In this section, both the theoretical aspect and the application points of the study are mentioned by keeping the studies on the basis of sustainable logistics in the foreground. At the same time, the author-criteria study is included to shed light on the study and to determine the criteria affecting sustainable logistics (Table 1).
The literature of the logistics and supply chain disciplines shows the growing outlook for sustainable-based work. In terms of sustainable logistics and supply chain, it proceeds with the main goal of reducing environmental impact along the value chain from raw materials to final products, while also considering the profit contribution and society relationship. When logistics activity, which is one of the last links of supply chain management, is associated with sustainability, its importance has increased. Green and sustainable supply chain management is an interdisciplinary field that addresses both management and environmental sciences (Rajeev et al., 2017).
In this study, the concept of logistics, which is one of the most important activities of supply chain management, will be discussed and evaluated in terms of sustainability. There are many evaluations of supply chain management in terms of sustainability in the literature (Taticchi et al., (2013); Qorri et al., (2018); Kamble et al., (2020); Sharma et al., (2020); Subramanian et al.) al., (2020); Narimissa et al., (2019); Reddy et al., (2019); Bourlakis et al., (2014); Katiyar et al., (2017); Ramezankhani et al., (2018) ); Haghighi et al., (2016); Shibin et al., (2017); Chardine-Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz (2014); Kafa et al., (2013); Tseng et al., (2019)). These and similar studies have evaluated the sustainability performance by focusing mostly on supply chain management and have provided literature gains.
As an example of these studies; Kafa et al. (2013) focused on the concept of “Green” to emphasize the importance and need of sustainability performance and environmental issues in supply chain management. They developed key performance measures for green supply chain management that include concerns about sustainable development and proposed an analytical model. Chardine-Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz (2014), on the other hand, developed a model to evaluate the sustainable performance of a company's supply chain management practices. Haghighi et al. (2016) evaluated the sustainability performance of recycling companies with a new hybrid Data Envelopment Analysis-BSC framework, taking into account different economic, environmental and social indicators, in order to find the most efficient units at each level of supply chain networks. Ramezankhani et al. (2018), on the other hand, dynamically evaluated the performance of the supply chain to the automotive manufacturing sector in terms of both sustainability and flexibility over time. Krishnan et al. (2020) aimed to identify the current operational and resource deficiencies in the food supply chain and propose a framework for its redesign to improve environmental sustainability. Shibin et al. (2017) developed a theoretical framework to explain sustainable supply chain performance using the total interpretative structural modeling technique. Kamble et al., (2020) addressed specific criteria for practitioners to create a robust data-driven agri-food supply chain and achieve sustainable performance. According to Mardani et al. (2020) focused on literature studies of evaluating green and sustainable supply chain management using structural equation modeling.
If we look at the studies that deal with the concept of "Sustainable Logistics", which is a sub-branch of the sustainable supply chain management; According to Karaman et al. (2020) investigated the relationship between corporate governance, green logistics performance and sustainability reporting. Abbasi and Nilsson (2016) explored themes and challenges in developing environmentally sustainable logistics activities and identified customer priorities, administrative complexity, network instability, and technological and legal uncertainties as challenges. Lan and Zhong (2018) pointed out that the appropriate way to achieve the sustainable development of logistics and economy would be through coordinated development. Rashidi and Cullinane (2019) evaluated the sustainability of operational logistics performance across OECD countries and compared them with the Logistics Performance Index (LPI).
In addition to these studies, logistics studies in different fields in different sectors are handled with sustainability. In the electronics industry (Agrawal and Singh, 2019); in the paper industry (Neto et al., 2008); in freight logistics (Lee and Wu, 2014); sustainability evaluations in third-party logistics (Çetin and Sain; 2018), smart city logistics (Lan et al., 2020), and examining existing problems in terms of sustainability. In this study, which was prepared by considering different sectors, logistics activities were discussed in general terms and associated with sustainability. It is thought that this association will provide a framework for the literature by including the determination and detailed analysis of the parameters considered at the point of sustainable logistics. In addition to addressing different sectors in the literature, in addition to addressing different topics (carbon emission reduction, environmental impact analysis, sustainable development, logistics performance index, determination of difficulties and obstacles, etc.), determining the sustainable logistics criteria and investigating the impact levels is capable of closing.
With this study, it is aimed to reach the elements that are and should be the basis of sustainable logistics. For this purpose, studies compiled from the relevant literature are approached with a factor-oriented approach. Using the two main databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the literature, a search is made with the keywords "sustainability" and "logistics", "sustainable logistics" and "green logistics" on the grounds that they are closely related. In the findings obtained, the fact that the desired study is studied with sustainability criteria is the most important reason for using it in this study. For this reason, in Table 1 as a result of the examinations; criteria and studies using these criteria are included. This analysis in Table 1 draws attention to which authors focus on which criteria. At the same time, the parameters used in the current study are included in the last column (16).
Table 1. Sustainable logistics parameters literature analysis
(1-Agrawal and Singh; 2019, 2-Abbasi and Nilsson, 2016; 3- Neto et al., 2008; 4-Beken, 2016; 5-Altuntaş and Türker, 2012; 6-Rashidi and Cullinane, 2019; 7-Arvis et al., 2010; 8-Zhang and Zhao 2012; 9-Krajewski, 2013; 10-Görgün and Bardakçı, 2020; 11-Lin and Ho, 2011; 12-Geiger, 2016; 13-Chunguang et al., 2008; 14-Lai and Wong, 2012; 15-Pazirandeh and Jafari, 2013; 16-Author)
Looking at Table 1, it is seen that the authors working under the title of "sustainable logistics" and focusing on the factors in the literature. The criteria studied are taken with the net name used in each study and no changes are made on it. Thus, 105 criteria have been reached, and the first study of the determination of the "important" criteria targeted in this study is done with Pareto Analysis. Pareto Analysis is used in the literature because it focuses attention on the most important cause of the problem and helps to determine priorities. In this context, it was desired to reach the most important criteria out of 105 criteria. 5 experts working as senior managers in the logistics sector are asked to score between 1-10 on these criteri and the results are included in the chart (Figure 2).
As a result of the scoring, it is concluded that 39 criteria are more important and the study continued with these 39 criteria. At the same time, as a result of mutual discussion with the expert and the author of the study, 5 more criteria are added to the criteria table (Warehouse and stock management, climate change, women's employment and equal conditions, continuous training of employees, road safety). Then it was passed to the methodology part.