Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Converting knowledge into sustainability performance of freight villages

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Logistics Research

Abstract

Along with the globalization of industry and trade, the importance of freight villages (FVs) greatly grows due to the substantial benefits they can generate, such as supply chain management efficiency, intensive provision of logistics services, modal shift, regional economic growth and employment, lower energy consumption, and environmental consequences. Hence, the sustainability performance tends to become a strategic goal that FVs’ operators and decision makers (e.g., transport agents, warehouse providers and freight forwarders, logistics operators, and FV management company) endeavor to achieve. However, due to the lack of a systematic approach toward FVs sustainable development, existing literature has not yet clearly defined what strategic direction should be followed to pursue such a goal. This article proposes a knowledge-related approach to promote sustainability performance of FVs. This article highlights sustainability as a strategic goal of FVs rooting in the evidences from academia and practical cases. In addition, it explains the principle of ensuring sustainability by FVs with twofold meanings. Meanwhile, it summarizes the sustainability dimensions in the context of FVs. After introducing the significances of knowledge assets and knowledge management (KM) approach to the sustainability drawing on the implications from sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC), it analyses KM characteristics in logistics and FVs area. Then, how the general KM process (knowledge acquisition, sharing, and application) act on FVs sustainable development is clarified. In which, the sustainability-related stakeholders of FVs are identified. Finally, it proposes a roadmap of organizing KM for sustainability-oriented FVs considering the distinct features of KM in FVs context. To support the success of this roadmap, this article recognizes two key elements including human ability and stakeholders’ involvement. Furthermore, a checklist for building FVs sustainability capability based on SBSC is provided, which is hopefully being a referring guidance for FVs’ operators and decision makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Higgins CD, Ferguson MR (2011) An exploration of the freight village concept and its applicability to Ontario. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beresford A, Pettit S, Xu Q, Williams S (2012) A study of dry port development in China. Marit Econ Logist 14:73–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McCalla R, Slack B, Comtois C (2001) Intermodal freight terminals: locality and industrial linkages. Can Geogr 45(3):404–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weisbrod RE, Swier E, Muller G, Rugg FM, Murphy MK (2002) Global freight villages: a solution to the urban freight dilemma. In: The TRB annual meeting, Washington, DC

  5. Bentzen K, Hoffmann T, Bentzen L (2003) Best practice handbook for logistics centers in the Baltic Sea region, NeLoc. FDT-Association of Danish Transport Centres, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  6. ESCAP (2005) Review of developments in transport in Asia and the Pacific. Economic and social commission for Asia and the Pacific. United Nations, NY

  7. FV-2000—Quality of Freight Villages Structure and Operations (2000). The European Commission Under The Transport RTD Programme

  8. Desouza KC (2003) Strategic contributions of game rooms to knowledge management: some prelimenary insights. Inf Manag 41(1):63–74

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Logistics Centers Directions for Use (2004) Europlatforms EEIG. The European Association of freight villages

  10. Terminology on combined transport (2001) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE/ECMT/EC). United Nations, New York and Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tsamboulas DA, Kapros S (2003) Freight village evaluation under uncertainty with public and private financing. Transp Policy 10:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Norbert W (2008) The German logistic experience with freight villages—is it appropriate for Ukraine? LogisticsNet, Kiev, Berlin/Brandenburg, Ukraine. http://freight-village.com/wpcontent/uploads/GermanExperienceFreightVillages.pdf

  13. Knieriem S, Nobel T (2011) 25 Jahre Güterverkehrszentrum Bremen Vom Pilotprojekt zur Erfolgsgeschichte. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boulton EG (2008) Sustainable directions: the freight village concept. Aust Freight Logist 12:36–39

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan A, Bahre E, Gollnik J, Hage R, Heiland M (2006) Freight villages in Brandenburg and Berlin-Traffic and logistical starting point of the railway connection to the Baltic States, potentials and requirements. Study within the framework of the Interreg III B—Project RAIL BALTICA. Company for the Development of Infrstructure and Related Projects Ltd, Potsdam

  16. Vleugel J (2004) Modelling goods city distribution in the Netherlands. Trasporti Europei 28:20–33

    Google Scholar 

  17. OECD (2003) Delivering the goods, 21st century challenges to Urban goods transport. Paris

  18. Visser J, van Binsbergen A, Nemoto T (July 1999) Urban freight transport policy and planning. Paper presented at the 1st international symposium on city logistics. Cairns, Australia

  19. Bentzen K, Hoffmann T, Bentzen L (2003) Best practice handbook for logistics centers in the Baltic Sea Region. FDT-Association of Danish Transport Centres, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wisetjindawat W (2010) Review of good practices in urban freight transportation. Presentation for EGM meeting in ESCAP, Bangkok, 29–30 March 2010

  21. Bansal P (2005) Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg Manag J 26(3):197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nijkamp P, Perrels A (1994) Sustainable cities in Europe: a comparative analysis of urban energy—environmental policies. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sullivan A, Sheffrin SM (2003) Economics: principles in action. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  24. IPCC (2007) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge

  25. Lammgård C (2007) Environmental perspectives on marketing of freight transports—the intermodal road. Rail Case. Göteborg University, BAS Förlag, Göteborg

  26. White Paper—European transport policy for 2010 time to decide. (2001) European Commission. http://nia1.me/nb

  27. DHL (2010) Delivering tomorrow: towards sustainable logistics how business innovation and green demand drive a carbon-efficient industry. Bonn

  28. Kyriazopoulos E, Artavani M-A (2006) The role of freight villages to the development of the Balkan Region. The case of promachon freight village (Greek Bulgarian Borders). ERSA conference papers. European Regional Science Association

  29. Leal E (2010) Logistics platforms as a pivotal element in competitiveness and sustainability. Fal Bull 302(10):1–9

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Alavi M, Leidner D (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25(1):107–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Knowledge Asset (2008) http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Knowledge_Asset

  33. Creech H, Willard T (2001) Strategic intentions: managing knowledge networks for sustainable development. International Institute for Sustainable Development

  34. Gminder CU, Bieker T (2002) Managing corporate social responsibility by using the“sustainability-balanced scorecard”. In: 10th international conference of the greening of industry network, Göteborg, Sweden, 23–26 June 2002

  35. Gminder CU, Bieker T (2002) Managing corporate social responsibility by using the “sustainability-balanced scorecard”. Paper presented at the the 10th international conference of the greening of industry network, Göteborg, Sweden

  36. Zingales F, Hockerts K (2002) Balanced scorecard & sustainability: examples form literature and practice. In: Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds) Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien, Wiesbaden, Gabler, pp 151–166

    Google Scholar 

  37. Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) Business strategy and the environment bus. Strat Env 11:269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dias-Sardinha I, Reijnders L, Antunes P (2002) From environmental performance evaluation to eco-efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards. Environ Qual Manag 12(2):51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Esper TL, Fugate BS, Davis-Sramek B (2007) Logistics learning capability: sustaining the competitive advantage gained through logistics leverage. J Bus Logist 28(2):57–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Elbert R, Haasis H-D, Schönberger R, Landwehr T (2009) Adapting dynamic logistics processes and networks: advantages through regional logistics clusters. In: Scholz-Reiter B, Kreowski H-J, Thoben K-D (eds) Dynamics in logistics: second international conference, Springer, Bremen, August 2009

  41. Veenstra A, Zuidwijk R, Asperen EV (2012) The extended gate concept for container terminals: expanding the notion of dry ports. Marit Econ Logist 14:14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maqsood T, Finegan AD, Walker DHT (2003) Extending knowledge management across the supply chains in the construction industry: knowledge sharing in construction supply chains. Paper presented at the second international conference on construction in the 21st century (CITC-II), Hong Kong

  43. Lee E, Song D (2010) Knowledge management for maritime logistics value: disussing conceptual issues. Marit Policy Manag 37(6):563–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. About DGG. http://www.gvz-org.de/index.php?id=48&no_cache=1&L=1

  45. Dewitt W, Clinger J (2007) A1B05: committee on intermodal freight transport. Chairman: Gerhardt Muller, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Intermodal Freight Transportation

  46. Wadhwa S, Madaan J (2007) Conceptual framework for knowledge management in reverse enterprise system. J Knowl Manag Pract 8(2):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dalkir K (2005) Knowledge management in theory and practice. Elsevier Inc. Jordan Hill, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  48. Massa S, Testa S (2009) A knowledge management approach to organizational competitive advantage: evidence from the food sector. Eur Manag J 27(2):129–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Huber G (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature. Organ Sci 2(2):88–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rotheroe N, Keenlyside K, Coates L (2003) Local agenda 21: articulating the meaning of sustainable development at the level of the individual enterprise. J Clean Prod 11:537–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kapros S, Panou K, Tsamboulas DA (2005) Multicriteria approach to the evaluation of intermodal freight villages. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1906:56–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Freight Transport and Logistics Masterplan (2008) Federal ministry of transport, building and urban affairs

  54. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91(8):1766–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):150–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. GVZ Bremen is a European front-runner. http://www.via-bremen.com/64_2

  57. Freight Transport and Logistics Action Plan—Logistics Initiative for Germany (2010) federal ministry of transport, building and urban development

  58. Khalozadeh Kazemi F, Abbas S, Movahedi M, Jandaghi G (2011) Reengineering university-industry interactions: knowledge-based technology transfer model. Eur J Econ Financ Adm Sci 40:47–58

    Google Scholar 

  59. Etzkowitz H (1997) The entrepreneurial university and the emergence of democratic corporatism. In: Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (eds) Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Cassell, London, pp 141–152

    Google Scholar 

  60. King WR (2009) Knowledge management and organizational learning. Ann Inf Syst 4:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mendes P, Santos AC, Perna F, Teixeira MR (2012) The balanced scorecard as an integrated model applied to the Portuguese public service: a case study in the waste sector. J Clean Prod 24:20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nestler S (July 2012) Management and operating of freight village—the example Germany. Paper presented at the Green Logistics Park and Freight Village, 3rd meeting of TFG, Qinghuangdao, Hebei, China

  63. Nobel T, Nestler S, Münch S, Koch H (2010) Ranking der europäischen GVZ-Standorte: Benchmarking der europäischen Erfahrungen wvb Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin

  64. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) The strategy-focused organization: how balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  65. Timm Gudehus HK (2009) Comprehensive logistics. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. Social Report (2005). Interporto Bologna SpA Bologna

  67. ISL (2007) The report was written by Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) as part of the SUTRANET project

  68. Allison L, de Cerreño C, Shin H-S, Strauss-Wieder A, Theofanis S (2008) Feasibility of freight villages in the NYMTC region: task 1—inventory of planning resources. Rutgers Centre for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation, Freight and Maritime Program Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  69. Thabrew L, Wiek A, Ries R (2009) Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J Clean Prod 17:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Gao S, Zhang J (2001) A comparative study of stakeholder engagement approaches in social auditing. In: Andriof J, McIntosh M (eds) Perspectives on corporate citizenship. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp 239–255

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Studies and Economics, International Graduate School for Dynamics in Logistics, Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, University of Bremen, Universitätsallee 11 -13, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Jiani Wu & Hans-Dietrich Haasis

Authors
  1. Jiani Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans-Dietrich Haasis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiani Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, J., Haasis, HD. Converting knowledge into sustainability performance of freight villages. Logist. Res. 6, 63–88 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-013-0098-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-013-0098-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation