Logistics plays a critical role in the success of any supply chain, including food supply chains. Climate change has already significantly impacted both human and natural systems.
Limiting global warming to less than 2°C by 2050 requires a substantial reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Karlsson et al., 2020). Logistics activities are recognized as major contributors to GHG emissions, accounting for 13% of global emissions (Waltho et al., 2019).
In the case of GHG emissions from Reusable Transport Packaging (RPCs), according to a study conducted by the UNESCO Chair on Life Cycle and Climate Change (Bala and Fullana, 2017), 38.1% of the impact is related to the transport phase. This phase includes transport from the box to the packer, transport from the packaging center to the distribution center, delivery and return from the distribution center to the store, shipment and return to the washing center, and transport to the end-of-life. Among these phases, transportation from the packinghouse to the distribution center (14.5%), shipping and return to the distribution center (11.7%), and shipping and return to the wash center (11.1%) have the highest impact (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Distribution of GHG emissions in the different transport phases in the life cycle of the RPCs (%)
In this context, it is essential to consider green logistics, which consists of the systematic measurement, analysis and mitigation of the environmental impacts of logistics activities. Efforts to mitigate these impacts include reducing the use of non-renewable energy sources and associated emissions, such as particulate matter and greenhouse gases.
Some technological solutions include transitioning fleets from diesel vehicles to alternative propulsion systems and improving packaging by replacing cardboard boxes with reusable containers.
In addition, optimizing the planning and execution of goods movement plays a crucial role (Blanco and Sheffi, 2017). McKinnon et al. (2010) discuss green logistics in terms of using multimodal freight transportation, using rail for long distances and road for shorter distances.
Technological advances in trucks and vans include redesigning vehicles to maximize cargo capacity, especially if size and weight restrictions were relaxed. Other measures involve improving engines and exhaust systems, such as turbochargers to recover heat from exhaust gases, and integrating hybrid technology.
ARECO’s member companies are working in this direction, constantly seeking solutions to optimize logistics in order to reduce emissions, minimize environmental impact and move towards sustainability.
By Sahar Azarkamand, researcher of the ARECO Fellowship of the UNESCO Chair of Life Cycle of ESCI-UPF.
References:
BALA, A., and FULLANA, P., 2017, Análisis comparado de diferentes opcines de distribución de frutas y verduras en españa basado en el ACV, Cátedra UNESCO de Ciclo de Vida y Cambio Climático, ECSI-UPF.https://areco.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Memoria_final_Estudio_ACV_ARECO.pdf
Blanco, E. E., & Sheffi, Y. (2017). Green logistics. In Sustainable supply chains. (pp. 148–187). Springer.
Karlsson, I., Rootzén, J., & Johnsson, F. (2020). Reaching net-zero carbon emissions in construction supply chains – Analysis of a Swedish road construction project. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120, 109651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109651
Lippert QM, Comparison of the ventilation of different IFCO RPCs and its effect on freshness and saleability of different fruits and vegetables. Presented by Dr. Felix Lippert. https://www.ifco.com/study-ifco-rpcs-extend-shelf-life-of-fresh-produce-by-up-to-4-days/
McKinnon, A., Cullinane, S., Browne, M., & Whiteing, A. (2010). Green Logistics. Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics. Kogan
Page Limited.
Waltho, C., Elhedhli, S., & Gzara, F. (2019). Green supply chain network design: A review focused on policy adoption and emission quantification. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.12.003
