Carter et al., 2015). For
instance, efforts to create reverse logistics and closed-loop
supply chains have become important means of creating cir-
cular business models (see e.g., Govindan et al., 2015).
Sustainable supply chain initiatives, however, have mostly
not concerned, or considered, freight emissions in supply
chains (Ellram et al., 2022). Instead, efforts to create closed-
loop supply chains may increase the need for transportation
(van Loon & Van Wassenhove, 2020). Since transportation
activities are integrated in supply chains (Eriksson et al.,
2022; Hesse & Rodrigue, 2004) every supply network deci-
sion has an impact on freight emissions; “…supplier and
distribution center locations, and choice of transportation
modes and providers contribute to determining emissions in
the supply chain”(Ellram et al., 2022, p. 19). Next, we
address the transportation layer.
3.2. The transportation layer
The transportation layer includes actors that provide trans-
portation services and resources such as trucks and ships.
The layer is characterized by fragmentation and independ-
ence, especially where road freight transportation is con-
cerned. The industry structure is featured by a few large
companies operating in parallel with many small firms and
by complex, varying and temporal business exchanges across
tiers of actors in transportation and logistics networks
(European Commission, 2014). The resources activated in
the transportation layer are mostly of a standardized nature
enabling use of the same equipment for many purposes.
However, localized tighter couplings can be observed e.g.,
when vehicles are designed for special types of goods.
Figure 1. Layers and interfaces of the transportation system (Modified from
Wandel et al., 1994).
4 M. BROWNE ET AL.
Clearly, road freight transportation is considered as the
most flexible transportation mode. Blanquart and
Burmeister (2009, p. 135) argued that the dominance of
road transportation “is an important issue of public debate”
since it “is often criticized for its negative external effects
(pollution, accidents, congestion, …)”. Furthermore, they
concluded that despite “a clear political will (as well on the
national as on the European level) to correct the modal split,
the trend appears to be difficult to stop, given the difference
in infrastructure costs and the difficulties of alternative
modes to adapt to the current trends in production sys-
tems.”(ibid., p. 135).
Moreover, there is a wide variety of business arrange-
ments between transportation service providers in the trans-
portation layer owing to the many different ways in which
transportation service providers can specialize, e.g. in trans-
portation modes and geographical scope (Sahay, 2003).
Woxenius (2012, p. 65) pointed to the difficulty of defining
actor roles in transportation chains: “the industrial organiza-
tion differs significantly between different types of transport
services depending on the character of demand, transport
modes involved, regulations, levels of vertical and horizontal
integration, etc.”The fragmented and diffuse actor structure,
the highly standardized resource constellation and the char-
acter of the business exchange structure imply that the
transportation layer generally features loose couplings.
There are many examples of projects focusing on the
transportation layer and aiming at making the use of trans-
portation resources more efficient. For example, carrier asso-
ciations have emerged that help independent carriers to
exchange transportation requests to improve the utilization
of their transportation resources (ASTRE, 2022). Such
efforts, however, call for coordination between activities car-
ried out by actors who do not normally collaborate but
rather compete for orders. Furthermore, various initiatives
are taken to promote multi-modal solutions which also
require more coordination than what is required by relying
on road freight alone.
3.3. The infrastructure layer
Investments in infrastructure such as roads, railways, ports,
and airports are massive and planned for long-term use in
view of expected future aggregate demand. The infrastruc-
ture layer is thus subject to governance at the system level
which mostly concerns the national level but also regional
and local/city levels. Transportation infrastructure is thus
generally characterized by tight couplings, while adjustments
to individual users and uses are rare. International (and
national) standards provide the basis for the technical and
organizational features of transportation infrastructure.
The vulnerability and lack of resilience of transportation
network infrastructures have become growing concerns
(Mattsson & Jenelius, 2015; Reggiani et al., 2015). As com-
plex networks, their connectivity is considered both a reason
and a solution to disturbances of various kinds. According
to Mattsson and Jenelius (2015, p. 16):
“To minimise the costs, infrastructure systems are often
designed to work close to their capacity with small margins of
reserve capacity and little redundancy. This renders them
sensitive to various incidents, technical failures, disruptions,
extreme weather, natural disasters, antagonistic actions and
other threats. This, in addition to the interdependencies between
and within the systems, could lead to serious consequences for
society, should a critical component or sub-system fail or
break down.”
While the tight couplings between elements in the infra-
structure layer are considered a concern of growing import-
ance, initiatives to develop and integrate infrastructure
across national boundaries, such as the Green Corridors ini-
tiatives in the EU (Psaraftis & Panagakos, 2012), intend to
further strengthen the couplings within the infrastructure
layer. A key issue for such ‘corridors’to be successful is to
adapt the infrastructure in a way that enables multi-modal
and inter-modal transportation in an integrated way (UN,
2021). However, transportation infrastructure is long-lived
and decisions “in the short run have long-term implications,
and are typically hard to reverse”(ibid., p. 56). One chal-
lenge is that in many countries ministries are divided across
modal lines and there are also different local, regional, and
national ministries impacting on decisions of various geo-
graphical scopes, e.g. the rural and urban contexts (UN,
2021). Moreover, initiatives related to electrification of road
infrastructure are taken by both public and private actors.
An example of a private initiative is the collaboration
between three large truck OEMs who have agreed to estab-
lish a public charging infrastructure in Europe for heavy-
duty long-haul trucks (CCJ, 2021). This kind of initiative
aims at accelerating the transition to fossil-free heavy-duty
transportation and is an interesting example of how private
actors take a lead in a domain otherwise dominated by pub-
lic actors.
3.4. The market for transportation services: The
interface between the supply chain and the
transportation layers
The market for transportation services constitutes the inter-
face between the supply chain layer and the transportation
layer. For most companies, decisions regarding purchasing
of transportation services are made last, and as a conse-
quence of many other decisions relating to production and
supply. Such decisions include outsourcing of manufacturing
activities to far distant locations leading to an increased
demand for transportation (Gurtu et al., 2017). In addition,
environmental demands from buyers on transportation serv-
ices are generally not frequent or well developed (Bj€
orklund,
2011; Ellram et al., 2022; Wolf & Seuring, 2010). Rogerson
(2017) found that the specifications on transportation serv-
ices made by buying firms, especially regarding time
requirements, heavily influenced ‘logistical variables’such as
transportation mode used, length of haul, load factor, empty
running, and fuel efficiency –all impacting on
freight emissions.
Transportation can be viewed as the physical link con-
necting production and consumption units in the supply
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 5
chain (Coyle et al., 2003). The provision of a product to a
consumer in terms of the source of the raw material and
components determines how the supply chain is divided
into logistics and transportation chains (Woxenius, 2012).
From a supply chain perspective, logistics and transportation
activities are integrated in wider activity structures in which
the division of labor changes as firms in- and outsource
activities to improve their performance (Gadde & Hulth
en,
2009). In a similar vein Blanquart and Burmeister (2009)
argued that freight transportation needs to be viewed as
intertwined in complex logistics and production processes
and that it not should be regarded as a simple movement
from A to B. Also, Hesse and Rodrigue (2004) emphasized
the need to consider transportation as an integrated rather
than a derived demand.
B€
oge’s(1995) example of the ‘well-travelled yoghurt pot’
illustrated how the manufacturing company’s focus on its
operations and exchanges with its suppliers of goods does
not include particular attention to the transportation distan-
ces to which these operations and exchanges give rise. This
relates to Sanchez Rodrigues et al. (2008, p. 389) arguing
that “there appears to have been a failure to properly inte-
grate transport into supply chains”. The same authors
argued that since changing conditions in the supply chain
layer often result in uncertainty for carriers (i.e. transporta-
tion providers), it leads to situations in which “carriers may
build considerable amounts of flexibility into their service
offerings, perhaps in terms of volume, route, fleet mix, and
time, with cost implications”(ibid., p. 393). Furthermore,
there appears to be “low levels of understanding”of how the
actions on one system level impact another, e.g. how actions
on the supply chain layer impact the operations of actors on
the transportation layer and vice versa (ibid., p. 393).
The loose couplings in road freight (and road transporta-
tion in general) permit high degrees of flexibility (Dong,
2018) but also, combined with the fragmentation and inde-
pendence characterizing the actors in the transportation
layer, a risk of inefficient capacity utilization of both vehicles
and road infrastructure. Such over-capacity, however, con-
tributes to the buffering attributes of the overall transporta-
tion system. Hence, the flexibility of the system comes at a
cost that the actors seem willing to pay.
All these examples of studies point at how loose cou-
plings feature the interface between the supply chain layer
and the transportation layer. However, there are exceptions
to this general pattern. Supply chains characterized by large
relative transportation costs (e.g., in mining or steel produc-
tion) are often subject to extensive transportation-related
investments adjusted to very specific purposes and are thus
subject to tighter couplings. In addition, the development of
business relationships between transportation service buyers
and suppliers, encompassing special arrangements such as
third- and fourth party logistics, wherein logistics service
providers work closely together with their customers, may
strengthen the couplings (Andersson & Norrman, 2002).
However, while such business arrangements may be subject
to local adjustments, the technical (transportation resource)
interdependencies between firms are most often limited, and
thus loose couplings dominate this interface. To counteract
the negative effects of such loose couplings there are calls
for a “closer link to be organized”between the transporta-
tion system and industrial supply chains since “transport
sustainability measures need support and leadership of all
supply chain actors, in order to avoid suboptimal environ-
mental measures in the transport system”(ALICE, 2015,p.
21). As part of this, so called horizontal collaboration
between supply chain actors has been promoted through ini-
tiatives to increase the resource utilization across supply
chains to improve efficiency in logistics and transportation.
For example, within the European CO3 consortium, the
mission of CO3 “was to encourage a mind change in the
competitiveness and sustainability of European logistics by
stimulating horizontal collaboration between European
shippers”(CO3,3, 2022). In one of the projects within CO3,
a major retail company together with some of its suppliers
and a joint 3PL launched an initiative to increase fill rates
by sharing transportation capacity that would otherwise run
empty. The project showed that such initiatives could result
in a reduction of CO2 emissions per pallet, wasted vehicle
capacity, and traffic.
3.5. Traffic: The interface between transportation and
infrastructure
Traffic is the interface between the transportation infrastruc-
ture and the physical resources activated in transportation,
e.g. the vehicles using it. Both loose and tight couplings can
be identified in the traffic interface. The variety mainly
relates to the modes of transportation, i.e. road, rail, sea and
air, and the degree of special adjustments required between
the infrastructures and the vehicles using them. Modes that
operate on fixed routes and specific schedules (e.g. rail serv-
ices carrying containers to and from a port) will be charater-
ised by tight couplings. Although road freight transportation
also operates to fixed schedules and specific routes there is
generally more flexibility than is the case for rail transporta-
tion resulting typically in looser couplings. Carriers in road
freight transportation have also been developing more
dynamic approaches to routing and scheduling i.e. being
able to respond to changes such as congestion in real time.
Policy-level planning of infrastructures with regard to
long-term traffic demands relies on macro level models.
Tiwari (2000), for one, criticized current traffic models for
their assumptions of ‘homogeneous’traffic conditions, i.e.
road traffic consisting primarily of cars or motorized
vehicles with similar characteristics. According to Tiwari
these models have led to the development of a range of ana-
lytical techniques for traffic management such as demand-
supply analysis, capacity and level of service analysis and
simulation modeling (ibid., p. 73).
For rail, sea and air traffic, the couplings between
vehicles/vessels and infrastructure are typically tighter than
for road traffic, i.e. ships in relation to ports, trains in rela-
tion to tracks and planes in relation to airports. This hence
requires more coordination of activities and adjustments
between resources among the transportation and
6 M. BROWNE ET AL.
infrastructure actors involved. Intermodal transportation sol-
utions, e.g. sea and rail, entail large investments and require
adaptations to both modes of transportation (Roso et al.,
2009). Woxenius and Behrends (2010) analyzed the drivers
and barriers in rail-based intermodal freight transportation
(IFT) and concluded that it is “evident that commercial
implementation of new IFT concepts requires a significant
element of system innovation”and that the process requires
concurrent changes of many types of technological resources
in addition to organizational challenges (ibid., p. 734). In
general, rail based IFT has often been described as a disap-
pointment in the European transportation market, and it
represents a complicated system encompassing a wide var-
iety of relationships between actors, activities and technical
resources, which in turn implies inertia to change
(Woxenius & Behrends, 2010). Dong (2018, p. 339), argued
that firms often interpret intermodal solutions based on rail
and sea transportation to lack “flexibility in delivery quan-
tity, frequency, schedule, etc., and result in larger inventory
and/or longer periods between deliveries.”
Consequently, firms are reluctant to implement such sol-
utions even though they would be more sustainable from an
environmental point of view. This was also noted by
Blanquart and Burmeister (2009, p. 143) who observed that
the dominance of road freight could partly be explained by
this mode’s“superior ability to adjust to flexible production
systems”and by Islam and Blinge (2017) who pointed out
that rail as a transportation mode has been slow to adapt to
the current door-to-door, rather than terminal-to-ter-
minal, solutions.
To conclude, both loose and tight couplings can be iden-
tified in the interface between the transportation and the
infrastructure layers. Loose couplings feature road transpor-
tation while rail, sea and air transportation are characterized
by tighter couplings.
However, initiatives such as introduction of wireless com-
munications technology in connected vehicles may tighten
the couplings between infrastructure and other elements of
the transportation system. This kind of technology enables
real-time communications and the data generated from such
solutions can help improve traffic safety and be used to ana-
lyze real-time traffic data enabling redirections and re-plan-
ning of traffic to improve the use of infrastructure.
Furthermore, so called platooning initiatives where several
trucks are wirelessly connected in a convoy reduces CO2
emissions due to a reduction of air resistance and thereby
fuel savings (UN, 2021). Also, geofencing enabling for
instance speed control in pre-defined geo-fence zones are
subject to a lot of interest and projects (see e.g. Foss et al.,
2019; Lindkvist et al., 2022).
4. General patterns of couplings within and
between system layers
The overall identified pattern of loose and tight couplings
suggests that tight couplings mainly prevail in the supply
chain and the infrastructure layers, while loose couplings are
dominant in the transportation layer and the two interfaces.
Table 1 summarizes the general pattern of couplings
between elements within each domain: the system layers and
the interfaces connecting the layers (the latter in italics).
The loose couplings in the transportation layer and in the
interfaces between the layers can be seen as setting the terms
for the overall system functions that are described for
loosely coupled systems. Loosely coupled systems promote
short-term efficiency while preserving their structure and
characteristics, meaning that they resist change when the
pattern of couplings is challenged. Therefore, the success or
failure of various measures depend on the fit with the cur-
rent pattern of couplings. However, considering the exten-
sive need for change in and to the transportation system, it
can be suggested that very few, if any, measures to address
the sustainability issues can be taken without challenging the
current pattern of couplings within this system. In particu-
lar, oil, as a key resource on which a substantial part of the
loose couplings in the transportation layer relies, cannot
simply be replaced by a similar resource with regard to the
current pattern of couplings.
In the next section we discuss policy implications follow-
ing from the identified pattern of couplings in the freight
transportation system with particular focus on sustainability.
5. Examples of implications for policies directed at
freight transportation sustainability
The transportation system has no central leadership or gov-
ernance structure to rely on where change is concerned.
According to Geels (2012, p. 481): “Policy makers have no
privileged position outside the system (the ‘cockpit’) from
which they can pull levers and change the transport system.”
Geels also observed that most transportation policies priori-
tize congestion over environmental sustainability at national
and local levels, while European policy makers are more
active in this regard. These ‘landscape’aspects affect the
Table 1. The pattern of couplings in the transportation system.
Domain: System layer/Interface Elements Couplings
Supply chain layer Activities and resources of the buyers and
suppliers of goods
Tight: integrated supply chains subject to
interdependence between elements
Market for transportation services Activities and resources of the buyers and suppliers
of transportation services
Loose: transactional and independent (but tighter
when subject to special arrangements)
Transportation layer Activation of resources (e.g. vehicles) for goods
transportation
Loose: (but tighter when vehicles are adjusted to
special types of goods)
Traffic Connections between technical resources (vehicles
and physical infrastructures)
Loose: for road transportation
Tight: for rail, sea and air
Infrastructure layer Physical transportation infrastructure resources Tight: subject to standards and long-term
investments
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 7
whole transportation system. Moreover, in their analysis of
mechanisms that preserve the system, M€
uller and Blanquart
(2018) concluded that national innovation cluster policies
are essential, but not enough for radical innovation.
Referring to the MLP framework, they also concluded that
governments are not supporting destabilization of the pre-
vailing regimes. Considered as a loosely coupled system, the
freight transportation system seems to be stabilized mainly
through its loose couplings; (1) between the supply chain
and the transportation layers, to cope with the tight cou-
plings within supply chains (Ellram et al., 2022; Eriksson
et al., 2022), and (2) between the transportation and the
infrastructure layers which can be seen as a prerequisite for
all kinds of vehicles (used for transportation of both people
and goods) to share the same road infrastructures, and to
provide a high level of flexibility for all users.
In general terms, it can be argued that the transportation
system has evolved as a loosely coupled system largely due
to oil being a key resource. Adjustments of various elements
in the wider system have been made over time in accord-
ance with the pattern of loose couplings stemming from the
heavy reliance on this specific resource. However, the main
challenge today, to replace oil with other sources of energy,
does not seem possible to enforce without major changes in
and to the transportation system. In particular, the energy
system needs to become more integrated with the transpor-
tation system and may thus require tighter couplings within
and across system layers than that which prevails with oil as
the dominating resource in the transportation system. The
loose coupling between the transportation layer and the two
interfaces, especially the one between the transportation
layer and the infrastructure layer, are problematic in this
regard. However, in parallel with efforts to reduce the
dependence on oil, emerging digital infrastructure elements,
broadly referred to as Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS),
may affect certain couplings within the system. Geels (2012)
analyzed ITS as a niche with a potential to crack the current
regime since “it is pushed by powerful companies and
embraced by transport professionals”(ibid., p. 479). For one
thing, Geels predicts that ITS may facilitate congestion
charging and road pricing, which may transform roads (or
the use of roads) from public goods into payable services.
That is, such developments could have an impact on the
interface between the transportation layer and the infrastruc-
ture layer.
Electrification of road transportation requires adjustments
and investments of different kinds that entail increasing
interdependence between actors and resources within and
across transportation system layers which challenges the cur-
rent pattern of couplings. Azar and Sand
en (2011) argued
that for private companies to dare to make huge investments
in, e.g. infrastructure for new fuels or electric vehicles,
strong government commitment, broad agreements and
long-term visions are critical. The authors suggested that
technology-specific market-oriented policies are needed to
bridge the gap between invention and large-scale diffusion
of new technologies with low or zero carbon emissions. In
terms of the pattern of couplings, this suggests tighter
couplings enforced by stronger policies –and thus what
Geels (2012) refered to as changing the regimes of
the system.
In view of the overall sustainability challenge and the
many efforts to change parts of the transportation system,
we argue that it may be fruitful to analyze and address
freight transportation as a loosely coupled system since this
may provide insights into the difficulty in formulating poli-
cies that lead to changes that are scalable and can be
repeated in different contexts. Policies are developed at vari-
ous levels –at the local/city level, the regional level (a
county or state within a country), the national level, and the
international level, while the transportation system spans all
these boundaries. Considering the pattern of couplings in
the transportation system it seems particularly problematic
to change the prevailing regime by tightening some of the
loose couplings without also addressing the effects on other
parts of the system. The weak links between different policy
levels entail additional challenges in this regard since these
policy levels relate to business actors in different ways e.g.,
truck OEMs operating at a global scale are not willing to
make significant investments to accommodate local policies.
Achieving urban freight operations with low or zero
emission is a policy goal for many cities (see e.g., Quak
et al., 2016). However, increasing the use of electric vehicles
for urban delivery has so far been largely unsuccessful des-
pite more suitable vehicles becoming available.
Transportation companies (carriers) may be willing to
change to electric delivery vehicles but fear that they will
not be able to achieve any benefits from such a change and
that their customers will make decisions based largely on
the price for transportation and flexible services being
offered. As a result, widespread system level change is inhib-
ited because no organization has the power to drive the
change due to the complicated interlocking relationships
that currently exist. Some urban freight policies at a local
level may also have unintended consequences. For example,
when the city of Sao Paulo in Brazil introduced urban access
restrictions, based on vehicle size, many operators changed
from using one large vehicle to using two or more smaller
vehicles (Zambuzi et al., 2016) which, in turn, made conges-
tion worse.
At a regional, national, or international level, policies may
be formulated to encourage mode shift from road to rail or
water to make transportation more sustainable. Yet the loosely
coupled nature of the transportation system tends to weaken
such initiatives and limit the level of take-up and the potential
benefits. There is also scope for companies to work together
to achieve higher levels of vehicle utilization and to consoli-
date flows, in turn leading to a reduction in fossil fuel use.
Yet such horizontal collaboration efforts remain rather limited
and thus freight capacity will continue to be greater than
required (i.e. services are duplicated) with no single organiza-
tion having the power to change this. The problems and
weaknesses stemming from this inefficient use of transporta-
tion resources, e.g. low vehicle fill rates and too many vehicle
trips, are accommodated by the freight transportation system
but at the expense of more efficient and sustainable
8 M. BROWNE ET AL.
operations. The loose coupling featuring the interface between
the supply chain layer and the transportation layer is particu-
larly problematic in this regard. Policies at various levels, e.g.
taxes on fossil fuel, have an impact on the market for trans-
portation services, but since the value of transportation from
the perspectives of supply chain actors are heterogenous, the
consequences of such policies are manifold and difficult to
predict. For most firms selling highly refined products the
share of transportation on total costs is insignificant in con-
trast with other supply chain costs, while for companies selling
heavy input materials such as timber, transportation cost
increases are critical. The latter category has typically made a
lot of adjustments to make the best possible use of the most
cost-effective transportation resources e.g., by developing spe-
cific sea or rail freight solutions.
While many policies aim at being ‘technology neutral’
(Azar & Sand
en, 2011) there are examples of experimenta-
tion with specific technologies engaging both private and
public actors. For instance, in Sweden and Germany there
are efforts to establish the feasibility of ‘E-highways’where
large trucks can operate using electricity possibly by means
of a catenary system and thus avoid the problems of trying
to change large trucks to battery power i.e. loss of payload
and range related issues (The Swedish Transport
Administration, 2017). Such a development needs to be sup-
ported by a national policy and would also require the com-
mitment of transportation companies and their customers.
The consequence of making such investments would be to
replace loose with tight couplings between the transportation
layer and the infrastructure layer in some parts of the
infrastructure.
As we have noted, policies need to be framed in ways
that take the pattern of couplings into account. In the case
of transportation this suggests that policy makers must rec-
ognize that many elements and aspects of transportation are
characterized by loose couplings either by developing poli-
cies that fit with the current pattern of couplings or by con-
sidering what it would take to change the pattern of
couplings in the system. Within the European Union, exam-
ples of policies that fit with the pattern of couplings are
those that, through regulations and standards, have resulted
in a steady improvement in the environmental performance
of vehicles. However, this has not led to a fundamental
change away from the reliance on oil as a fuel nor to stimu-
late more efficient use of transportation resources. Beside
policies and regulations directed at influencing the develop-
ment and sales of vehicles, some policy agendas seem to be
oriented to tighten certain couplings in favor of increasing
transportation efficiency, energy efficiency and the replace-
ment of fossil fuels with bio-based fuels and electricity.
Considering Weick’s(2009) notion on how loosely coupled
systems resist change, it seems problematic that policy mak-
ers at the same time are ‘maintaining’instead of ‘expanding’
their role –for example by strengthening the links between
different policy levels - in efforts to change the loosely
coupled nature of the system. M€
uller and Blanquart (2018)
arrived at a similar conclusion and recommended that neo-
classical thinking and acting need to be abandoned and that
introducing new principles in policy is a huge
future challenge.
Based on the framework outlined in the paper we pro-
pose that further research is needed to identify policies that
work and those that do not. This research could start with a
focus on freight transportation and develop comparisons at
various levels - local, national, and international. Research
initiatives within the EU are interesting in this regard. In its
research and innovation roadmap, ALICE (2015) suggested
integrating transportation services and supply chains, as well
as transportation services and infrastructures, thus corre-
sponding to tightening the couplings in the two interfaces
or markets for transport services and traffic, by investments
in corridors, hubs and synchromodality. However, the fol-
lowing quote illustrates some of the challenges involved in
these endeavors:
”So far, network integration has been focused on
interconnectivity and interoperability of transport processes and
equipment. Integration has been achieved only partially at the
TEN-T core network level, without alignment of hubs and
corridors specifically for freight transport. There is a poor
match between requirements of door-to-door freight services
within Europe and the supporting pan-European infrastructure.
In addition, important dynamic qualities of the transport system
such as flexibility, resilience and responsiveness are still
underdeveloped. Thirdly, integration has not been achieved in
the vertical sense, aligning transport services with supply chain
requirements of manufacturers, distributors and the wholesale
sector. Freight services are, therefore, insufficiently customer-
oriented to serve increasingly diverse client’s needs.”(ALICE,
2015)(https://www.etp-logistics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/
W26mayo-kopie.pdf).
Hence, the problems identified while tightening import-
ant couplings within the system to make it more sustainable
correspond with the positive features of the loosely coupled
nature of the system (such as flexibility, resilience and
responsiveness) discussed in this paper. In view of how
research addressing sustainable transformation of the trans-
portation system most often focuses on individual layers or
elements of the system we suggest that further research to a
larger extent takes system level characteristics and impacts
into account. If not, large investments in new elements or
sub-systems to make the transportation system more sus-
tainable may not result in the intended system level effects.
6. Concluding discussion
Based on analysis of the couplings within and between the
identified transportation system layers, we suggest that it
may be instrumental to address the freight transportation
system as a loosely coupled system. We conclude that the
identified pattern of couplings favors short-term efficiency
in transportation operations while the possibility of bringing
about changes that challenge the current pattern of cou-
plings are circumscribed. This is critically important in view
of the need to reduce or eliminate the oil dependent nature
of the transportation system. Policies and actions to make
the transportation system more sustainable need to take
account of the interactions and interdependencies in the
transportation system and the nature of couplings within
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 9
and across the layers and interfaces. This conclusion is in
line with M€
uller and Blanquart (2018) that argued for a
stronger focus on processes and interdependencies in further
studies of innovation in freight transportation.
Current policies focusing on supporting alternative
energy sources do not seem to result in rapid change in
behavior that transforms the system, and efforts to make
better use of transportation resources seem far less frequent
than those focusing on replacing fossil fuels –while both
are needed.
The complexity of the transportation system implies diffi-
culties in identifying who needs to act and who needs to
interact to achieve different outcomes. The loose couplings
in the transportation system mean that many current activ-
ities and resources in the system work without coordination
or interaction between the actors relying on them. Hence,
when these loose couplings need to be replaced by solutions
that require resource adaptations carried out in interaction
between specific actors (e.g. in the development of electric
roads), or activity adjustments (e.g. other principles for sup-
ply chain planning), this becomes very difficult to put in
place. A special category of challenging changes concerns
the boundary between public authority and markets for vari-
ous system elements, such as vehicles, transportation serv-
ices, road use, etc., and the new forms of interaction
between public and private actors that may become neces-
sary to make the transportation system sustainable.
We began the paper with a reference to Weick’s(1976)
engaging analogy about watching a soccer game.
Importantly, as Weick noted, despite the apparent chaos
“the game is played as if it makes sense”. Everyone knows
the rules (well enough) and everyone seems comfortable
with the game as it is played. As we have argued, this is a
problem for transportation - we can all agree that things
need to change if transportation is to make the contribution
to climate change mitigation but too many people and
organizations remain comfortable with the way things are
and the perception that the transportation system works. An
unconventional soccer match may thus have important les-
sons for policy formulation that can really lead to changes
that contribute to a sustainable freight transporta-
tion system.
ORCID
Kajsa Hulth
en http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8455-0389
References
ALICE. (2015). Corridors, Hubs and synchromodality: Research &
innovation roadmap.www.etp-alice.eu.
Andersson, D., & Norrman, A. (2002). Procurement of logistics serv-
ices –A minute’s work or a multi-year project? European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management,8(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0969-7012(01)00018-1
Aschauer, G., Gronalt, M., & Mandl, C. (2015). Modelling interrela-
tionships between logistics and transportation operations –a system
dynamics approach. Management Research Review,38(5), 505–539.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2013-0271
ASTRE. (2022). ASTRE - Association des transporteurs europ
eens
[Online]. Retreived May 16, 2022, from https://www.astre.fr/en..
Azar, C., & Sand
en, B. (2011). The elusive quest for technology-neutral
policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,1(1),
135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.003
Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the
supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
9(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410517566
Bj€
orklund, M. (2011). Influence from the business environment on envir-
onmental purchasing –Drivers and hinders of purchasing green trans-
portation services. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
17(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2010.04.002
Blanquart, C., & Burmeister, A. (2009). Evaluating the performance of
freight transport: a service approach. European Transport Research
Review,1(3), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-009-0014-5
B€
oge, S. (1995). The well-travelled yoghurt pot: lessons for new freight
transport policies and regional production. World Transport Policy
and Practice,1(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004024
Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Toward the theory of
the supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management,51(2),
89–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12073
CCJ. (2021). Major truck OEMs partner to build out EV charging
infrastructure in Europe. Trucking news and briefs for Friday, Dec.
17, 2021. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.ccjdigital.com/
alternative-power/article/15286520/major-truck-oems-partner-to-
build-out-ev-charging-infrastructure-in-europe.
CO3. (2022). CO3: Collaboration, concepts for co-modality.(Web
page). Retrieved May 31, 2022, from http://www.co3-project.eu/.
Coyle, J. J., Edward, J. B., & Langley, C. J. (2003). The management of
business logistics: A supply chain perspective (7th ed.). Western/
Thompson Learning.
Creutzig, F., Jochem, P., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Mattauch, L., van Vuuren,
D. P., McCollum, D., & Minx, J. (2015). Transport: A roadblock to
climate change mitigation. Science (New York, NY),350(6263),
911–912.
Dong, C. (2018). A supply chain perspective of synchromodality to
increase the sustainability of freight transportation. 4OR,16(3),
339–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-017-0367-x
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). The construction industry as a
loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innov-
ation. Construction Management and Economics,20(7), 621–631.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190210163543
Dubois, A., Hulth
en, K., & Pedersen, A.-C. (2004). Supply chains and inter-
dependence: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management,10(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2003.11.003
EEA. (2020). Transport: increasing oil consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions hamper EU progress towards environment and climate
objectives. Briefing no. 15/2019. https://doi.org/10.2800/433449
Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Saunders, L. W. (2022). A legitimacy the-
ory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions. Journal
of Business Logistics,00,1–27.
Eriksson, V., Dubois, A., & Hulth
en, K. (2022). Transport in supply
networks. The International Journal of Logistics Management,33(5),
85–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-06-2021-0350
European Commission. (2014). Report on the State of the EU Road
Haulage Market. Task B: Analyse the State of the European Road
Haulage Market, Including an Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Controls and the Degree of Harmonisation.Aecom February 5.
Figueroa, M., Lah, O., Fulton, L., McKinnon, A., & Tiwari, G. (2014).
Energy for transport. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
39(1), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-031913-
100450
Foss, T., Seter, H., & Arnesen, P. (2019). Geofencing for smart urban
mobility. SINTEF Report 2019:00123.
Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Persson, G. (2010). Supply network
strategies. Wiley and Sons.
Gadde, L.-E., & Hulth
en, K. (2009). Improving logistics outsourcing
through increasing buyer-provider interaction. Industrial Marketing
Management,38(6), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2009.05.010
10 M. BROWNE ET AL.
Geels, F. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions:
introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies.
Journal of Transport Geography,24, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021
Geels, F., Kemp, R., Dudley, G., & Lyons, G. (2012). Automobility in
transition?: A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport. Taylor
& Francis Group; Routledge. ISBN13: 978-0-415-88505-8..
Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., & Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics
and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore
the future. European Journal of Operational Research,240(3),
603–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.012
Gurtu, A., Searcy, C., & Jaber, M. Y. (2017). Emissions from inter-
national transport in global supply chains. Management Research
Review,40(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0208
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A.
(2009). Business in networks. Wiley.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in busi-
ness networks. Routledge.
Hesse, M., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2004). The transport geography of logis-
tics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography,12(3),
171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.12.004
Hu, J., Wood, R., Tukker, A., Boonman, H., & de Boer, B. (2019).
Global transport emissions in the Swedish carbon footprint. Journal
of Cleaner Production,226, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2019.03.263
Islam, D., & Blinge, M. (2017). The future of European rail freight
transport and logistics. European Transport Research Review,9(1),
11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0227-y
Kunze, O., Wulfhorst, G., & Minner, S. (2016). Applying systems
thinking to city logistics: A qualitative (and quantitative) approach
to model interdependencies of decisions by various stakeholders and
their impact on city logistics. Transportation Research Procedia,12,
692–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.02.022
Lin, N. (2019). CO2 emissions mitigation potential of buyer consolida-
tion and rail-based intermodal transport in the China-Europe con-
tainer supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production,240,
118121–118121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118121
Lindkvist, H., Dubois, A., Lind, F., & Melander, L. (2022). Managing
freight transport in cities–User perspectives on geofencing [Paper pres-
entation]. To be Presented at the 9
th
Transport Research Arena
Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, November
Manheim, M. (1967). Principle of transport systems analysis.
Transportation system analysis and evaluation of alternate plans.
Serial: Highway Research Record, Issue Number: 180. Highway
Research Board.
Mason, R., Lalwani, C., & Boughton, R. (2007). Combining vertical and
horizontal collaboration for transport optimisation. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal,12(3), 187–199. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13598540710742509
Mattsson, L.-G., & Jenelius, E. (2015). Vulnerability and resilience of
transport systems–A discussion of recent research. Transportation
Research Part A,81,16–34.
McKinnon, A. (2016). Freight transport deceleration: Its possible con-
tribution to the decarbonisation of logistics. Transport Reviews,
36(4), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1137992
M€
uller, S., & Blanquart, C. (2018). The inventor’s perspective on condi-
tions for radical innovations in freight transportation: Case studies
from France and Germany. Journal of Innovation Economics &
Management,25, 211–238.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A recon-
ceptualization. Academy of Management Review,15(2), 203–223.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308154
Psaraftis, H. R., & Panagakos, G. (2012). Green corridors in European
surface freight logistics and the SuperGreen project. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences,48, 1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1147
Quak, H., Nesterova, N., van Rooijen, T., & Dong, Y. (2016). Zero
emission city logistics: current practices in freight electromobility
and feasibility in the near future. Transportation Research Procedia,
14, 1506–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.115
Reggiani, A., Nijkamp, P., & Lanzi, D. (2015). Transport resilience and
vulnerability: The role of connectivity. Transportation Research Part
A,81,4–15.
Rogerson, S. (2017). Influence of freight transport purchasing processes
on logistical variables related to CO2 emissions: A case study in
Sweden. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
20(6), 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2017.1308472
Roso, V., Woxenius, J., & Lumsden, K. (2009). The dry port concept:
Connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of
Transport Geography,17(5), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtran-
geo.2008.10.008
Sahay, B. (2003). Supply chain collaboration: the key to value creation.
Work Study,52(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020310462872
Sanchez Rodrigues, V., Stantchev, D., Potter, A., Naim, M., &
Whiteing, A. (2008). Establishing a transport operation focused
uncertainty model for the supply chain. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,38(5), 388–411.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882807
Sims, R., Schaeffer, R., Creutzig, F., Cruz-Nunez, X., S’Agosto, M.,
Dimitriu, M., …,…Tiwari, G. (2014). Transport. In O. Edenhofer,
R. Pich-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kafner, K. Seyboth, …
J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change.
Contribution of working group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press.
The Swedish Transport Administration. (2017). National roadmap for
electric road systems. Retrieve April 3, 2020, from https://www.trafik-
verket.se/contentassets/445611d179bf44938793269fe58376b6/doku-
ment/national_roadmap_for_electric_road_systems_20171129_eng.
pdf.
Tiwari, G. (2000). Traffic flow and safety: Need for new models of het-
erogeneous traffic. In D. Mohan & G. Tiwari (Eds.), Injury preven-
tion and control (pp. 73–91). Taylor and Frances.
UN. (2021). Sustainable transport, Sustainable development.
Interagency Report, Second Global Sustainable Transport Conference.
United Nations publication issued by the Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Reprinted 2021.
van Loon, P., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2020). Transition to the circular
economy: the story of four case companies. International Journal of
Production Research,58(11), 3415–3422. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2020.1748907
van Weele, A. J. (2010). Purchasing and supply chain management.
Cengage Learning.
Wandel, S., Ruijgrok, C., & Nemoto, T. (1994). Relationships among
shifts in logistics, transport, traffic and informatics. In Logistiska
framsteg. Studentlitteratur.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled sys-
tems. Administrative Science Quarterly,21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.2307/2391875
Weick, K. E. (2009). Making sense of the organization: the impermanent
organization (Vol. 2). John Wiley and Sons.
Wolf, C., & Seuring, S. (2010). Environmental impacts as buying crite-
ria for third party logistical services. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(1/2), 84–102.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031011020377
Woxenius, J. (2012). Directness as a key performance indicator for
freight transport chains. Research in Transportation Economics,
36(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.03.007
Woxenius, J., & Behrends, S. (2010). Innovation drivers and barriers in
intermodal freight transport. In T. Whiteing (Ed.), Towards the
Sustainable Supply Chain: Balancing the needs of business, economy
and the environment. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport.
wri.org. (2019). Blogpost by Wang, S., & Ge, M., October 16, 2019.
Zambuzi, N., Cunha, C., Blanco, E., Yoshizaki, H., & Carvalho, C.
(2016). An evaluation of environmental impacts of different truck
sizes in last mile distribution in the city of S~
ao Paulo, Brazil [Paper
presentation]. Paper Presented at the ILS 2016 Conference,
Bordeaux.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 11
