Recognition-Implementation Gap (RIG) Assessment Framework of Environmental Logistics Practices (ELP): A Case among Thai Logistics Service Providers (LSPs)

Tudsuda Imsuwan; T. C. Wong

doi:10.53941/osci.2026.100007

Abstract

This study investigates why environmental logistics practices (ELP) that Thai logistics service providers (LSPs) recognize as essential for performance are not uniformly implemented at levels commensurate with their perceived importance and identifies the domain-specific constraints that explain this recognition implementation gap (RIG) in Thailand’s resource-constrained logistics sector. Using a sequential exploratory mixed-method design, the study combines semi-structured interviews with logistics professionals and a structured expert questionnaire from a multi-stakeholder panel comprising LSPs, user firms, and academics. Practices across eight logistics domains were assessed for performance recognition and implementation status, with a stakeholder agreement threshold identifying a subset of high-impact practices. Despite near-universal performance recognition (90–100%), implementation among company-affiliated respondents averaged 83% across the high-impact practices, leaving RIGs that are small for practices under direct organizational control but reach 25–38 percentage points for capital-intensive and coordination-dependent practices. Packaging and transportation exhibited the largest domain-level gaps, driven by cost premiums, capital constraints and supply chain coordination failures, whilst customer pressure emerged as the primary adoption driver yet proved insufficient to overcome financial and capability barriers, particularly among Thai SMEs. The study identifies four interlinked constraints: financial capacity, capability and knowledge gaps, inter-organizational coordination challenges, and weak institutional support as the primary moderators of implementation, producing an empirically grounded barrier typology that, whilst derived from the Thai LSPs context, holds wider relevance for sustainability transitions across comparable emerging-market logistics sectors. The RIG assessment framework developed in this Thai case provides a replicable template for comparative research across other emerging-market and developing economies.

References

1.
IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2020; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1787/d07136f0-en.
2.
McKinnon, A.C.; Browne, M.; Piecyk, M.; et al. Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, 3rd ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2015.
3.
ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN Key Figures 2024; ASEAN Secretariat: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2024.
4.
World Bank. Connecting to Compete 2023: Trade Logistics in an Uncertain Global Economy—The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/39760 (accessed on 19 September 2026).
5.
NXPO (Office of National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council). BCG in Action. Available online: https://www.nxpo.or.th/th/en/bcg-in-action/ (accessed on 19 September 2026).
6.
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. Thailand’s 2nd Updated Nationally Determined Contribution; Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP): Bangkok, Thailand, 2022. Submitted to UNFCCC, 2 November 2022. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-11/Thailand%202nd%20Updated%20NDC.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2026).
7.
OSMEP (Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion). MSME White Paper 2024; OSMEP: Bangkok, Thailand, 2024.
8.
Lin, Q.; Zhang, K.; Huang, D.; et al. Evaluating the impact of Trans-Asian railway on logistics mode selection between Thailand and China: An AHP-TOPSIS approach. Alex. Eng. J. 2024, 98, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.04.041.
9.
World Bank. Transforming Lao PDR from a Land-locked to a Land-linked Economy. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lao/publication/transforming-lao-pdr-from-a-land-locked-to-a-land-linked-economy (accessed on 19 September 2026).
10.
Faijaidee, W.; Jomnonkwao, S.; Jongkol, P. Unboxing: Exploring the challenges of green supply chain initiatives in Thailand. Logistics 2025, 9, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9010012.
11.
Youngswaing, W.; Jomnonkwao, S.; Cheunkamon, E.; et al. Key factors shaping green logistics in Thailand’s auto industry: An application of structural equation modeling. Logistics 2024, 8, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010017.
12.
Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Developing the WH 2 framework for environmental sustainability in logistics service providers: A taxonomy of green initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.150.
13.
Tseng, M.L.; Islam, M.S.; Karia, N.; et al. A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.009.
14.
Vo, H.V.; Nguyen, N.P. Greening the Vietnamese supply chain: The influence of green logistics knowledge and intellectual capital. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15953.
15.
Rahman, S.; Ahsan, K.; Yang, L.; et al. An investigation into critical challenges for multinational third-party logistics providers operating in China. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 103, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.053.
16.
Eesley, C.; Lenox, M.J. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.536.
17.
Hörisch, J.; Freeman, R.E.; Schaltegger, S. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614535786.
18.
Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997.
19.
Pham, T.A.; Le-Anh, T.; Duong, M.C. A study of green logistics practice in Vietnam—the roles of intellectual capital and digital transformation. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2026, 38, 1466–1484. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-02-2025-0265.
20.
Tetteh, F.K.; Owusu Kwateng, K.; Mensah, J. Green logistics practices: A bibliometric and systematic methodological review and future research opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 476, 143735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143735.
21.
Murphy, P.R.; Poist, R.F.; Braunschweig, C.D. Green logistics: Comparative views of environmental progressives, moderates, and conservatives. J. Bus. Logist. 1996, 17, 191–211.
22.
Murphy, P.R.; Poist, R.F. Green logistics strategies: An analysis of usage patterns. Transp. J. 2000, 40, 5–16.
23.
Evangelista, P.; Santoro, L.; Thomas, A. Environmental sustainability in third-party logistics service providers: A systematic literature review from 2000–2016. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1627. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051627.
24.
Bask, A.; Rajahonka, M.; Laari, S.; et al. Environmental sustainability in shipper–LSP relationships. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2986–2998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.112.
25.
Evangelista, P.; Colicchia, C.; Creazza, A. Is environmental sustainability a strategic priority for logistics service providers? J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.096.
26.
Wu, H.J.; Dunn, S.C. Environmentally responsible logistics systems. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1995, 25, 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510083925.
27.
Afum, E.; Osei-Ahenkan, V.Y.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; et al. Green manufacturing practices and sustainable performance among Ghanaian manufacturing SMEs: The explanatory link of green supply chain integration. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 1457–1475. https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-01-2020-0019.
28.
Baah, C.; Jin, Z.; Tang, L. Organizational and regulatory stakeholder pressures friends or foes to green logistics practices and financial performance: Investigating corporate reputation as a missing link. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119125.
29.
Leung, T.C.H.; Guan, J.; Lau, Y.Y. Exploring environmental sustainability and green management practices: Evidence from logistics service providers. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2023, 14, 461–489. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-03-2022-0133.
30.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
31.
Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2009; pp. 671–689.
32.
Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution; SSOAR (open access): Klagenfurt, Austria, 2014.
33.
Moher, D.; Tsertsvadze, A.; Tricco, A.; et al. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2008, 2010, MR000023. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000023.pub3.
34.
Moher, D.; Tsertsvadze, A. Systematic reviews: When is an update an update? Lancet 2006, 367, 881–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68358-X.
35.
Liimatainen, H.; van Vliet, O.; Aplyn, D. The potential of electric trucks—An international commodity-level analysis. Appl. Energy 2019, 236, 804–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.017.
36.
Rai, D.; Sodagar, B.; Fieldson, R.; et al. Assessment of CO₂ emissions reduction in a distribution warehouse. Energy 2011, 36, 2271–2277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.006.
37.
Ries, J.M.; Grosse, E.H.; Fichtinger, J. Environmental impact of warehousing: A scenario analysis for the United States. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 6485–6499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1211342.
38.
Perotti, S.; Colicchia, C. Greening warehouses through energy efficiency and environmental impact reduction: A conceptual framework based on a systematic literature review. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2023, 34, 199–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-02-2022-0086.
39.
Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107730.
40.
Govindan, K.; Soleimani, H.; Kannan, D. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 240, 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.012.
41.
Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? J. Int. Manag. 2008, 14, 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.006.
42.
Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.030.
43.
Green, K.W.; Zelbst, P.J.; Meacham, J.; et al. Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17, 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211227126.
44.
Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: Drivers and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003.
45.
Laguir, I.; Stekelorum, R.; El Baz, J. Going green? Investigating the relationships between proactive environmental strategy, GSCM practices and performances of third-party logistics providers (TPLs). Prod. Plan. Control. 2021, 32, 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1784483.
46.
Hamdy, A. Supply chain capabilities matter: Digital transformation and green supply chain management in post-pandemic emerging economies: A case from Egypt. Oper. Manag. Res. 2024, 17, 963–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-024-00481-5.
47.
SET (Stock Exchange of Thailand). SETESG Index Methodology and Constituents. Available online: https://www.set.or.th/en/market/index/setesg/profile (accessed on 19 September 2026).
48.
Farfán Chilicaus, G.C.; Licapa-Redolfo, G.S.; Arbulú Ballesteros, M.A.; et al. Digital transformation and sustainability in post-pandemic supply chains: A global bibliometric analysis of technological evolution and research patterns (2020–2024). Sustainability 2025, 17, 3009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073009.
49.
Nikseresht, A.; Golmohammadi, D.; Zandieh, M. Sustainable green logistics and remanufacturing: A bibliometric analysis and future research directions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2024, 35, 755–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-03-2023-0085.
50.
Derse, O. Prioritizing solutions of green reverse logistics barriers with Fuzzy DEMATEL–FUCOM–SWARA methods. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 165, 112198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112198.
51.
Klymenko, O.; Lillebrygfjeld Halse, L. Sustainability practices during COVID-19: An institutional perspective. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 1315–1335. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-05-2021-0306.
52.
Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; et al. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
53.
Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez‐Torre, P.; Adenso‐Diaz, B. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001.
54.
Jazairy, A. Aligning the purchase of green logistics practices between shippers and logistics service providers. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 82, 102305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102305.
55.
Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
56.
Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015.
57.
Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
58.
Kallio, H.; Pietilä, A.M.; Johnson, M.; et al. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016, 72, 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031.
59.
Malterud, K.; Siersma, V.D.; Guassora, A.D. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by information power. Qual. Health Res. 2016, 26, 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
60.
Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How Many Interviews Are Enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05279903.
61.
Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.
62.
Denzin, N.K. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
63.
Dworkin, S.L. Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012, 41, 1319–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6.
64.
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
65.
King, N. Doing template analysis. In Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges; SAGE: London, UK, 2012; pp. 426–450. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435620.n24.
66.
Diamond, I.R.; Grant, R.C.; Feldman, B.M.; et al. Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014, 67, 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
67.
Barrios, M.; Guilera, G.; Nuño, L.; et al. Consensus in the Delphi method: What makes a decision change? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120484.
68.
McKenna, H.P. The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? J. Adv. Nurs. 1994, 19, 1221–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.x.
69.
Sumsion, T. The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 1998, 61, 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269806100403.
70.
Green, B.; Jones, M.; Hughes, D.; et al. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements. Health Soc. Care Community 1999, 7, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.x.
71.
Phan, K.T.; Hoang, V.H.; Nguyen, T.D.H. Antecedents and performance consequences of green logistics management practices: Evidence from Vietnamese logistics enterprises. Front. Future Transp. 2026, 7, 1842188. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffutr.2026.1842188.
72.
Cheng, Y.; Masukujjaman, M.; Sobhani, F.A.; et al. Green logistics, green human capital, and circular economy: The mediating role of sustainable production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021045.

Scilight Press

Author Information

Abstract

Keywords

References

About Scilight

Journals

Publishing Policies

Contact Us