Academic Edi o s: Manh-Hoang Do
and Yung Fu Huang
Recei ed: 4 July 2025
Re ised: 25 July 2025
Accep ed: 30 July 2025
Published: 1 Augus 2025
Ci a ion: Pen ek, I.; Le nik, T.
Obs acles and D i e s o Sus ainable
Ho izon al Logis ics Collabo a ion:
Analysis o Logis ics P o ide s’
Beha iou in Slo enia. Sus ainabili y
2025,17, 7001. h ps://doi.o g/
10.3390/su17157001
Copy igh : © 2025 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license
(h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/).
A icle
Obs acles and D i e s o Sus ainable Ho izon al Logis ics
Collabo a ion: Analysis o Logis ics P o ide s’ Beha iou
in Slo enia
Ines Pen ek and Tomisla Le nik *
Facul y o Ci il Enginee ing, T anspo a ion Enginee ing and A chi ec u e, Uni e si y o Ma ibo , Sme ano a
Ulica 17, 2000 Ma ibo , Slo enia; [email p o ec ed]
*Co espondence: omisla [email p o ec ed]
Abs ac
The logis ics indus y aces challenges om e ol ing consume expec a ions, echnological
ad ances, sus ainabili y demands, and ma ke dis up ions. Logis ics collabo a ion is in
heo y pe cei ed as one o he mos p omising solu ions o sol e hese issues, bu he e
a e s ill a lo o challenges ha needs o be be e unde s ood and add essed. While
e ical collabo a ion among supply chain ac o s is well ad anced, ho izon al collabo a ion
among compe ing se ice p o ide s emains unde -explo ed. This s udy de eloped a no el
me hodology based on he COM-B beha iou -change amewo k o be e unde s and he
main challenges, oppo uni ies, capabili ies and d i e s ha would mo i a e compe ing
companies o exploi he po en ial o ho izon al logis ics collabo a ion. A su ey was
designed and conduc ed among 71 logis ics se ice p o ide s in Slo enia, chosen o i s
agmen ed ma ke and low willingness o collabo a e. S a is ical analysis e eals cos
educ ion (M = 4.21/5) and imp o ed ehicle u iliza ion (M = 4.29/5) as he p ima y
mo i a o s. On he o he hand, main aining company epu a ion (M = 4.64/5), ai esou ce
sha ing (M = 4.20/5), and anspa ency o logis ics p ocesses (M = 4.17/5) all pe sis as key
enabling condi ions. These indings unde sco e he pi o al ole o beha iou al d i e s and
sugges s a egies ha combine economic incen i es wi h a ge ed us -building measu es.
Fu u e esea ch should employ expe imen al designs in di e se na ional con ex s and
in eg a e e ical–ho izon al app oaches o alida e causal pa hways and ad ance heo y.
Keywo ds: COM-B amewo k; ope a ional challenges; beha iou change; us ba ie s;
s a egic oppo uni ies
1. In oduc ion
The logis ics indus y is unde going a pe iod o in ense ans o ma ion, d i en by
inc easingly complex and unp edic able global supply chains. Logis ics ope a o s a e
con on ed wi h challenges ha equi e apid adap a ion and esilience in hei ope a ions.
Recen e en s, such as he COVID-19 pandemic, he Suez Canal blockage, and ex eme
wea he condi ions, ha e exposed ulne abili ies in exis ing sys ems and demons a ed he
need o mo e obus and lexible logis ics solu ions [1].
A c i ical aspec o building esilience lies in he logis ics in as uc u e i sel , which
se es as he backbone o supply chain ope a ions. Cu en in as uc u e p edominan ly
elies on high-capaci y anspo co ido s p io i izing economic e iciency. Al hough his
model is e ec i e unde no mal ci cums ances, i p o es highly ulne able du ing dis up-
ions due o a lack o al e na i e ou es o su icien con ingency measu es [
2
]. Long- e m
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/su17157001
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 2 o 30
upg ades o physical in as uc u e emain essen ial o add ess hese ulne abili ies, bu
hese upg ades o en equi e big in es men and ake a lo o ime. In he sho o medium
e m, i is he e o e essen ial o companies o explo e al e na i e and complemen a y
imp o emen s. One p omising app oach is o adop i s capaci ies and op imize exis ing
logis ics esou ces [
3
,
4
]. S udies consis en ly e eal ha eigh ehicles a e equen ly
unde -u ilized [
5
], exhibi ing high a es o emp y uns and low-load ac o s, especially in
las -mile anspo [
6
]. These ine iciencies no only exace ba e a ic conges ion bu also
signi ican ly con ibu e o en i onmen al pollu ion, placing eigh anspo among he
la ges emi e s o g eenhouse gases [
7
]. Add essing hese challenges equi es inno a i e
business models p omo ing esou ce sha ing, collabo a ion, and sus ainabili y [8,9].
Op imiza ion s a egies can be implemen ed in o a ious logis ics aspec s ela ed o
exis ing challenges o logis ics ope a o s. One o he mos p essing issues is how o alle ia e
human esou ce- ela ed cons ain s. R. M. da Sil a e al. a gue ha pe sis en labou
sho ages and high s a u no e a es dis up ope a ions, educe se ice eliabili y, and
inc ease ec ui men and aining cos s [
10
,
11
]. Fu he mo e, economic and ma ke - ela ed
challenges such as un ai compe i ion, high ene gy cos s, and paymen
indiscipline [12–14]
signi ican ly s ain logis ics companies, leading o inancial ins abili y and educed com-
pe i i eness. Ano he c i ical a ea equi ing a en ion is he in eg a ion and coo dina ion
challenges wi hin he logis ics sec o . F agmen ed cus ome demands and limi ed in e-
g a ion among logis ics p o ide s con ibu e o ine iciencies, edundan capaci ies, and
comp omised se ice quali y [
6
]. U ban logis ics ope a ions u he ace subs an ial in-
as uc u al and egula o y cons ain s, including inadequa e u ban in as uc u e [
15
],
es ic ed access egula ions (e.g., U ban Vehicle Access Regula ions—UVARs) [
16
], and
s ingen compliance demands ela ed o en i onmen al s anda ds like Eu o no ms and
ESG epo ing [
17
]. In addi ions, logis ics companies ace signi ican challenges in shi ing
owa d en i onmen ally sus ainable logis ics solu ions, pa icula ly due o high up on in-
es men equi emen s, echnological limi a ions, and complex egula o y amewo ks [
18
].
Las ly, echnological and knowledge gaps pose no able challenges. Bad aoui e al. and
o he s a gue ha insu icien da a a ailabili y, limi ed digi aliza ion, and inadequa e knowl-
edge o ad anced op imiza ion echniques and IT sys em in eg a ion p e en logis ics
companies om ully le e aging echnological ad ancemen s [19,20].
In add essing hese a ious challenges, ho izon al logis ics collabo a ion (HLC)
eme ges as a pa icula ly p omising solu ion. Nume ous empi ical and concep ual s udies
emphasize ha HLC can enhance ehicle u iliza ion, educe ope a ional cos s, dec ease
deli e y mileage, and imp o e se ice lexibili y [
14
,
21
,
22
]. I also con ibu es o lowe uel
consump ion and ewe emp y uns, esul ing in mo e e icien use o anspo capaci y
and educed conges ion. These bene i s a e pa icula ly ele an o small and medium-
sized logis ics en e p ises (SMEs), which o en ace limi a ions in esou ces, capaci y, and
ma ke each. Fo hese i ms, collabo a ion ep esen s no jus an oppo uni y bu a ne-
cessi y. As highligh ed by Simme e al., coope a ion will become inc easingly impo an
o SMEs in a compe i i e and echnologically ad ancing logis ics en i onmen [
23
]. Jesica
de A ma and o he s [
24
] simila ly a gue ha SMEs mus pool esou ces and expe ise o
emain iable and compe i i e. In his way, HLC enables hem o expand hei se ice
o e , access new ma ke s, and imp o e ope a ional esilience. Basso e al. and Wang
and Kop e also emphasize ha SMEs bene i mos om HLC, as hey a e less able o
achie e economies o scale on hei own [
25
,
26
]. Beyond ope a ional gains, HLC also o e s
s a egic bene i s, including imp o ed compe i i e posi ioning, inc eased adap abili y o
egula o y changes, and educed en i onmen al impac s [
20
,
27
]. These ad an ages a e
pa icula ly ele an in he con ex o ising cus ome expec a ions and g owing p essu e
o deca bonize logis ics ope a ions. Sha ed esou ces such as wa ehouses, ehicles, and IT
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 3 o 30
sys ems acili a e economies o scale and help companies mee g owing cus ome demands
o eliabili y, speed, and anspa ency [
27
]. Mo eo e , collabo a ion enables e en smalle
i ms o access in as uc u e and se ice capabili ies ha would o he wise be inancially
ou o each, os e ing g ea e inclusi i y and esilience wi hin he logis ics sec o .
Howe e , despi e i s ecognized po en ial, implemen ing ho izon al logis ics collab-
o a ion (HLC) p esen s signi ican challenges. A majo ba ie equen ly highligh ed
in he li e a u e is he lack o clea ules conce ning he esponsibili ies, igh s, and ai
dis ibu ion o esou ces, cos s, and e enues among pa ne s [
19
,
20
,
28
]. Addi ionally,
anspa ency issues and dis us , pa icula ly among compe i o s, complica e e ec i e
coope a ion [
19
,
20
,
29
]. S udies also ind ha iden i ied sui able pa ne s wi h aligned s a e-
gic objec i es and logis ics p ocesses also poses subs an ial di icul ies, as misalignmen can
hold back collabo a i e e iciency [
19
,
20
,
29
]. In addi ion, challenges such as main aining
long- e m commi men , managing powe imbalances be ween pa ne s, conce ns o e
p ese ing au onomy, cybe secu i y isks, and IT sys em in eg a ion u he complica e
implemen a ion [
19
,
20
,
27
]. Fu he mo e, eluc ance o sha e necessa y da a and di icul ies
wi h he acquisi ion, exchange, and managemen o essen ial in o ma ion due o inadequa e
communica ion echnologies in ensi y hese issues [
19
,
22
,
28
,
30
]. Finding a us wo hy
independen hi d-pa y acili a o capable o coo dina ing collabo a ion is ano he c i ical
ye challenging aspec [
20
,
29
]. Ba aoui, Ande sson and o he s also ound ha ine ec i e
o ganiza ional s uc u es, complexi ies in ol ed in op imizing join logis ics p ocesses, leg-
isla i e es ic ions, esis ance o necessa y o ganiza ional changes, and limi ed awa eness
o collabo a ion bene i s u he hinde success ul implemen a ion [
19
,
28
,
30
]. Add essing
hese complex challenges is essen ial o ealizing he ull po en ial o HLC.
While hese po en ials and challenges a e widely discussed in he li e a u e, some
e y impo an gaps emain inadequa ely add essed. Many exis ing s udies ely on case
s udies, expe in e iews, o mac o-le el analyses, ye ela i ely ew di ec ly engage
logis ics se ice p o ide s (LSPs) o examine he speci ic ba ie s, incen i es, and condi-
ions in luencing hei willingness o collabo a e. Fo ins ance, Schachenho e and o he s
iden i ied oppo uni ies and obs acles o u ban logis ics collabo a ion, o be e use he
unde u ilized u ban logis ics in as uc u e, bu hey no ably excluded logis ics compa-
nies om he pa icipan pool [
14
]. Zhang and o he s in es iga ed collabo a ion among
LSPs in China bu ga e limi ed weigh o LSPs in hei pa icipan sample (only 39.1%)
and did no add ess he dynamics in mic o-en e p ise-domina ed ma ke s [
31
]. Ano he
s udy compa ed expec a ions o non-collabo a i e and collabo a i e p o essionals, ye
wi hou conside ing how company size shapes willingness o collabo a e [
19
]. Simme
e al. examined belie s and mo i a ions o collabo a ion a ound he Physical In e ne
using a small sample o Aus ian anspo p o ide s bu did no di e en ia e based on
collabo a ion expe ience and company size [
23
]. S e nbe g and o he s analysed ailu e
cases o sys ema ic collabo a ion bu included only companies wi h p io collabo a ion
expe ience, omi ing non-collabo a i e sample [
32
]. Simila ly, Albe s and Klaas-Wissing
explo ed less- han- uckload (LTL) alliances h ough wo con as ing cases, ye he na ow
scope o esea ch limi ed b oade gene aliza ion [33].
In summa y, hese s udies o e aluable insigh s bu ail o ully add ess he chal-
lenges and oppo uni ies o HLC wi hin highly compe i i e logis ics en i onmen s whe e
SMEs p edomina e, pa icula ly when compa ing collabo a i e e sus non-collabo a i e
i ms. The e is also a lack o s udies ha sys ema ically compa e mo i a ions, ba ie s and
especially he eadiness o collabo a ion based on company size and p e ious collabo a ion
expe ience. This gap is especially ele an in egions whe e coope a ion is no he no m
and whe e esou ce limi a ions, us issues, and ope a ional p essu es in ensi y esis ance
o change.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 4 o 30
This a icle di ec ly add esses hese gaps. Fi s ly, i syn hesizes ecen indings on
he bene i s, obs acles, and beha iou al d i e s o HLC, wi h a speci ic ocus on unde ep-
esen ed mic o and small en e p ises. Secondly, i employs a ailo ed COM-B-in o med
su ey [
34
] o collec empi ical da a om 71 logis ics companies in Slo enia [
35
], whe e
he logis ics ma ke is de ined by s ong compe i ion, high agmen a ion, and low collab-
o a ion ma u i y. The su ey design cap u es bo h collabo a i e and non-collabo a i e
i ms, and links ope a ional challenges, mo i a ional d i e s, and collabo a ion eadiness
wi h company-speci ic cha ac e is ics, including size, se ice p o ile, clien ypes, anspo
in ensi y, lee s uc u e, and s o age capaci y. This enables a mul idimensional compa ison
ac oss i m ypes and collabo a ion expe ience le els. Finaly, he a icle p oposes man-
age ial and policy measu es, including neu al da a- us pla o ms, anspa en cos - and
ca bon-sha ing ules, and a ge ed beha iou al incen i es [
19
,
33
] o acili a e he ansi ion
om sho - e m pilo p ojec s o sus ainable, mul i-pa ne ne wo ks. By in eg a ing com-
p ehensi e e idence wi h new empi ical insigh s, his s udy enhances he unde s anding
o HLC, pa icula ly wi hin en i onmen s whe e collabo a ion is bo h c i ically challenging
and necessa y and p o ides conc e e ecommenda ions o p ac i ione s and policymake s.
2. Ma e ials and Me hods
This sec ion ou lines he me hodological app oach aken o in es iga e he dynamics
o ho izon al logis ics collabo a ion. Building on he challenges and gaps iden i ied in he
in oduc ion, he me hodology is designed o explo e key ac o s in luencing collabo a i e
eadiness, mo i a ions, and ba ie s among logis ics companies. This s udy examines
ho izon al collabo a ion among logis ics p o ide s, including smalle i ms o e ing only
speci ic anspo and/o wa ehousing se ices. I excludes companies ha a e o de ing
logis ics se ices, since hose in e ac ions all unde e ical collabo a ion.
The esea ch ocuses on Slo enia, selec ed o i s unique logis ics, economic, and
cul u al cha ac e is ics, which make i pa icula ly sui able o s udying he challenges
and oppo uni ies o HLC. O e 75% o logis ics se ice p o ide s and companies in
Slo enia a e mic o and small en e p ises, cons i u ing a signi ican po ion o he sec o and
making collabo a ion essen ial o main aining compe i i eness in a agmen ed ma ke [
35
].
The coun y’s s a egic loca ion a he c oss oads o majo Eu opean anspo co ido s,
including he Bal ic–Ad ia ic, Medi e anean and Wes e n Balkan–Eas e n Medi e anean
co e co ido , p esen s unique logis ics challenges and oppo uni ies o egional and
in e na ional ade. Slo enia’s Logis ics Pe o mance Index (LPI) sco e o 3.3 in 2023—abo e
he global a e age o 2.87— u he unde sco es i s ele ance as a case s udy, e lec ing i s
solid in as uc u e and logis ical capabili ies [36].
Addi ionally, Slo enia’s cul u al and o ganiza ional ac o s p esen dis inc i e dynam-
ics o collabo a ion. A high sco e o 81 on he Indi idualism index sugges s a p e e ence
o independen decision-making and in o mal and weakly s uc u ed social amewo k,
which can hinde collabo a ion wi hou s ong incen i es and s uc u ed ag eemen s [
37
].
This indi idualis ic endency, coupled wi h he dominance o small en e p ises, necessi-
a es a ge ed s a egies o os e us and alignmen among s akeholde s. Fu he mo e,
Slo enia’s es ablished egula o y amewo k, combined wi h i s ela i ely small bu acces-
sible logis ics ma ke , allows o comp ehensi e da a collec ion and in-dep h analysis o
collabo a ion eadiness and ba ie s. Toge he , hese a ibu es highligh Slo enia as an
exempla y con ex o explo ing HLC.
To ga he da a, we designed a s uc u ed online su ey (a ailable in Supplemen a y
Ma e ials) using a web-based ool. Ou app oach is based on he COM-B beha iou ame-
wo k, which conside s he complex in e ac ion o capabili y, oppo uni y and mo i a ion.
I se es as ou heo e ical ounda ion o unde s anding beha iou al aspec s o HLC.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 5 o 30
Concep ually, capabili y is a company’s physical and psychological capaci y o collab-
o a e. I includes skills, knowledge and access o necessa y esou ces. Oppo uni y e e s
o ex e nal in luences ha enable o hinde collabo a ion. These in luences include in as-
uc u al condi ions, o ganiza ional no ms and ma ke s uc u es. Mo i a ion ep esen s
he in e nal p ocesses ha d i e i ms o pu sue and sus ain collabo a i e pa ne ships.
These p ocesses include e lec i e in en ions and d i e s. They a e shaped by expec ed
bene i s, social expec a ions and s a egic p io i ies.
To cap u e bo h capabili y and oppo uni y, we i s add essed ope a ional challenges.
These included, o example, labou sho ages, high ene gy cos s and unde u iliza ion
o eigh capaci y. Responden s a ed how hese issues a ec hei wo k and logis ics
p ocesses. We hen explo ed pas collabo a ion expe iences and ba ie s.
Building on hese ounda ions, we examined a ull spec um o collabo a i e o ms,
om in o mal ag eemen s o s a egic long- e m pa ne ships. Companies we e asked
abou po en ial a eas o collabo a ion such as sha ing anspo ehicles, wa ehouse in as-
uc u e, join p ocu emen and coo dina ing deli e y schedules. This helps us o e alua e
oppo uni ies and willingness o companies o in eg a e and manage pooled esou ces.
Ques ions on po en ial bene i s in e ms o cos educ ion, imp o ed ehicle u iliza ion and
enhanced se ice o e ings u he cla i ied companies’ mo i a ion.
Fu he analysis del ed in o condi ions necessa y o success ul collabo a ion such as
anspa ency in ope a ions, secu e da a managemen and uni ied ules o esou ce sha ing
and con lic esolu ion. This highligh ed oppo uni ies ha enable las ing pa ne ships.
Finally, ques ions on inno a i e p ac ices such as sha ed au onomous sys ems o digi al
pla o ms o join decision making cap u ed bo h oppo uni y and mo i a ion. This
s uc u e ensu es ou me hodology e lec s he basic na u e o COM-B in he HLC con ex .
Ques ions we e s uc u ed using a 5-poin Like scale, anging om 1 (no impo -
an /inapp op ia e) o 5 ( e y impo an / e y app op ia e), o ensu e de ailed insigh s
in o pe cep ions and p io i ies. By including hese comp ehensi e con en a eas, he su ey
p o ided a obus amewo k o e alua ing he challenges and oppo uni ies wi hin he
Slo enian logis ics sec o and iden i ying means o os e ing ho izon al collabo a ion.
The a ge popula ion included logis ics companies classi ied unde s anda d ac i i y
codes such as uni e sal pos al se ice ac i i ies, oad eigh anspo , wa ehousing,
ca go handling, and o he anspo a ion suppo ac i i ies. A o al o 7217 companies
we e egis e ed in Slo enia in his segmen , as iden i ied h ough he GVIN da abase [
35
].
Howe e , public da abases ypically do no p o ide accessible con ac in o ma ion o hese
companies. To add ess his, he ques ionnai e was dissemina ed h ough he mailing lis s
o he Chambe o Comme ce and Indus y o Slo enia and he Chambe o C a and Small
Business o Slo enia. We chose his app oach because he publicly a ailable company
da abase only lis s gene ic in o ma ion email add esses, o which i ms ypically do no
espond. Consequen ly, no all companies we e included in he su ey, which ep esen s a
limi a ion o he s udy. Ne e heless, we belie e ha he sample includes ep esen a i e
s akeholde s. S uc u ed in e iews wi h selec ed indus y s akeholde s we e conduc ed o
e ine he ques ionnai e, ensu ing cla i y and consis ency in in e p e a ion. Feedback led o
i e a i e imp o emen s be o e he su ey’s dis ibu ion.
Da a collec ion ook place be ween Ap il and Sep embe 2024. Companies we e i s
in i ed o pa icipa e ia email, ollowed by eminde phone calls o imp o e esponse a es.
Pa icipan s we e in o med abou he s udy’s pu pose, and hei consen was ob ained
be o e pa icipa ion. This app oach yielded 71 alid esponses, ep esen ing a di e se c oss-
sec ion o he Slo enian logis ics indus y. Responden s included 13.7% la ge en e p ises,
19.2% medium-sized en e p ises, 43.8% small en e p ises, and 23.3% mic o-en e p ises.
Mos su eyed companies p ima ily o e ed anspo se ices (97.2%), wi h addi ional
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 6 o 30
se ices such as wa ehousing (45.8%) and alue-added se ices like packaging and labelling
(22.2%). Among anspo p o ide s, 74.6% o e ed in e na ional anspo , 64.8% o e ed
local/u ban anspo , and 62.0% p o ided na ional/ egional anspo .
The sample p esen ed in Figu e 1is s a is ically signi ican as i ep esen s a b oad
spec um o company sizes and se ices, cap u ing he di e si y and complexi y o he
Slo enian logis ics indus y. I includes a balanced mix o mic o, small, medium, and
la ge en e p ises. Fu he mo e, he 71 alid esponses accoun o app oxima ely 1% o
all logis ics companies egis e ed in Slo enia, ensu ing a meaning ul ep esen a ion o he
indus y. By co e ing di e se se ice o e ings, including anspo , wa ehousing, and
alue-added se ices, he sample e lec s bo h common p ac ices and niche ope a ions. This
s uc u ed app oach no only minimizes sampling bias bu also ensu es ha he insigh s
de i ed a e obus and applicable o he sec o ’s b oade ends and challenges.
Figu e 1. Dis ibu ion o egis e ed logis ics companies and su eyed companies based on he
s anda d classi ica ion o ac i i ies.
Su ey esponses we e analysed o iden i y pa e ns in eadiness, mo i a ions, and
ba ie s o collabo a ion. Compa a i e analysis was conduc ed be ween companies o
di e en sizes, se ice ypes, and ope a ional ocuses. Insigh s om s uc u ed in e iews
we e in eg a ed o con ex ualize he su ey indings.
Fo each o he possible answe s on cu en issues, o ms, a eas o collabo a ion,
bene i s, and necessa y condi ions o success ul collabo a ion, we analysed he a e ages
and s anda d de ia ion o esponses, which a e p esen ed in g aphs o he ollowing chap e .
Subsequen ly, we also calcula ed he pe cen age de ia ion o he a e age o he esponses
o each g oup o companies om he o e all a e age. These da a a e p esen ed in he ables
in Appendix A. Blue-colou ed cells ep esen a nega i e de ia ion (e.g., a speci ic o m o
coope a ion is less sui able o his g oup o en e p ises), ed-colou ed cells ep esen a
posi i e de ia ion (e.g., a speci ic o m o coope a ion is mo e sui able o his g oup o
en e p ises). Whi e-colou ed cells ep esen a minimum de ia ion om he a e age.
Addi ionally, a s a is ical analysis was pe o med using SPSS p og amme (IBM Co p.
Released 2023. IBM SPSS S a is ics o Windows, Ve sion 29.0.2.0 A monk, NY, USA: IBM
Co p). Se e al s a is ical es s we e made o iden i y s a is ically ele an co ela ions
be ween di e en company ypes and ques ions ela ed o cu en issues, o ms, a eas
o collabo a ion, bene i s, and necessa y condi ions o success ul collabo a ion. Fu he ,
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 7 o 30
s a is ical es s we e conduc ed o iden i y s a is ically ele an co ela ions be ween he
possible answe s o a speci ic ques ion ela ed o cu en issues and collabo a ion. Se e al
s a is ical es s we e conduc ed o examine co ela ions be ween di e en ypes o compa-
nies and ela ionships wi hin esponses o ques ions on cu en issues and collabo a ion.
These included he Spea man co ela ion, Mann–Whi ney U es , K uskal–Wallis H es ,
and F iedman es . S a is ically signi ican co ela ions we e iden i ied a p< 0.05. Addi-
ionally, g aphical ep esen a ions such as boxplo s, ba cha s, sca e plo s, ela ionship
maps, and c oss abs we e c ea ed o illus a e key indings. While he s a is ical es s we e
pe o med using SPSS, hey a e no included in his a icle bu a e a ailable upon eques
om he au ho . Commen s below he g aphs in he ollowing sec ion highligh only hose
ela ionships ha we e ound o be s a is ically signi ican .
While he s udy ocuses on Slo enia, which may limi he gene alizabili y o indings,
i p o ides aluable insigh s in o he ac o s in luencing ho izon al logis ics collabo a ion in
highly agmen ed and compe i i e ma ke s. The me hodology o e s a obus amewo k
ha can be adap ed o simila en i onmen s.
3. Resul s
The su ey esponses we e analysed o p o ide a de ailed unde s anding o he
challenges, expe iences, and mo i a ional ac o s in luencing he eadiness o Slo enian
logis ics companies o engage in ho izon al collabo a ion. The analysis explici ly com-
pa es he esponses o companies depending on hei size, p o ided ype o se ices,
and p io collabo a ion expe iences, o e ing a de ailed pe spec i e on how hese g oups
pe cei e challenges and oppo uni ies di e en ly. The indings a e p esen ed in he ol-
lowing sec ions, which align wi h he s udy’s objec i es, while hei in e p e a ion and
b oade implica ions a e discussed in he subsequen sec ion. Fo a mo e de ailed iew,
Appendix Aincludes de ailed ables showing pe cen age de ia ions in esponses ac oss
di e en company ypes compa ed o he o e all a e age.
3.1. Collabo a ion Pe spec i es Ac oss Di e en Company Types
All su eyed companies ega dless o hei company ype answe ed he ques ions
ega ding he cu en issues when pe o ming logis ics p ocesses, mos app op ia e o ms
and a eas o collabo a ion, and wha bene i s and condi ions o collabo a ion a e mos
impo an o hem. A e ages o answe s a e p esen ed in he ollowing g aphs. Fo each
o he ques ions, a able is p o ided in Appendix Ashowcasing which o he p o ided
answe s a e, in ela i e e ms, mo e ( ed colou ) o less impo an (blue colou ) based on
he company ype. The numbe in he able indica es he pe cen age de ia ion o esponses
om he weigh ed a e age.
When examining he issues aced by logis ics companies, we p esen ed he esponden s
wi h 16 o he mos common challenges iden i ied om he li e a u e e iew (Figu e 2). The
iden i ied challenges we e anked based on how signi ican ly hey a ec logis ics p ocesses.
A a ing o 1 indica es ha he challenge does no signi ican ly impac companies’ logis ics
p ocesses, while a a ing o 5 indica es ha he issue has a e y signi ican impac .
The analysis iden i ied i e key challenges o logis ics se ice p o ide s, each a ed
wi h a e age impo ance abo e 4.0: labou sho ages (4.18), a ic conges ion (4.17), un ai
compe i ion (4.08), low u iliza ion (4.07), and high ene gy cos s (4.06). The leas impo an
issues a e a lack o in es men unds (3.14) and u ban deli e y es ic ions (3.33). The
s anda d de ia ion alues ( anging om 1.0 o 1.2) and a coe icien o a ia ion (0.2–0.4)
indica e a mode a e dispe sion o esponses, sugges ing a ela i ely consis en pe cep ion
o logis ics challenges among esponden s. A mo e de ailed in e p e a ion o hese esul s
is p o ided in he Discussion sec ion.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 8 o 30
Figu e 2. A e age alues o issues o logis ics companies a ec ing hei logis ics p ocesses.
Companies p o iding only anspo se ices epo signi ican ly g ea e challenges
han hose o e ing di e si ied logis ics se ices. Addi ionally, i ms wi h p io collabo a ion
expe ience epo mo e challenges. In e ms o company size, he labou sho age is a mo e
p essing issue o la ge companies, while a lack o in es men unds, paymen indiscipline, a
lack o knowledge on op imiza ion, and ime loss due o a ic conges ion a e mo e p essing
o SMEs. Companies unwilling o collabo a e ace g ea e challenges, including labou
sho ages, lack o in es men unds, loss o ime due o a ic conges ion and high ene gy
cos s. They also epo paymen indiscipline, demanding cus ome equi emen s, lack o
us , and un ai compe i ion, ein o cing ba ie s o coope a ion. Companies se ing in he
B2C sec o expe ience he lis ed issues as sligh ly mo e p essing han hose in he B2B sec o .
Simila ly, i ms ope a ing ze o-emission ehicles epo hese challenges as somewha
mo e demanding. Logis ics ope a o s owning la ge s o age capaci ies expe ience mo e
p essing issues o low u iliza ion o space and labou sho age han hose wi h less s o age
space owned.
The s a is ical analysis also iden i ied ha a ic conges ion and loss o ime a e e y
impo an issues o companies ope a ing in he B2C sec o a he han in o he sec o s;
addi ionally, paymen indiscipline is a much mo e p essing issue o companies p o iding
only anspo se ices (boxplo g aph in Supplemen a y Ma e ial, Figu e S1); u he ,
labou sho age is a mo e signi ican issue o companies owning ze o-emission ehicles
a he han hose ha do no . A key insigh is he s ong co ela ion be ween lack o us
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 9 o 30
and lack o collabo a ion (de ails in Supplemen a y Ma e ial, Figu e S2). The highe he
lack o us , he mo e signi ican he collabo a ion issue.
No signi ican di e ences we e obse ed be ween companies based on he spa ial
scope o hei anspo se ices, whe he in e na ional (long dis ance), na ional o egional
(medium dis ance), o local/u ban (sho dis ance). This can be a ibu ed o he ac ha
many challenges such as labou sho ages, high ene gy cos s, o paymen indiscipline a ec
logis ics p o ide s ac oss all le els o anspo ac i i y and a e no s ic ly ied o dis ance
o deli e y ange. The e a e also no mayo di e ences in e ms o pe cei ed issues and he
company’s ehicle lee size.
3.2. The Mos App op ia e Fo ms o Collabo a ion
Fu he , we asked logis ics companies abou he mos app op ia e o ms o collabo a-
ion. The esponses o his ques ion a e p esen ed in Figu e 3, whe e 1 indica es “inapp o-
p ia e” and 5 indica es “ e y app op ia e” o m o collabo a ion.
Figu e 3. A e age alues o o ms o collabo a ion app op ia e o logis ics companies.
An analysis shows ha he mos sui able o ms o collabo a ion a e join planning
o ope a ional logis ics p ocesses (3.96) and collabo a ion and ne wo king wi h se e al
pa ne s (3.75); hese a e u he in e p e ed in he ollowing sec ion. The s anda d de ia ion
alues (1.0–1.2) and he coe icien o a ia ion (0.3) sugges a mode a e sp ead in esponses,
indica ing ela i e ag eemen among pa icipan s.
Companies wi h la ge s o age capaci ies (o e 5000 m
2
), p io collabo a ion expe-
ience, and a highe willingness o collabo a e a e gene ally mo e open o all o ms o
coope a ion. Mic o-sized companies p e e collabo a ion wi h a single pa ne , whe eas
medium and la ge companies a ou collabo a ion and ne wo king wi h se e al pa ne s
(Spea man es and ba cha a ailable in Supplemen a y Ma e ial, Table S1 and Figu e S3).
B2B ope a o s p e e collabo a ion wi h a single pa ne , whe eas B2C companies ind his
app oach signi ican ly less sui able. Fo companies wi h a la ge ehicle lee , collabo a ion
and ne wo king wi h se e al pa ne s is signi ican ly mo e sui able han o hose wi h
a smalle lee . Simila ly, logis ics p o ide s ha own ze o-emission ehicles ind mul i-
pa ne collabo a ion and ne wo king pa icula ly bene icial, whe eas companies wi hou
such ehicles iew his o m o coope a ion as conside ably less desi able. Among logis ics
companies p o iding only anspo , he mos sui able o ms o collabo a ion a e limi ed
o wo king wi h a single pa ne o engaging in he join planning o ope a ional logis ics
p ocesses. In con as , companies o e ing a b oade ange o logis ics se ices end o
p e e s a egic, long- e m pa ne ships and mul i-pa ne collabo a ion models.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 16 o 30
expe ience. In doing so, hey se e as ansi ional mechanisms ha help companies build
mu ual con idence and en e longe - e m pa ne ships.
Thi d, anspa en ules o cos - and ca bon-sha ing a e essen ial [
29
]. To ensu e
ai ness and long- e m commi men , collabo a ion amewo ks mus include clea and p e-
ag eed mechanisms o dis ibu ing bo h he bene i s and bu dens o coope a ion, including
inancial in es men s, ope a ional e o , and emission educ ions. Fo example, i sha ed
use o elec ic ehicles o consolida ion cen es is pa o he ag eemen , he cos s and
ca bon sa ings should be p opo ionally dis ibu ed among he pa ne s. This inc eases
us , educes con lic s, and s eng hens commi men , pa icula ly in en i onmen ally
sensi i e u ban logis ics con ex s such as ze o-emission zones. Equally impo an is he
alignmen o key pe o mance indica o s (KPIs) wi h bo h collabo a i e and sus ainabili y
goals. Pa ne s should de ine and moni o KPIs ha e lec no only ope a ional e iciency
(e.g., on- ime deli e y o esou ce u iliza ion), bu also en i onmen al pe o mance (e.g.,
CO
2
educ ions, ene gy e iciency, o sha e o ze o-emission deli e ies). This ensu es ha
sus ainabili y is no ea ed as a seconda y objec i e, bu as a sha ed, measu able ou come
o collabo a ion.
Fou h, beha iou al incen i es should complemen echnical and in as uc u al mea-
su es. Cu en policy ins umen s o en ocus na owly on in as uc u e, digi aliza ion,
o en i onmen al a ge s. Howe e , beha iou al change equi es beha iou al ools. We
ecommend in oducing collabo a ion- eadiness c i e ia in public p ocu emen and unding
p og ammes, especially in logis ics se ices o public ins i u ions. P e-compe i i e pilo
p ojec s should be suppo ed by public unding, accompanied by beha iou al diagnos ics
ha help iden i y po en ial blocke s wi hin o ganiza ions. Fu he mo e, inancial incen i es
(e.g., ax educ ions, g an s) o companies engaging in collabo a i e ze o-emission deli e y
models would di ec ly suppo bo h en i onmen al and s uc u al sus ainabili y goals [
43
].
Finally, he ansi ion om empo a y pilo p ojec s o s able, long- e m collabo a ion
ne wo ks equi e policy suppo ha explici ly links logis ics inno a ion wi h sus ain-
abili y goals. Sus ainable de elopmen mus mo e om being a pe iphe al conce n o
a co e s a egic d i e o logis ics collabo a ion. This includes no only p omo ing ze o-
emission ehicles and low-ca bon ope a ions bu also ewa ding collabo a i e models ha
demons ably educe en i onmen al ex e nali ies [
44
], imp o e u ban quali y o li e, and
suppo SMEs’ long- e m iabili y. Policymake s should ecognize ha os e ing logis ics
collabo a ion is no jus an economic o ope a ional issue, bu a s a egic ool o achie ing
clima e goals, economic esilience, and sus ainable supply chain and logis ics manage-
men . The po en ial o logis ics collabo a ion is eal, bu i s ac i a ion depends no on new
echnologies o egula ions alone, bu on shi ing he beha iou al ounda ions on which
logis ics decision-making es s. T us , anspa ency, and ai ness a e no op ional so ac-
o s [
19
,
20
,
29
]; hey a e s uc u al p e equisi es o unlocking a mo e e icien , sus ainable,
and esilien logis ics sys em, one ha can wo k o bo h la ge and small ac o s, and one
ha welcomes bo h expe ienced and new collabo a o s.
5. Conclusions
Rapid changes in he logis ics sec o a e o cing companies o adap o wo k o ce
sho ages, ising cos s, and g owing compe i ion. Ho izon al logis ics collabo a ion (HLC)
o e s a p omising solu ion, enabling i ms o sha e esou ces, op imize ope a ions, and
imp o e e iciency. This s udy explo es HLC in Slo enia, whe e collabo a ion emains
limi ed, by combining a li e a u e e iew wi h a su ey o 71 logis ics ope a o s. I o e s
a unique con ibu ion by add essing se e al key gaps in he li e a u e. Fi s , i ocuses
explici ly on mic o and small en e p ises, which a e o en o e looked despi e ep esen ing
he majo i y o logis ics p o ide s and acing he mos signi ican ope a ional cons ain s.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 17 o 30
Second, i cap u es he pe spec i es o bo h collabo a i e and non-collabo a i e i ms,
enabling a compa a i e analysis o hei mo i a ions, ba ie s, and eadiness le els. Thi d,
by applying he COM-B model o s uc u e and in e p e su ey esul s, he s udy links
beha iou al dimensions o ope a ional and s a egic decision-making, o e ing a mo e
nuanced unde s anding o collabo a ion dynamics. Fou h, he s udy unde akes an in-
eg a ed and de ailed analysis by examining collabo a ion pa e ns in ela ion o a wide
ypology o logis ics i m cha ac e is ics, including company size, ypes o se ices o e ed,
cus ome segmen s se ed, anspo ac i i y in ensi y, lee composi ion, and s o age
capaci ies. This app oach p o ides a obus e idence base o unde s anding how s uc-
u al and s a egic ea u es in luence collabo a ion eadiness and beha iou . Finally, i
p o ides con ex -speci ic insigh s om a highly compe i i e logis ics en i onmen whe e
collabo a ion is bo h di icul and u gen ly needed.
Su ey esul s show ha key challenges include labou sho ages, conges ion, un ai
compe i ion, low asse u iliza ion, and ene gy cos s. T us eme ged as a c i ical enable .
Companies wi h p io collabo a ion expe ience epo ed ewe ope a ional issues and a
highe willingness o engage again. This sugges s ha posi i e collabo a ion expe iences
can educe pe cei ed isks and unlock long- e m bene i s. The mos p e e ed collabo a ion
models in ol e join ope a ional planning, ne wo king wi h mul iple pa ne s, sha ed
in as uc u e, and knowledge exchange. Success ul collabo a ion depends on clea ules,
secu e da a sha ing, pa ne commi men , p ocess anspa ency, and p ese ing au onomy.
Impo an ly, company size and pas expe ience shape a i udes. Mic o i ms a e mo e open
o collabo a ion, while la ge i ms, ypically mo e sel -su icien , a e selec i e bu mo e
likely o commi long e m.
While ou indings indica e ha economic and ope a ional incen i es cu en ly ou -
weigh sus ainabili y conce ns, his obse a ion should no be in e p e ed as dismissing he
s a egic ele ance o sus ainabili y. On he con a y, he beha iou al ba ie s iden i ied,
such as lack o us , epu a ional conce ns, and ope a ional s ess, highligh he need o
in eg a i e app oaches ha align e iciency goals wi h en i onmen al and social espon-
sibili y. As such, sus ainabili y should be e amed no me ely as an ex e nal compliance
issue bu as a le e o us building, long- e m compe i i eness, and sys emic esilience in
agmen ed logis ics ma ke s. Fu u e collabo a ion models ha embed ca bon sha ing ules,
g een p ocu emen , and pe o mance indica o s ied o ESG goals may help eposi ion
sus ainabili y as a p ima y beha iou al d i e a he han a pe iphe al ou come. To inc ease
adop ion, policies should align economic incen i es wi h en i onmen al goals and build
us h ough neu al pla o ms and anspa en ules. All o he a o emen ioned esul s a e
based on su eys pe o med in Slo enia, bu may apply o o he coun ies wi h agmen ed
logis ics ma ke s and low collabo a ion le els.
Despi e he well-documen ed bene i s o ho izon al collabo a ion, i s widesp ead
adop ion emains a challenge. Fu u e esea ch should ocus on iden i ying e ec i e be-
ha iou change s a egies ha encou age logis ics companies o engage in coope a i e
e o s, aking in o accoun key mo i a ional ac o s and he condi ions necessa y o suc-
cess ul collabo a ion. T us -building measu es, incen i e s uc u es ailo ed o company
size, p io expe ience, and willingness o collabo a e, as well as clea ly de ined collabo a-
ion amewo ks, will be essen ial in o e coming exis ing ba ie s. Expanding he scope o
esea ch o include logis ics i ms om o he coun ies would p o ide a b oade pe spec i e
on he mos desi able a eas o collabo a ion, key mo i a ional d i e s, and he condi ions
ha acili a e success ul pa ne ships, ul ima ely con ibu ing o he de elopmen o mo e
a ge ed and e ec i e collabo a ion models.
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 18 o 30
Supplemen a y Ma e ials: The ollowing suppo ing in o ma ion can be downloaded a :
h ps://www.mdpi.com/a icle/10.3390/su17157001/s1. Online su ey: Collabo a ion be ween
logis ics ope a o s. Figu e S1: Boxplo compa ison o he pe cei ed se e i y o paymen indiscipline
be ween companies o e ing only anspo se ices and hose p o iding a ull ange o logis ics
se ices; Figu e S2. Ba cha showing he co ela ion be ween highe pe cei ed lack o us and
inc eased pe cei ed lack o collabo a ion among logis ics se ice p o ide s; Table S1. Spea man
es showing s a is ically ele an co ela ion be ween company size and collabo a ion wi h se e al
pa ne s; Figu e S3. Ba cha showing he co ela ion be ween company size and inc eased sui abili y
o collabo a ion wi h se e al pa ne s; Table S2. Spea man es showing s a is ically ele an co ela-
ions be ween willingness o collabo a e and possible a eas o collabo a ion; Table S3. Mann–Whi ney
U es showing s a is ically ele an co ela ion be ween p io collabo a ion expe ience and imp o ed
ehicle op imiza ion; Figu e S4. Ba cha showing how collabo a i e and non-collabo a i e compa-
nies a e he bene i o imp o ed ehicle op imiza ion; Table S4. Spea man es showing s a is ically
ele an co ela ions be ween willingness o collabo a e and condi ions o success ul collabo a ion.
Au ho Con ibu ions: Concep ualiza ion, I.P. and T.L.; me hodology, I.P. and T.L.; alida ion, I.P.;
o mal analysis, I.P.; in es iga ion, I.P.; da a cu a ion, I.P.; w i ing—o iginal d a p epa a ion, I.P.
and T.L.; w i ing— e iew and edi ing, I.P. and T.L.; isualiza ion, I.P.; supe ision, T.L.; unding
acquisi ion, T.L. All au ho s ha e ead and ag eed o he published e sion o he manusc ip .
Funding: This esea ch was unded by Eu opean Clima e, In as uc u e and En i onmen Execu i e
Agency, g an numbe 101104278 (p ojec TRACE).
Ins i u ional Re iew Boa d S a emen : We would like o cla i y ha his s udy does no in ol e any
esea ch wi h human subjec s, human issue o pe sonal da a. This s udy was based on a s uc u ed
online su ey o legal en i ies (logis ics companies) and no indi idual-le el o sensi i e pe sonal
da a was collec ed. In addi ion, an in o med consen o m was a ached a he beginning o he
ques ionnai e, clea ly s a ing he pu pose o he s udy, he olun a y na u e o pa icipa ion, and he
con iden iali y o he da a. Only pa icipan s who con i med hei consen we e allowed o p oceed
wi h he su ey. I was con i med by he ins i u ion ha such esea ch does no equi e app o al om
an e hics commi ee. This is consis en wi h simila s udies p e iously published by ou ins i u e.
In o med Consen S a emen : In o med consen was ob ained om all subjec s in ol ed in he s udy.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen : Da a a e a ailable and s o ed locally by he au ho .
Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es .
Appendix A
The ollowing ables p esen pe cen age de ia ion esponses o each g oup o com-
panies om he o e all a e age. Blue-colou ed cells ep esen a nega i e de ia ion (less
han a e age); ed-colou ed cells ep esen a posi i e de ia ion (mo e han a e age). Whi e-
colou ed cells ep esen a minimum de ia ion om he o e all a e age.
The ables in his appendix a e o de ed by he su ey ques ions ela ed o challenges
and coope a ion. The e is one able o each ques ion, which is di ided in o h ee pa s due
o i s size (e.g., Table A1a–c).
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 19 o 30
Appendix A.1 Issues A ec ing Logis ics P ocesses
Table A1. How impo an ly do hese issues a ec you wo k and logis ics p ocesses?
A1(a) Q3 How Big Is You Company
Acco ding o he EU Classi ica ion? Q4 Which Segmen Do You Ope a e in?
Q5 Wha Logis ics
Se ices Do You
O e ?
Q10 How Impo an ly Do These Issues A ec You Wo k
and Logis ics P ocesses? Mic o Small
Medium
La ge
Companies
(B2B)
End
Consume s
(B2C)
ALL
T anspo
T anspo
and
O he
Low u iliza ion ( eigh ehicles, s o age acili ies) −4% −7% 7% 16% 4% −21% −8% 1% 0%
Labou sho ages (la ge luc ua ion o s a ) −2% −3% −1% 9% 1% −38% 4% −4% 2%
Lack o in es men unds 7% −2% −9% 4% 5% −5% −9% 11% −6%
Demanding cus ome equi emen s ( agmen a ion) −5% −3% 11% −4% 0% −16% 1% 0% 2%
High ene gy cos s −3% 5% −10% −1% 4% 8% −13% 5% −2%
Paymen indiscipline 3% 1% −4% −4% 1% 13% −7% 11% −6%
Lack o us be ween logis ic ope a o s −2% 3% 0% −10% 1% 4% −5% 7% −2%
Lack o collabo a ion be ween logis ic ope a o s 1% 2% −2% −11% 2% −3% −5% 4% 0%
Lack o knowledge on op imiza ion and mode n IT
solu ions 3% −5% 7% −1% 0% −25% 6% 3% −2%
Lack o da a o p ope managemen o logis ics p ocesses 2% −5% 2% 6% −1% 3% −1% 4% 1%
Un ai compe i ion −3% 0% 3% −2% 3% −2% −9% 6% −1%
T a ic conges ion (loss o ime) 8% −1% −4% −11% 3% 15% −11% 4% 0%
En i onmen al cons ain s (Eu o no ms) −3% 2% 4% −15% 3% 14% −12% 8% −4%
Legisla i e cons ain s (ESG ules o measu ing and
epo ing en i onmen al and social impac s)
−3% −1% 12% −8% −1% 5% 1% 2% 0%
U ban deli e y es ic ions (UVAR) 3% −4% −3% 7% 0% 10% −1% 12% −2%
Lack o adequa e logis ics in as uc u e in ci ies (deli e y
poin s, handling equipmen ) 0% −3% −6% 4% −1% 12% −4% 10% −1%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 20 o 30
Table A1. Con .
A1(b) Q6 Vehicle Flee
Size?
Q7 Ze o-Emission
Vehicles? Q8 Exis ing S o age Capaci y [m2]?
Q11 Ha e You E e
Collabo a ed wi h
o he Logis ics
Se ice P o ide s?
Q10 How Impo an ly Do These Issues A ec You Wo k
and Logis ics P ocesses? 0–50 >50 Yes No 0–1000 1001–5000 >5000 Yes No
Low u iliza ion ( eigh ehicles, s o age acili ies) −1% 8% 6% 1% 0% 4% 7% −1% −5%
Labou sho ages (la ge luc ua ion o s a ) −2% 5% 12% −2% 5% 4% 8% 0% −4%
Lack o in es men unds 3% −3% 8% 2% 0% 1% −15% −1% 7%
Demanding cus ome equi emen s ( agmen a ion) 0% 6% 7% 2% −1% 7% −7% 0% −2%
High ene gy cos s 6% −9% −3% 4% 16% −12% −1% 1% −11%
Paymen indiscipline 3% −5% −1% 3% 1% −3% −10% 0% 0%
Lack o us be ween logis ic ope a o s 1% 5% 5% 2% 1% 5% −8% 1% −7%
Lack o collabo a ion be ween logis ic ope a o s 1% 3% 4% 2% 4% 6% −10% 1% −9%
Lack o knowledge on op imiza ion and mode n IT
solu ions
−2% 6% 2% 1% 0% −2% −4% 1% −10%
Lack o da a o p ope managemen o logis ics p ocesses 1% 3% 1% 3% −4% 3% 5% 0% −7%
Un ai compe i ion 1% 6% 11% 0% −4% 8% −6% 0% −8%
T a ic conges ion (loss o ime) 3% −6% 1% 2% 12% −8% −20% 1% −7%
En i onmen al cons ain s (Eu o no ms) 4% −6% 5% 1% 14% −15% 0% −1% 0%
Legisla i e cons ain s (ESG ules o measu ing and
epo ing en i onmen al and social impac s) 1% −2% 1% −1% 14% −10% 2% 1% −5%
U ban deli e y es ic ions (UVAR) 4% −2% 1% 0% 12% −7% −15% −1% 10%
Lack o adequa e logis ics in as uc u e in ci ies (deli e y
poin s, handling equipmen ) 2% 5% 5% 2% 8% 4% −16% −1% −6%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 21 o 30
Table A1. Con .
A1(c) Q12 How Would You Ra e You Willingness o Collabo a e wi h O he Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
Q10 How Impo an ly Do These Issues A ec You Wo k
and Logis ics P ocesses?
I’m No Willing o
Collabo a e wi h
O he Logis ics
Se ice P o ide s
I’m Only Willing
o Collabo a e i
Absolu ely
Necessa y
I’m Willing i he
Collabo a ion Is Easy o
O ganize
I’m Ve y
Willing o
Collabo a e
and Sha e
My
Resou ces
I’m Fully Willing o
Collabo a e and o
Es ablish a Las ing
Collabo a ion
Low u iliza ion ( eigh ehicles, s o age acili ies) 11% −10% −6% 0% 11%
Labou sho ages (la ge luc ua ion o s a ) 20% −10% −4% 1% 5%
Lack o in es men unds 27% −1% −1% 5% −7%
Demanding cus ome equi emen s ( agmen a ion) 25% −4% 1% 1% −7%
High ene gy cos s 11% −12% 2% 0% −3%
Paymen indiscipline 29% −3% −2% 1% 0%
Lack o us be ween logis ic ope a o s 10% −18% 1% 4% 3%
Lack o collabo a ion be ween logis ic ope a o s −19% −7% −1% 8% 1%
Lack o knowledge on op imiza ion and mode n IT
solu ions
−28% −14% −1% 13% 2%
Lack o da a o p ope managemen o logis ics p ocesses −4% −4% −2% 8% −3%
Un ai compe i ion 22% −8% −2% 2% 1%
T a ic conges ion (loss o ime) 8% −7% 0% −2% 4%
En i onmen al cons ain s (Eu o no ms) 0% 11% 1% −6% −7%
Legisla i e cons ain s (ESG ules o measu ing and
epo ing en i onmen al and social impac s)
−13% 7% 1% −13% 7%
U ban deli e y es ic ions (UVAR) 13% 1% −17% 2%
Lack o adequa e logis ics in as uc u e in ci ies (deli e y
poin s, handling equipmen )
−2% −1% −9% 4%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 22 o 30
Appendix A.2 Fo ms o Collabo a ion
Table A2. Which o ms o collabo a ion a e app op ia e o you?
A2(a) Q3 How Big Is You Company
Acco ding o he EU Classi ica ion?
Q4 Which Segmen Do You Ope a e
in?
Q5 Wha Logis ics Se ices
Do You O e ?
Q13 Which Fo ms o Collabo a ion A e App op ia e
o You? Mic o Small
Medium
La ge
Companies
(B2B)
End
Consume s
(B2C)
ALL
T anspo
T anspo and
O he
Collabo a ion wi h a single pa ne only 14% −8% −2% −4% 6% −24% −8% 4% 0%
Collabo a ion and ne wo king wi h se e al pa ne s −7% −2% 7% 14% −2% −4% 3% −3% 3%
Join planning o ope a ional logis ics p ocesses 5% −6% 8% −9% −4% −1% 8% 2% 0%
S a egic and long- e m collabo a ion 6% −8% 1% 8% −2% −4% 2% −3% 2%
A2(b) Q6 Vehicle Flee
Size?
Q7
Ze o-Emission
Vehicles?
Q8 Exis ing S o age Capaci y [m2]?
Q11 Ha e You E e
Collabo a ed wi h O he
Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
Q13 Which Fo ms o Collabo a ion A e App op ia e
o You? 0–50 >50 Yes No 0–1000 1001–5000 >5000 Yes No
Collabo a ion wi h a single pa ne only 1% 0% 6% −2% −10% 9% 7% 1% −9%
Collabo a ion and ne wo king wi h se e al pa ne s −3% 10% 9% −2% −2% 2% 20% 1% −13%
Join planning o ope a ional logis ics p ocesses 0% 1% −6% 2% 0% −6% 21% 3% −24%
S a egic and long- e m collabo a ion 0% −2% −3% 0% −1% −1% 14% 1% −12%
A2(c) Q12 How Would You Ra e You Willingness o Collabo a e wi h O he Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
Q13 Which Fo ms o Collabo a ion A e App op ia e
o You?
I’m No Willing
o Collabo a e
wi h O he
Logis ics Se ice
P o ide s
I’m Only Willing
o Collabo a e i
Absolu ely
Necessa y
I’m Willing i he
Collabo a ion is Easy o
O ganize
I’m Ve y Willing o
Collabo a e and
Sha e My Resou ces
I’m Fully
Willing o
Collabo a e and
o Es ablish a
Las ing
Collabo a ion
Collabo a ion wi h a single pa ne only −12% −9% 0% 12% −5%
Collabo a ion and ne wo king wi h se e al pa ne s −20% −14% −3% 4% 12%
Join planning o ope a ional logis ics p ocesses −28% −10% −9% 14% 14%
S a egic and long- e m collabo a ion −12% −16% −3% −1% 15%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 23 o 30
Appendix A.3 A eas o Collabo a ion
Table A3. In which a eas do you see possibili ies/oppo uni ies o collabo a ion?
A3(a) Q3 How Big Is You Company
Acco ding o he EU Classi ica ion? Q4 Which Segmen Do You Ope a e in? Q5 Wha Logis ics
Se ices Do You O e ?
Q14 In Which A eas Do You See
Possibili ies/Oppo uni ies o Collabo a ion? Mic o Small
Medium
La ge
Companies
(B2B)
End
Consume s
(B2C)
ALL
T anspo
T anspo
and O he
Sha ing wa ehouse in as uc u e 0% −3% 8% −21% −3% −5% 3% 3% −1%
Sha ing anspo ehicles −3% −6% 11% 4% 5% −44% −3% −5% 3%
Sha ing handling equipmen 9% −10% 14% −17% −2% −40% 14% −2% 2%
Sha ing wo k o ce 7% −6% 8% −11% −1% −43% 10% −5% 4%
Sha ing o me ging shipmen s in deli e y 1% 8% −2% −41% −2% 19% −1% 6% −3%
Sha ing o da a 20% −1% −8% −37% 1% −53% 8% 1% −1%
Sha ing expe iences and knowledge 7% −8% 4% −5% −3% −8% 6% −7% 6%
Join p ocu emen o uel, spa e pa s, ma e ials, packaging,
IT se ices 5% −7% 16% −24% 3% −51% 1% 4% −1%
Sha ing o au onomous sys ems ( anspo and/o s o age)
12% −8% 11% −33% 0% −39% 6% 6% −5%
A3(b) Q6 Vehicle
Flee Size?
Q7 Sha e o
Ze o-emission
Vehicles?
Q8 Exis ing S o age Capaci y [m2]?
Q11 Ha e You E e
Collabo a ed wi h O he
Logis ics Se ice
P o ide s?
Q14 In Which A eas Do You See
Possibili ies/Oppo uni ies o Collabo a ion? 0–50 >50 Yes No 0–1000 1001–5000 >5000 Yes No
Sha ing wa ehouse in as uc u e 0% 7% 4% 2% 4% −5% 21% 2% −25%
Sha ing anspo ehicles −3% 13% 15% −2% 1% 7% 9% 1% −14%
Sha ing handling equipmen −3% 9% −10% 3% 8% −8% 6% 2% −21%
Sha ing wo k o ce −5% 14% 8% −1% −15% 14% 1% 3% −19%
Sha ing o me ging shipmen s in deli e y 7% −17% −16% 7% 14% −18% 14% 3% −26%
Sha ing o da a 6% −17% −4% 2% −4% −8% 7% 3% −24%
Sha ing expe iences and knowledge −2% 7% 6% 0% −3% 17% 0% 2% −25%
Join p ocu emen o uel, spa e pa s, ma e ials, packaging,
IT se ices 2% 3% −5% 5% −8% 3% 24% 2% −19%
Sha ing o au onomous sys ems ( anspo and/o s o age)
1% −1% −10% 5% −9% −8% 18% 2% −20%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 24 o 30
Table A3. Con .
A3(c) Q12 How Would You Ra e You Willingness o Collabo a e wi h O he Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
Q14 In Which A eas Do You See
Possibili ies/Oppo uni ies o Collabo a ion?
I’m No Willing
o Collabo a e
wi h O he
Logis ics Se ice
P o ide s
I’m Only Willing
o Collabo a e i
Absolu ely
Necessa y
I’m Willing i he
Collabo a ion Is Easy o
O ganize
I’m Ve y
Willing o
Collabo a e
and Sha e
My
Resou ces
I’m Fully Willing o
Collabo a e and o
Es ablish a Las ing
Collabo a ion
Sha ing wa ehouse in as uc u e 11% −33% 2% 14% −5%
Sha ing anspo ehicles 9% −45% −1% 18% 7%
Sha ing handling equipmen 0% −37% −3% 13% 17%
Sha ing wo k o ce 33% −48% −2% 11% 17%
Sha ing o me ging shipmen s in deli e y 34% −41% 6% 19% −13%
Sha ing o da a −5% −48% 2% 25% 0%
Sha ing expe iences and knowledge −28% −30% −3% 21% 6%
Join p ocu emen o uel, spa e pa s, ma e ials, packaging,
IT se ices 14% −19% −14% 30% 9%
Sha ing o au onomous sys ems ( anspo and/o s o age)
18% −29% −3% 32% −6%
Sus ainabili y 2025,17, 7001 25 o 30
Appendix A.4 Bene i s o Collabo a ion
Table A4. How impo an would ce ain bene i s o collabo a ion in luence you o be mo e willing o collabo a e?
A4(a) Q3 How Big Is You Company
Acco ding o he EU Classi ica ion?
Q4 Which Segmen Do You Ope a e
in?
Q5 Wha Logis ics Se ices
Do You O e ?
Q15 How Impo an Would Ce ain Bene i s o
Collabo a ion In luence You o Be Mo e Willing o
Collabo a e?
Mic o Small
Medium
La ge
Companies
(B2B)
End
Consume s
(B2C)
ALL
T anspo
T anspo and
O he
Imp o ed op imiza ion and e iciency o logis ics p ocesses
−5% −2% 3% 7% 1% −7% −3% −3% 2%
Reduced cos s, inc eased demand −1% −2% 4% −1% 0% −5% −1% 1% 0%
Less nega i e impac on he en i onmen −11% 2% 5% 1% 1% 4% −6% 4% −2%
Be e ehicle u iliza ion, ewe emp y uns −4% 2% 0% −7% 1% 5% −7% −1% 0%
Inc eased compe i i eness and ba gaining powe −5% −4% 10% 0% 0% −7% 0% −7% 6%
Fas e , mo e equen and punc ual deli e ies −6% 2% 1% −3% −1% −5% 0% 2% −3%
Inc eased cus ome lexibili y, di e si ica ion o logis ics
se ice o e
−9% −2% 5% 14% −1% −11% 0% −2% 2%
Inc eased lexibili y o comply wi h ESG s anda ds
(measu emen and epo ing o en i onmen al and social
impac s)
−9% 1% 7% −4% 1% −14% −4% 2% 0%
Inc eased lexibili y o new ules o deli e ies o ci y
cen es 0% −2% 0% 1% −4% 16% 3% 5% −1%
A4(b) Q6 Vehicle
Flee Size?
Q7 Sha e o
Ze o-Emission
Vehicles?
Q8 Exis ing S o age Capaci y [m2]?
Q11 Ha e You E e
Collabo a ed wi h O he
Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
Q15 How Impo an Would Bene i s o Collabo a ion
In luence You o Be Mo e Willing o Collabo a e wi h
O he Logis ics Se ice P o ide s?
0–50 >50 Yes No 0–1000 1001–5000 >5000 Yes No
Imp o ed op imiza ion and e iciency o logis ics p ocesses
1% −1% −3% 2% 6% −1% 3% 1% −16%
Reduced cos s, inc eased demand 1% −2% 1% 0% 4% −9% 15% 1% −12%
Less nega i e impac on he en i onmen 2% −1% −3% 4% 6% −8% −3% 0% −7%
Be e ehicle u iliza ion, ewe emp y uns 2% −1% 3% 1% 6% 1% −3% 0% −13%
