Sustainable Logistics and Supply Chains pp 75-89

Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.) | Cite as

Gain Sharing in Horizontal Logistic Co-operation: A Case Study in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Sector

  • Christof Defryn
  • Christine Vanovermeire
  • Kenneth Sörensen

Abstract

More and more companies start to notice the potential of setting up a logistic co-operation. They realize however that this idea is also a source of new challenges and impediments. We will focus on the challenge of dividing the total coalition gain among all partners. In this chapter, we show that significant differences exist between allocation methods and we examine the impact of defining gain defining gain sharing on a short term (daily) or a long term (monthly) basis. Too often, the selection of an appropriate allocation mechanism is considered as an independent decision with fairness as the single criterion. The companies involved, however, should realize what the impact of a certain allocation method might be, when applied in the broader context of horizontal co-operation. A selection of well known allocation methods and concepts is introduced and applied to a real life case study of fresh produce traders, jointly organising their transportation from the auction to a joint transport platform.

References

  1. Bahrami K (2002) Improving supply chain productivity through horizontal cooperation: the case of consumer good manufacturers. In: Seuring S, Goldbach M (eds) Cost management in supply chains. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biermasz J (2012) Report on the legal framework for horizontal collaboration in the supply chain. Technical report, August 2012Google Scholar
  3. Cruijssen F, Salomon M (2004) Empirical study: order sharing between transportation companies may result in cost reductions between 5 to 15 percent. Discussion paper 80, Tilburg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Cruijssen F, Cools M, Dullaert W (2007) Horizontal cooperation in logistics: opportunities and impediments. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 46(3):22–39Google Scholar
  5. Cruijssen F, van Amelsfort L, Biermasz J, Louws M (2014) Method and tool support for the pilot projects. Technical report, June 2014Google Scholar
  6. Ergun O, Kuyzu G, Savelsbergh M (2007) Reducing truckload transportation costs through collaboration. Transp Sci 41(2):206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Communication from the Commission (2011) Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements. Off J Eur Union 1–72Google Scholar
  8. Frisk M, Göthe-Lundgren M, Jörnsten K, Rönnqvist M (2010) Cost allocation in collaborative forest transportation. Eur J Oper Res 205(2):448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hageback C, Segerstedt A (2004) The need for co-distribution in rural areas—a study of Pajala in Sweden. Int J Prod Econ 89(2):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Initiative and Capgemini (2008) Future supply chain 2016. Technical report, Global Commerce Initiative and CapgeminiGoogle Scholar
  11. Le Blanc HM, Cruijssen F, Fleuren HA, De Koster MBM (2006) Factory gate pricing: an analysis of the Dutch retail distribution. Eur J Oper Res 174(3):1950–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu M, Liesa F (2013) European technology platform on logistics input for the first calls of the horizon 2020 (draft). Technical report, WINN—European Platform Driving KnoWledge to INNovations in Freight Logistics, October 2013Google Scholar
  13. Palander T, Väätäinen J (2005) Impacts of interenterprise collaboration and backhauling on wood procurement in Finland. Scand J Forest Res 20(2):177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmeidler D (1969) The nucleolus of a characteristic function game. SIAM J Appl Math 17(6):1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. Ann Math Stud 28:307–317Google Scholar
  16. Tijs SH, Driessen TSH (1986) Game theory and cost allocation problems. Manage Sci 32:1015–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vanovermeire C, Vercruysse D, Sörensen K (2014) Analysis of different cost allocation methods in a collaborative transport setting. Int J Eng Manag Econ 4(2):132–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wiegmans B (2005) Evaluation of potentially successful barge innovations. Transp Rev 25(5):573–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Defryn
    • 1
  • Christine Vanovermeire
    • 1
  • Kenneth Sörensen
    • 1
  1. 1.ANT/OR Operations Research GroupUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations