Journal Pre-proof

Green logistics performance and sustainability reporting practices of the logistics

sector: The moderating effect of corporate governance

Abdullah S. Karaman, Merve Kilic, Ali Uyar

PII: S0959-6526(20)30765-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120718
Reference: JCLP 120718

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 15 September 2019

Revised Date: 19 February 2020
Accepted Date: 21 February 2020

Please cite this article as: Karaman AS, Kilic M, Uyar A, Green logistics performance and sustainability
reporting practices of the logistics sector: The moderating effect of corporate governance, Journal of
Cleaner Production (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120718.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

CRediT author statement

Abdullah S. Karaman: Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing - Original Draft,

Writing - Review & Editing

Merve Kilic: Investigation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing

Ali Uyar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review &
Editing, Supervision
Green logistics performance and sustainability reporting practices of the
logistics sector: the moderating effect of corporate governance

1. Co-author and corresponding author:

Abdullah S. Karaman

College of Engineering and Technology

American University of the Middle East, Kuwait

Phone: +965 2225 1400 Ext.: 2199

Email: abdullahkaraman@yahoo.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5768-7382

2. Co-author:

Merve Kilic

Independent Researcher

Samsun/Turkey

Email: merve.kilic@outlook.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8480-2251

3. Co-author:

Ali Uyar

La Rochelle Business School, Excelia Group, La Rochelle, France

Email: aliuyar@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4660-1798
Biographies
Abdullah S. Karaman is currently an assistant professor of Industrial Engineering at the
American University of the Middle East, Kuwait. He received his Ph.D. degree in Industrial and
Systems Engineering from Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA. His research and teaching
activities have been in the areas of supply chain management, business analytics, simulation,
sustainability reporting, and multi-criteria decision-making. His research has been supported by
the Department of Homeland Security, USA. His works have been published in the European
Journal of Operational Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Transport Policy, Journal of Air Transport Management,
among others.

Merve Kılıç is an independent scholar in the field of accounting. She received her Ph.D. in
Management. Her research interests are Corporate Social Reporting, Sustainability Reporting,
Integrated Reporting, and Corporate Governance. Her articles have been published in several
prominent journals including International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and
Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Corporate Governance, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Meditari Accountancy Research, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, and Australian Accounting Review.

Ali Uyar is currently an Associate Professor of Accounting at La Rochelle Business School,

France. He got his Ph.D. in Accounting from one of the prominent state universities of Turkey,
Marmara University. His research interests are corporate governance, corporate reporting, and
management accounting. His works have been published in prominent journals including the
Journal of Cleaner Production, Expert Systems with Applications, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Australian Accounting Review, Advances in Accounting, Managerial Auditing Journal, and
Research in Accounting Regulation.
 GRI SDD LPI, Worldbank WEF

Combinig Raw Data

Theoretical Corporate Governance

Framework
Data Preprocessing
Cleaning
Transforming

Green Logistics
GRI Reporting
Performance
Logistic and Poisson
Empirical
Regression,
Analysis
Moderation Analysis

Results, Discussion
and Conclusion
Green logistics performance and sustainability reporting practices of the

logistics sector: the moderating effect of corporate governance

Abstract

Drawing on the signaling theory, this study investigates the association between green

logistics performance and sustainability reporting. In addition to this direct link, whether

corporate governance moderates this relation or not is tested. The analysis of data

collected for 117 countries covers the period from 2007 to 2016. Primarily, the study

provides robust evidence that green logistics performance has a significant and positive

association with the existence and the number of sustainability reports within the

logistics sector. This association is validated for the composite Logistics Performance

Index (LPI) as well as all six individual logistics performance indicators. Furthermore,

moderation analysis indicated that in weak corporate governance environments

characterized by ineffective boards of directors, the logistics performance and

sustainability reporting link is stronger. This means that sustainability reporting fills the

gap arising from poor corporate governance. This study extends existing green supply

chain management literature by testing, for the first time, the association between green

logistics practices and sustainability reporting. It is hoped that it helps to align the

logistics sector with more eco-friendly practices and alleviate growing concerns of

environmental degradation it is assumed to cause. In the end, the study provides

implications for sector representatives, supply-chain managers, and developing countries

in particular. It suggests guidelines about how to improve each dimension of six LPI to

contribute to the sustainable development of the sector. Moreover, as one of the

dimensions of this study is sustainability reporting, communication of sustainable supply

chain practices to customers and other stakeholders may help supply chain managers

augment the competitive posture of companies in the market. The sector can benefit from

1
the Global Reporting Initiative’s individual metrics including materials usage, energy

efficiency, recycling, and waste management metrics in developing environmentally

friendly supply chains. The findings are particularly relevant for developing countries

which are quite low scorers in terms of LPI than developed countries. Engaging in green

logistics practices and developing policies accordingly may help them attenuate growing

international environmental concerns and overcome trade barriers in international trade.

The highlighted dimensions of green logistics performance may foster the circular

economy while promoting the overall economic development of the countries.

Keywords: Global Reporting Initiative, Logistics Performance Index, Green logistics,

Sustainability report

1. Introduction

The logistics sector impacts the economic growth of countries considerably, which

involves a set of activities, such as border clearance, freight transportation, and

warehousing (Mariano et al., 2017). This sector is under pressure for rising

environmental (i.e., atmospheric, land, and water) pollution as logistical activities depend

heavily on non-renewable natural resources and fossil fuels (He et al., 2017; Rashidi and

Cullinane, 2019). Specifically, freight transport of heavy-duty vehicles for transporting

goods has a detrimental effect on the environment (Mariano et al., 2017; Zaman and

Shamsuddin, 2017; Liu et al., 2018). It is estimated that 8 percent of the global energy-

related carbon emissions are originated from freight transport (Ribeiro et al., 2007).

The concept of green logistics 1 emerged which is a vital and integral part of the firms’

efforts to act environmentally responsibly (Wu and Dunn, 1995). As discussed in the next

section, there have been some efforts to measure green logistics practices at the firm

level through surveys, interviews, or other methodologies. However, there is no

1
In previous literature, the terms environmental logistics (González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006)
and environmentally responsible logistics (Wu and Dunn, 1995) were used interchangeably with green
logistics. In the literature review section, more detailed discussion is provided on green logistics.

2
methodology for measuring this tendency at the macro-level other than the World Bank’s

Logistics Performance Index (LPI) which was used as an indicator of green logistics

performance by several authors in recent studies (Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017;

Aldakhil et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019a; Khan et al., 2019b). Thus, the

authors adopted the LPI as a green logistics performance indicator throughout this study

following those recent studies. The LPI is an interactive benchmarking tool which

provides several advantages, such as comparing logistics performance among nations

(Aldakhil et al., 2018), determining challenges and opportunities regarding trade logistics

(Rezaei et al., 2018), achieving sustainability targets (Aldakhil et al., 2018), suggesting a

comparative overview about logistics structures of countries (Guner and Coskun, 2012),

and offering valuable insights for firms which operate or plan to operate in these nations

(Guner and Coskun, 2012).

Due to the growing concerns about environmental issues caused by the logistics

sector, reporting the results of sustainability initiatives has become an important

mechanism to appease stakeholders’ worries. In the last 20 years, the logistics sector

along with other environmentally sensitive industries have engaged in sustainability

reporting through unstructured and structured formats, such as the proposed framework

of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The aim of the GRI framework is to provide

detailed guidance on the disclosure of specific indicators of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) performance (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2020). It is a

commonly used and trustworthy framework for sustainability reporting around the world

(Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2015; Sethi et al., 2017). Before the GRI framework was

initiated, the so-called environmental and corporate social responsibility report formats

utilized by organizations were diverse and thus lacked comparability (Kuzey and Uyar,

2017). It brought uniformity both in formats and contents by prescribing individual

3
disclosure items, hence it enhanced the comparability of sustainability reports over the

years and among the organizations. Besides, it published ten sector supplements

compatible with overall GRI guidelines which help sustainability reporters customize the

content of the reports for a specific sector (GRI, 2015). The adoption of the GRI

guidelines for sustainability reporting is voluntary (Montabon et al., 2007). The voluntary

nature of GRI adoption provides an opportunity to investigate whether GRI adoption

differs among logistics companies considering green logistics performance across

countries.

According to signaling theory, companies reduce information asymmetry with

stakeholders by disclosing voluntary information (Spence, 1974; Connelly et al., 2011)

and use CSR reports to send a signal about their CSR performance to stakeholders

(Mahoney et al., 2013). Based on signaling theory, this study explores whether logistics

companies with greater green performance are more likely to publish sustainability

reports than poor performers. Additionally, drawing on the agency theory (Jensen and

Meckling, 1976), this study examines the moderating effect of the quality of country-level

corporate governance environment 2 on the link between green logistics performance and

GRI-based 3 sustainability reporting. Thus, the objectives of the present paper are

threefold. First, it examines the extent of GRI-based sustainability reporting in the

logistics industry throughout the period between 2007 and 2016. Second, the paper

explores the link between the LPI (i.e., green logistics performance) and the GRI-based

sustainability reporting within the logistics context. Third, the paper examines whether

and how a country’s corporate governance environment moderates the link between the

LPI and GRI-based sustainability reporting.

2
The quality of country-level corporate governance environment indicates the efficacy of corporate
boards in a certain county, which is published by the World Economic Forum through the Global
Competitiveness Report on an annual basis (World Economic Forum, 2018).
3
The sustainability report that is prepared following the GRI framework.

4
 The findings of this study show that the LPI is significantly and positively associated

with the existence and the number of GRI-based sustainability reports within the logistics

sector. This positive association is valid for the composite LPI as well as its’ all six

dimensions. Further, this study presents that in weak corporate governance environments

the link between the LPI and sustainability reporting becomes stronger. This finding

proves the substitution effect between corporate governance and sustainability reporting,

indicating that enhanced transparency and accountability through sustainability reporting

serves as a substitute for weak corporate governance mechanisms.

This study contributes to the growing literature on green logistics in several ways.

First, while prior CSR research has mostly focused on the entire supply chain (Bappy et

al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2019; Suhi et al., 2019)4, very few papers have examined CSR-

related issues particularly focusing on the logistics sector. Second, prior CSR research

has mainly analyzed a specific logistics process including sustainable warehousing

(Ciliberti et al., 2008), sustainable packaging (Battini et al., 2016), sustainable

purchasing (Schulze et al., 2019), sustainable transportation (Janelle and Gillespie,

2004), and reverse logistics (Hazen et al., 2012a; Nikolaou et al., 2013) and/or

concentrated on a single country, such as Austria (Oberhofer and Dieplinger, 2014),

China (He et al., 2017), Germany (Tacken et al., 2014), Italy (Colicchia et al., 2013), and

Nigeria (Orji et al., 2019). Although these studies provide useful insights, their findings

may not be generalizable to whole logistics processes and to all countries around the

world. Therefore, this study removes these shortcomings by incorporating six logistics

performance indicators into the study and providing cross-country evidence on the LPI.

Third, despite the increasing focus on the notion of green logistics and growing concerns

of the integration of green practices with logistics operations (Wu and Dunn, 1995;

4
See the papers of Shaw et al. (2010) and Ahi and Searcy (2015) for an extensive literature review on
environmentally sustainable supply chain management.

5
Abbasi and Nilsson, 2016; Pourhejazy et al., 2019), limited research has examined

sustainability reporting in the global logistics sector (Piecyk and Björklund, 2015;

Massaroni et al., 2016). Fourth, while many prior studies have particularly focused on the

carbon emissions-related disclosures (i.e., carbon reporting) in the logistics sector

(Tacken et al., 2014; Herold and Lee, 2017; Herold, 2018), the sustainability reporting

with a specific reference to the GRI framework has been largely neglected by the

logistics research. Therefore, this paper provides new insights into logistics research by

examining the GRI-based sustainability reporting in an international context using a wide

range of logistics companies. Further, although a number of prior studies have analyzed

the association between the LPI and economic (Martí et al., 2014; Zaman and

Shamsuddin, 2017; Aldakhil et al., 2018), social (Aldakhil et al., 2018), and

environmental (He et al., 2017; Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017; Khan et al., 2018; Liu et

al., 2018) sustainability at the country level, to date, no prior study has investigated its

association with sustainability reporting. Thus, this study is the first attempt to

investigate the link between the LPI and the extent and number of GRI-based

sustainability reports in the global logistics sector from a macro perspective. Moreover,

this study is unique in that it examines whether corporate governance context (i.e.,

corporate board efficacy) influences the link between the LPI and GRI-based

sustainability reporting.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the second section, the relevant

literature is reviewed, and then in the third section, the theoretical background and

hypotheses are presented. In the fourth section, the research methodology is outlined, and

then the findings are documented in the fifth section. In the sixth and seventh sections,

the results are discussed, and conclusions are drawn.

2. Literature review

6
 Given the global increase in the production and international movement of goods

across countries, environmental issues have become major concerns for logistics

companies (Rashidi and Cullinane, 2019). Green logistics has emerged as a concept that

includes a set of green activities minimizing the total environmental impact of logistics

companies (Wu and Dunn, 1995) and providing environmental protection and

sustainability (Khan et al., 2018). As researchers, policy-makers, companies, and other

stakeholders have paid more attention to green and environmentally sustainable logistics,

research on green logistics has progressively increased over the past two decades (Winter

and Knemeyer, 2013; Marchet et al., 2014).

Along with increasing attention to green logistics, a strand of research examines green

logistics-related issues by conducting surveys or interviews with different stakeholder

groups, such as managers of logistics companies (Murphy and Poist, 2002; Hung Lau,

2011), logistics service providers (Colicchia et al., 2013), and job seekers (Sohn et al.,

2015). A further strand of research examines environmental issues associated with

reverse logistics systems (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Hazen et al., 2012a;

Nikolaou et al., 2013).

A number of papers explore the association between environmental sustainability and

green logistics performance. For instance, Khan et al. (2018) examine the relation

between green logistics performance and environmental sustainability, energy demand,

and economic growth, using an international sample. Likewise, Liu et al. (2018) analyze

the link between logistics performance and environmental degradation in the Asian

region. Further, Rashidi and Cullinane (2019) evaluate sustainability logistics

performance with a self-developed index within a sample of Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations and compare this measure with the LPI

developed by the World Bank.

7
 To date, surprisingly few scholars have investigated sustainability reporting in the

logistics sector. Table 1 presents the existing literature that examines sustainability

reporting-related issues within the logistics sector. It is seen that most prior studies have

used a small sample size (Tacken et al., 2014; Massaroni et al., 2016; Herold and Lee,

2017; Lambrechts et al., 2019) and/or focused on a single country (Colicchia et al., 2013;

Tacken et al., 2014) or region (Massaroni et al., 2016), that hinders the generalizability of

their findings. Further, prior studies have been restricted to a limited time span (Colicchia

et al., 2013; Tacken et al., 2014; Piecyk and Björklund, 2015; Massaroni et al., 2016).

Moreover, most empirical studies in logistics research have particularly concentrated on

a sub-topic of sustainability reporting, namely carbon reporting (Herold and Lee, 2017;

Herold, 2018). The current study addresses these limitations by examining GRI-based

sustainability reporting in the global logistics context using a wider sample of companies.

This study is an initial attempt to examine the association between green logistics

performance (i.e., the LPI) and the implementation and number of GRI-based

sustainability reports. It aims to determine whether companies with greater green

logistics performance are more likely to publish their good performance through

sustainability reporting.

Table 1
Overview of the prior literature on sustainability reporting in the logistics sector.
No Author(s) Sample Time span Methodology Nature of contribution
1 Colicchia 10 logistics and 2010 Content This study provides empirical
et al. freight analysis of evidence on the implementation
(2013) transportation environmental of environmental initiatives in
companies in reports and in- the contract logistics sector.
Italy depth
interviews
2 Tacken et 10 logistics The latest In-depth This study examines the extent
al. (2014) service published interviews and of the implementation of
providers in CSR and content transport-related carbon
Germany environmental analysis of emissions measurement and
reports CSR and reduction initiatives in the
environmental logistics sector.
reports
3 Piecyk and 350 top The CSR Content This study examines the content
Björklund logistics reports analysis of of CSR reports published by

8
 (2015) providers published in CSR reports logistics service providers and
2010, 2011, and corporate analyzes factors impacting the
and 2012 web sites scope of CSR reports and the
adoption level of CSR-related
Corporate
initiatives.
web sites in
2013
4 Massaroni 9 European The latest Content This study provides empirical
et al. logistics published analysis of evidence on the level of
(2016) service GRI-based GRI-based implementation of
providers sustainability sustainability environmental sustainability
reports reports initiatives.
5 Herold and 3 global 2010-2015 Content This study provides empirical
Lee (2017) logistics analysis of the evidence on carbon reporting in
companies (i.e., Carbon the global logistics industry and
DHL, FDX, Disclosure analyzes drivers of carbon
and UPS) Project (CDP) disclosures.
reports
6 Herold 39 leading 2010-2015 Content This study proposes an
(2018) global logistics analysis of integrative framework
companies CDP reports comprising internal and external
(1,950 firm- and analysis of carbon management practices
year data gathered and examines whether and how
observations) from carbon management practices
Bloomberg and carbon disclosure strategies
ESG database have changed over time.
7 Lambrechts 52 leading 2014-2016 Content This study provides empirical
et al. global logistics analysis of evidence on the reporting of
(2019) companies GRI-based environmental, social, and
sustainability economic indicators.
reports

3. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

3.1. Green logistics performance

The logistics performance encompasses the activities for distributing finished products

to the proper place, at the desired time, and in optimal quantities (Markley and Davis,

2007). Logistics operations mainly depend upon transportation movement (Khan et al.,

2018), which is largely responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the

atmosphere (Dekker et al., 2012; Mariano et al., 2017; Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017).

As transportation is a major contributor to air pollution, achieving economies of scale in

transportation will contribute to environment-friendly logistics (Mitra and Datta, 2014).

For instance, the optimization of vehicle routing and scheduling or an increase in vehicle

utilization reduces the environmental impact of logistics companies as a result of

9
reducing their resource (i.e., energy and fuel) consumption and carbon emissions (Tacken

et al., 2014; He et al., 2017). A short process for customs clearance also contributes

considerably to environmental quality (Khan et al., 2018) because a reduction in wait

time provides fuel savings and lower emissions (Wong et al., 2018). In addition, the

provision of efficient trade and transport infrastructure plays a considerable role in

supporting companies in their efforts to contribute to sustainable development (Yu et al.,

2016). In this sense, logistics connectivity and reasonable and scientific selection of

logistics centers will help companies to achieve their environmental targets (i.e., reducing

GHG emissions and energy consumption) by providing shorter lead times, less

congestion, and greater movement of goods (Yu et al., 2016; He et al., 2017).

In the literature, Zaman and Shamsuddin (2017), Aldakhil et al. (2018), Khan et al.

(2018), Khan et al. (2019a), and Khan et al. (2019b) use the LPI published by the World

Bank as a proxy for green logistics performance. This index calculates logistics

performance by using the following indicators: the efficiency of customs and border

clearance, the quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure, the competence and

quality of the logistics service, the ease of arranging competitively priced shipments, the

ability to track and trace consignments, and the frequency with which shipments reach

the consignee on schedule (Arvis et al., 2018). Accordingly, previous empirical evidence

shows that logistics performance indicators, including the customs clearance process

(Khan et al., 2018), the quality of transport-related infrastructure (Zaman and

Shamsuddin, 2017; Khan et al., 2018), competitively priced shipments (Liu et al., 2018),

the quality of the logistics service (Aldakhil et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2018), consignment

tracking, and on-time consignment (Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017) have a considerable

influence on environment (i.e., GHG emissions, carbon emissions, and energy

consumption). Therefore, logistics performance plays a significant role in the

10
environmental sustainability of countries (Liu et al., 2018), and the LPI reflects the

environmental performance of the logistics industry (Mariano et al., 2017; Zaman and

Shamsuddin, 2017; Liu et al., 2018). Based on the studies mentioned, the authors use the

LPI as a macro-indicator to measure green logistics performance at the national level.

3.2. Green logistics performance and sustainability reporting

According to signaling theory, in cases of information asymmetry, better-informed

parties (i.e., firms) convey information about their practices to less informed parties (i.e.,

stakeholders; Spence, 1974, 2002). In this context, sustainability-related disclosures can

reduce informational asymmetry between the company and its stakeholders (Alon and

Vidovic, 2015; Chiu and Wang, 2015; Ching and Gerab, 2017), help the firm show its

sustainability commitment (Ching and Gerab, 2017), and gain the support of stakeholders

(Chiu and Wang, 2015).

Signaling theory argues that companies communicate favorable information to convey

positive organizational attributes (Connelly et al., 2011). Following this approach, it

could be argued that firms with a better social and environmental performance tend to

provide more information about their activities than poor performers (Thorne et al., 2014;

Alon and Vidovic, 2015). In line with these theoretical discussions, it is expected that

logistics companies with higher green logistics performance are likely to publish GRI-

based sustainability reports to convey information about the firms’ environmental

performance. Thus, the authors propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Higher green logistics performance is more likely to be associated with

sustainability reporting using the GRI guidelines.

3.3. Moderation of corporate governance (boards of directors)

The separation between ownership and control results in a conflict of interest between

management and shareholders due to information asymmetry (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

11
Agency theory asserts that in the presence of information asymmetries, managers choose a set

of decisions that maximizes their own benefits (Rediker and Seth, 1995). Governance and

voluntary disclosure (i.e., CSR reporting, environmental reporting, and sustainability

reporting) are two main control mechanisms used to set boundaries on managerial discretion

(Rediker and Seth, 1995), to protect investors (Allegrini and Greco, 2013), to mitigate agency

conflicts (Cerbioni and Parbonetti, 2007; Allegrini and Greco, 2013), to reduce agency costs

(Cerbioni and Parbonetti, 2007), and to diminish information asymmetry (Rediker and Seth,

1995; Allegrini and Greco, 2013). Agency theory–related empirical research indicates support

for the hypotheses of complementary and substitution relationships between governance and

corporate voluntary reporting practices (Allegrini and Greco, 2013).

According to the hypothesis of a complementary relationship, a single mechanism might

be insufficient to provide accountability for stakeholders (Rediker and Seth, 1995), and thus,

various mechanisms are used together to mitigate agency conflicts and reduce information

asymmetries. A governance environment with strong monitoring mechanisms reduces the

possibility that managers will withhold information for their own benefit (Cerbioni and

Parbonetti, 2007). Therefore, in such a strong monitoring environment, managers are likely to

disclose voluntary information which leads to a more comprehensive and higher quality of

corporate reports (Cerbioni and Parbonetti, 2007). Regarding the empirical evidence, Cormier

et al. (2010) and Allegrini and Greco (2013) find that governance strength complements

voluntary disclosure.

Drawing on the hypothesis of a complementary relationship, it is expected that logistics

companies in a high corporate governance environment are more likely to publish GRI-based

sustainability reports. Thus, the authors suggest the following hypothesis:

H2a: The LPI and sustainability reporting relation is stronger in a high corporate

governance environment.

12
 Under the substitution relationship hypothesis, corporate governance and voluntary

disclosure are used as alternative mechanisms to diminish agency conflicts and information

asymmetry (Rediker and Seth, 1995; Cheng and Courtenay, 2006; Allegrini and Greco, 2013).

In that case, companies do not improve governance mechanisms and voluntary disclosure at

the same time (Rediker and Seth, 1995). As disclosure is not without cost, firms could attempt

to mitigate information asymmetry by improving corporate governance rather than engaging

in voluntary disclosure (Cerbioni and Parbonetti, 2007). Consistent with the substitution

hypothesis, Eng and Mak (2003) and Gul and Leung (2004) find that a strong governance

structure results in a lower level of voluntary disclosure. Following the substitution

relationship hypothesis, it is expected that logistics companies in a weak corporate

governance environment are more likely to publish GRI-based sustainability reports. Thus,

the authors offer the following hypothesis:

H2b: The LPI and sustainability reporting relation is stronger in a low corporate

governance environment.

The hypothesized relationships are summarized in Figure 1.

Corporate Governance

H2a H2b

Green Logistics
GRI Reporting
Performance H1

Figure 1: Theoretical framework and the hypothesized relationships

4. Research methodology

4.1. Data sources and variables

The authors collected the data for the present study from numerous sources. In line

with prior studies (Kuzey and Uyar, 2017; Karaman et al., 2018; Kilic et al., 2019), the

13
dependent variable, logistics sector’s GRI-based reporting activity of firms, was

compiled from GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database (GRI SDD) (GRI, 2018). Then

raw data downloaded pertaining to logistics firms’ GRI-based reporting were added up to

the national level. The GRI SDD discloses all types of sustainability reports whether

GRI-based or otherwise and pioneered sustainability reporting in 1997. However, the

GRI-based reporting activity was quite low until 2007; therefore, the authors collected

reporting data starting from 2007. The sample that included the logistics industry

corporations were formed. The logistics industry includes firms that provide services in

the domains of freight forwarding, warehousing/distribution, trucking, terminal services,

ocean container/bulk, parcel, etc.

The GRI-based reporting activity of countries was measured by developing two

distinct metrics: the GRI Indicator disclosing the presence of a GRI-based report and the

GRI Report Count representing the level of the reporting effort. The GRI SDD broadcasts

all types of sustainability reports (GRI-based and other). Figure 2 shows a summary of

the reporting activity for the logistics industry in the GRI SDD. During the 2007–2016

period, 869 sustainability reports (including GRI-based and non-GRI) were released.

Eighty percent of all sustainability reports were following the GRI framework, equating

to 692 GRI-based sustainability reports. The remaining 20%, totaling 177 reports, were

non-GRI. Although there were only 20 GRI-based reports in 2007, the number increased

to 93 in 2016, demonstrating a considerable increase in the appeal and acceptance of the

GRI guidelines in the logistics industry. The overall approval of the GRI framework in

CSR reporting recently leveled out at around 75%.

14
Figure 2: Sustainability reporting in the logistics industry (years: 2007–2016); source: GRI SDD (2018)

Besides GRI-based reporting activity, the LPI as a proxy for green logistics

performance was obtained. The LPI was constructed by the World Bank, and the authors

downloaded the LPI from the World Bank data catalog (World Bank LPI, 2018). The LPI

uses statistical procedures to combine the six dimensions into a single index allowing

cross-country assessments (see Appendix Table A.1). The index varies between 1 and 5,

with a higher mark demonstrating a better performance. Khan et al. (2017), Aldakhil et

al. (2018), Khan et al. (2018), Liu et al. (2018), Dobroszek et al. (2019), Khan et al.

(2019a), Khan et al. (2019b), and Rashidi and Cullinane (2019) used the LPI in their

studies.

The Efficacy of Corporate Boards defines the strength of corporate governance in a

given country. The efficacy score varies between 1 and 7 (best) where 1 means

executives have no accountability towards directors and investors, and 7 means

executives have extensive accountability towards directors and investors. This data was

15
derived from the Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic

Forum (2018) on an annual basis.

In addition, countries’ economic size, energy usage, renewable energy as a percentage

of the total energy consumption, and fossil fuel energy as a percentage of the total energy

consumption were collected from the World Bank (2018). These were the control

variables included in the study. A country’s economic size was possibly expected to

influence the sustainability reporting of the logistics sector. As the economic size

increases, the visibility of the economy increases which might impel market players to

act in a more accountable manner, and stakeholder pressure is felt more accordingly. The

stakeholder pressure, in turn, may result in more socially responsible behavior by

organizations. In the literature, a number of macro-level studies used visibility as a

potential driver of corporate reporting including those Adhikari and Tondkar (1992) and

Ben Othman and Zeghal (2008). Gross domestic product (GDP; based on constant 2010

USD) data, indicating the economic size, was downloaded from the World Development

Indicators (World Bank, 2018). Finally, energy usage (oil equivalent of energy use),

renewable energy percentage (of the total energy consumption), and fossil fuel energy

percentage (of the total energy consumption) data were downloaded from the World

Development Indicators (World Bank, 2018). Previous studies that used these variables

include Bhattacharya et al. (2016), Khan et al. (2017), Aldakhil et al. (2018), and Khan et

al. (2018).

Next, the compiled data from four sources were merged, pre-processed, cleansed, and

fine-tuned for further investigation. First, the LPI data were downloaded from the World

Bank LPI (2018) which included 167 countries. Second, the data for the Efficacy of

Corporate Boards were retrieved from the World Economic Forum (2018) which

included 151 countries. Matching these two sources yielded a common set of 143

16
countries. Next, for these 143 countries, GRI reporting count data for countries were

derived from the GRI SDD (GRI, 2018). Then, for these 143 countries, the economic

development and energy usage data were downloaded from the World Bank (2018) which

included missing data for 26 countries. After the elimination of these 26 countries, a final

set of 117 (i.e., 143 – 26 = 117) countries were included in the sample as a result of

matching above-highlighted four data sources (see Appendix Table A.1). For cases in

which only one or two data points were missing, the authors imputed them using the

expectation-maximization technique and backward and forward interpolation techniques

to fill the gaps for certain periods.

For the sustainability reporting activity, initially, the data set included GRI Indicator,

GRI Report Count, all CSR report indicator, and all CSR report count of which first two

represents GRI-based sustainability reporting activity, whereas the latter two represents

all sustainability reporting activity including GRI-based and free-format reports. It was

decided to use the first two as the response variables instead of the latter two because of

the high correlation within these two variable sets. Specifically, the correlation

coefficient amid the GRI and all CSR report indicators was 0.954; and amid the GRI

report and all CSR report counts was 0.962 (the two were statistically significant at the

0.01 confidence level).

The period of interest was 2007–2016. However, LPI data were available only for

2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Thus, the analysis period adjusted accordingly.

4.2. Statistical models

The authors built statistical models linking the green logistics performance of a

country to GRI-based reporting conduct (presence and extent) by incorporating the

following control variables: national economy size (using the natural logarithm of the

GDP), energy usage (the oil equivalent of energy use), renewable energy percentage (of

17
the total energy consumption), and fossil fuel energy percentage (of the total energy

consumption). In addition, the authors investigated the moderating effect of the Efficacy

of Corporate Boards on this relation. The following mathematical models were used for

the presence (Model 1) and the breadth (Model 2) of reporting behavior, respectively:

Model 1:

= + + + + %

+ ! ""# $ % + %

Model 2:

& ' #

= + + + + %

+ ! ""# $ % + %

The dependent variable GRI Indicator, in the first model, is a dichotomous variable

and assumed to be 1 in the case at least one GRI-based report was publicized in a certain

year, and 0 otherwise. The dependent variable GRI Report Count, in the latter model,

expresses the total count of reports issued in a nation state in a given year. Both variables

disclose the GRI-based reporting conduct of a nation state. LPI (the proxy of green

logistics performance), GDP (economic indicator), Eng Use (energy usage), Ren Eng %

(renewable energy consumption percentage), and FFuel Eng % (fossil fuel consumption

percentage) are the predictor variables. The regressor GDP was log-transformed (using a

natural logarithm) to induce less skewness. All the predicted and predictor variables,

their explanations, and the corresponding sources of data are listed in Table 2.

Table 2
List of all variables.
Variables Definition Source
GRI Indicator Binary variable assuming 1 whenever a GRI- GRI SDD (GRI,

18
 based report is issued in a particular year, and 2018)
0 otherwise
GRI Report Count The count of GRI-based reports in a given GRI SDD (GRI,
year in the period 2007–2016 2018)
Logistics The LPI (International) is calculated based on International
Performance Index the customs clearance efficiency (LPIC), Logistics
(LPI) trade- and transport-related infrastructure Performance Index
quality (LPIIN), arranging competitively (World Bank LPI,
priced shipments ease (LPIIS), the logistics 2018)
services quality (LPIQC), tracking and tracing
consignments ability (LPITT), and the on-
schedule delivery of shipments to consignees
(LPIT). The index fluctuates between 1 and 5,
with a larger mark demonstrating a better
performance.
Efficacy of The extent of which firm managers are World Economic
Corporate Boards accountable to boards of directors and Forum (2018)
investors (1 = executives have no
accountability to investors and boards, 7 =
executives have strong accountability to
investors and boards)
GDP A country’s gross domestic product based on World Bank (2018)
2010 USD
Eng Use GDP per unit of energy consumption is the World Bank (2018)
PPP GDP per kilogram of oil equivalent of
energy use at constant 2011 PPP $
Ren Eng % The percentage of renewables in the total World Bank (2018)
energy use
FFuel Eng % The percentage of fossil fuels (coal, oil, World Bank (2018)
petroleum, and natural gas products) in the
total energy consumption

4.3. Descriptive statistics

Table 3 displays the variables’ descriptive statistics included in the study. During the

period of interest, 22.9% of the countries, on average, disclosed a GRI-based report with

a standard deviation of 42.1%. This result revealed the limited practice of sustainability

reporting across the logistics industry. Similarly, 0.56 GRI-based reports were published

in a given year during 2007–2016 in which it varied between zero and 10. The average

LPI was 3.009, and it changed between 1.716 and 4.226 during the study period. The

other LPI dimensions exhibited similar behavior. The average Efficacy of Corporate

Boards was 4.696. The GDP, representing the economic performance of the countries,

varied between 3.99 billion and 16.9 trillion USD (based on 2010 USD). Energy, as

19
measured by the GDP per unit of energy consumption in constant 2011 PPP $ per kg of

oil equivalent (which was an indication of the total consumption), was 9.349, on average,

across the countries. The average renewable energy use (the percentage of the renewables

in the total energy devouring) was a little more than 28% while the fossil fuel energy

consumption (the percentage of fossil fuels in the total energy consumption) was almost

69%.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics.
Variables Obs. Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum
GRI Indicator 585 0.229 0.421 0 1
GRI Report
Count 585 0.564 1.385 0 10
LPI 585 3.009 0.560 1.716 4.226
LPIC 585 2.790 0.605 1.600 4.208
LPIIN 585 2.882 0.681 1.471 4.439
LPIIS 585 2.965 0.490 1.667 4.235
LPIQC 585 2.951 0.602 1.681 4.316
LPITT 585 3.030 0.609 1.560 4.378
LPIT 585 3.427 0.559 2.024 4.796
Board Efficacy 585 4.696 0.597 3.130 6.337
GDP 585 574,000,000,000 1,740,000,000,000 3,990,000,000 16,900,000,000,000
Eng Use 585 9.349 3.964 1.772 28.146
Ren Eng % 585 28.293 25.657 0 94.574
FFuel Eng % 585 68.948 25.871 4.608 100
4.4. Correlation coefficients

Table 4 shows Pearson’s correlation coefficients (and corresponding levels of

significance). The correlation amid GRI Indicator and LPI was r = 0.567 (p < .01) where

the correlation amid GRI Report Count and LPI was r = 0.466 (p < .01). These

preliminary statistics support the proposition that green logistics performance has a

statistically significant association with the sustainability reporting practice of the

logistics sector. In addition, the correlation between GRI Indicator and Ln (GDP) was r =

0.564 (p < .01), and the correlation between GRI Report Count and Ln (GDP) was r =

0.526 (p < .01). The authors decided to use the LPI and its sub-dimensions one at a time

in the statistical models in view of the high correlations among the variables, which were

also confirmed by high variance inflation factors (VIFs). The LPI and its sub-dimensions

20
were entered into the mathematical model one by one considering the threshold

exceeding values of VIF (Menard, 1995). The LPI had a VIF of 11.27 along LPIC, 15.46

with LPIIN, 5.14 with LPIIS, 16.92 with LPIQC, 10.71 with LPITT, and 5.53 with LPIT.

Another noteworthy positive correlation was between LPI and Ln (GDP), r = 0.686 (p <

.01). These correlations also signal that the size of the economy is influential in

sustainability reporting and green logistics performance.

21
Table 4
Pearson’s correlation coefficients.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 143 14
1 GRI Indicator 1
2 GRI Report Count 0.748 * 1
3 LPI 0.567 * 0.466 * 1
4 LPIC 0.544 * 0.441 * 0.959 * 1
*
5 LPIIN 0.577 0.482 * 0.971 * 0.948 * 1
6 LPIIS 0.503 * 0.415 * 0.927 * 0.859 * 0.866 * 1
*
7 LPIQC 0.570 0.475 * 0.978 * 0.934 * 0.95 * 0.884 * 1
*
8 LPITT 0.545 0.447 * 0.964 * 0.896 * 0.921 * 0.872 * 0.941 * 1
9 LPIT 0.504 * 0.402 * 0.929 * 0.849 * 0.869 * 0.833 * 0.887 * 0.890 * 1
*
10 Board Efficacy 0.350 0.277 * 0.623 * 0.642 * 0.623 * 0.548 * 0.615 * 0.588 * 0.545 * 1
11 Ln (GDP) 0.564 * 0.526 * 0.686 * 0.595 * 0.683 * 0.621 * 0.701 * 0.686 * 0.645 * 0.365 * 1
*
12 Eng Use 0.202 0.098 0.275 * 0.265 * 0.263 * 0.265 * 0.269 * 0.246 *
0.266 * 0.167 * 0.185 * 1
13 Ren Eng % –0.237 * –0.168 * –0.409 * –0.348 * –0.427 * –0.405 * –0.384 * –0.386 * –0.399 * –0.102 –0.384 * –0.287 * 1
14 FFuel Eng % 0.217 * 0.147 * 0.302 * 0.239 * 0.322 * 0.316 * 0.276 * 0.282 * 0.301 * 0.011 0.352 * 0.299 * –0.928 * 1
*
Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

22
5. Results

The authors first ran a logistic regression that considered the regressand as a

dichotomous variable, which is the GRI-based sustainability report indicator. Table 5

summarizes the logistic regression results. The logit models with the likelihood ratio’s

chi-square statistics’ p values significant at .01 level were all statistically significant. The

models explained the variance in the existence of GRI-based reports between 41% and

43% (as the McFadden’s pseudo-R2 values confirmed). The results showed a positive and

statistically significant relation amid GRI Indicator and LPI ( = 1.978, p < .01,

respectively). Furthermore, the link between the GRI Indicator and Ln (GDP) ( =

0.717, p < .01) was statistically significant and positive. Similarly, the association amid

GRI Indicator and energy usage, and the renewable energy percentage were positive and

statistically significant ( = 0.081, = 0.034, p < .05, respectively). Finally, the

relation between GRI Indicator and the fossil fuel energy percentage was positive and

statistically significant ( ! = 0.04, p < .01). The results also confirmed that there were

statistically significant (positive) relations amid GRI Indicator and all the other LPI

dimensions. The associations between the regressand and the other regressors (control

variables) changed slightly in individual models but were consistent in many of them.

23
Table 5
Logistic regression.
Independent
2007–2016
Variables
LPI 1.978 (0.331)***
LPIC 1.681 (0.275)***
LPIIN 1.641 (0.273)***
LPIIS 1.917 (0.362)***
LPIQC 1.830 (0.313)***
LPITT 1.679 (0.311)***
LPIT 1.717 (0.332)***
Ln (GDP) 0.717 (0.112)*** 0.798 (0.109)*** 0.702 (0.112)*** 0.822 (0.107)*** 0.684 (0.113)*** 0.727 (0.112)*** 0.802 (0.108)***
Eng Use 0.081 (0.036)** 0.078 (0.036)** 0.085 (0.036)** 0.091 (0.035)** 0.081 (0.035)** 0.091 (0.035)*** 0.093 (0.034)***
** ** ** * *
Ren Eng % 0.034 (0.016) 0.032 (0.016) 0.036 (0.017) 0.024 (0.016) 0.031 (0.016) 0.030 (0.016) 0.025 (0.016)
*** *** *** ** *** **
FFuel Eng % 0.04 (0.015) 0.04 (0.015) 0.042 (0.015) 0.029 (0.014) 0.039 (0.015) 0.038 (0.015) 0.031 (0.014)**
Constant –30.886 (3.433)*** –31.616 (3.492)*** –29.454 (3.395)*** –32.357 (3.477)*** –29.284 (3.349)*** –30.08 (3.373)*** –32.223 (3.45)***
No. of observations 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
Log likelihood –181.151 –180.084 –180.568 –186.173 –182.272 –185.151 –186.774
Likelihood ratio
267.32 269.45 268.49 257.28 265.08 259.32 256.07
chi-square
P <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Pseudo-R2
.42 .43 .43 .41 .42 .41 .41
(McFadden's)
*** ** *
Note: Std. error in parentheses; p < .01; p < .05; p < .10.

24
 The authors then ran the pooled Poisson regression to investigate the relation between

GRI Report Count and LPI. The predicted variable was the total number of GRI-based

reports where the Poisson regression was more applicable, which was in alignment with

the literature (Donnelly and Mulcahy, 2008; Uyar and Kılıç, 2012). Table 6 summarizes

the results. The Poisson regression models were statistically significant considering the

chi-square statistics of the likelihood ratio with corresponding p values significant at .001

level. McFadden’s pseudo-R2 measures varied between 39% and 40%.

The pseudo-R2 measures characterized the descriptive power of the statistical models

and were either comparable or superior to the related analyses available in the extant

literature. In Tables 5 and 6, the pseudo-R2 measures change between 39% and 43%. In

previous studies, R2 measures changed from 3% to 46% (Ho and Taylor, 2007), 16% to

18% (Artiach et al., 2010), and 4.8% to 44% (Kuzey and Uyar, 2017). Compared to prior

studies’ volatile and in some cases quite small pseudo-R2 values, the factors contributing

to the pseudo-R2 measures of this study could be explained by two factors: the previous

analyses were dependent totally or partially on company-level variables, which might

have restricted influence on demonstrating the companies’ sustainability reporting

conduct. Moreover, the control variables used in these studies might have had a

substantial effect on the exploratory power of the models.

25
Table 6
Poisson regression.
Independent
2007–2016
Variables
LPI 1.208 (0.157)***
LPIC 0.944 (0.126)***
LPIIN 0.943 (0.124)***
LPIIS 1.378 (0.179) ***
LPIQC 1.129 (0.145)***
LPITT 0.982 (0.153)***
LPIT 1.051 (0.166)***
Ln (GDP) 0.530 (0.043)*** 0.574 (0.041)*** 0.511 (0.045)*** 0.588 (0.041)*** 0.516 (0.044)*** 0.540 (0.045)*** 0.585 (0.041)***
Eng Use 0.034 (0.016)** 0.036 (0.016)** 0.038 (0.015)** 0.036 (0.015)** 0.034 (0.016)** 0.044 (0.015)*** 0.046 (0.016)***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Ren Eng % 0.027 (0.007) 0.024 (0.007) 0.026 (0.007) 0.025 (0.007) 0.025 (0.007) 0.025 (0.007) 0.022 (0.007)***
FFuel Eng % 0.021 (0.006)*** 0.019 (0.006)*** 0.020 (0.006)*** 0.017 (0.006)*** 0.021 (0.006)*** 0.021 (0.007)*** 0.017 (0.006)***
Constant –21.211 (1.341)*** –21.125 (1.331)*** –19.756 (1.324)*** –22.891 (1.393)*** –20.504 (1.337)*** –20.795 (1.336)*** –22.310 (1.366)***
No. of observations 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
Log likelihood –445.928 –447.406 –447.304 –445.674 –446.034 –455.099 –455.833
Likelihood ratio
594.14 591.18 591.39 594.65 593.93 575.80 574.33
chi-square
P <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Pseudo-R2
.40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .39 .39
(McFadden’s)
*** ** *
Note: Std. error in parentheses; p < .01; p < .05; p < .10.

26
 Again, the results illustrated the statistically significant (positive) association between

GRI Report Count and LPI ( = 1.208, corresponding p < .01). Moreover, there was a

positive relation amid GRI Report Count and Ln (GDP) ( = 0.53, p < .01). The results

also established that there were statistically significant (positive) links among GRI

Report Count and all the other LPI sub-dimensions.

5.1. Moderating effect of Corporate Governance

Subsequently, the moderating effect of Efficacy of Corporate Boards was investigated

on the relation between the GRI-based reporting behavior (the presence and the extent)

and the LPI. To accomplish this, the authors divided the sample set into two sub-samples

using the Efficacy of Corporate Boards variable. In one sub-sample, the countries where

Efficacy of Corporate Boards was low were pooled (i.e., less than the median of the

variable considering the 2016 values, the most recent value), and in the other sub-sample,

the countries for which Efficacy of Corporate Boards was high were grouped (i.e.,

exceeding the median of the variable considering the 2016 values). Then, the authors ran

the logistic regression for the dependent variable GRI Indicator and the Poisson

regression for the dependent variable GRI Report Count. The results are shown in Table

7. The first column includes the list of the independent variables, the next two columns

include the results for the logistic regression using GRI Indicator, and the last two

columns include the Poisson regression results using GRI Report Count.

Table 7
Analysis based on the efficacy of corporate boards.
2007–2016
Logistic Regression Poisson Regression
Independent Low Efficacy of High Efficacy of Low Efficacy of High Efficacy of
Variables Corporate Boards Corporate Boards Corporate Boards Corporate Boards
LPI 3.473 (0.819)*** 2.085 (0.474)*** 1.476 (0.427)*** 1.415 (0.214)***
Ln (GDP) 0.536 (0.186)*** 1.068 (0.19)*** 0.657 (0.099)*** 0.438 (0.055)***
Eng Use 0.181 (0.093)* 0.085 (0.04)** 0.055 (0.039) 0.033 (0.017)*
Ren Eng % –0.013 (0.04) 0.064 (0.022)*** 0.002 (0.022) 0.027 (0.007)***
FFuel Eng % 0.036 (0.041) 0.051 (0.018)*** 0.016 (0.025) 0.017 (0.007)***

27
 –30.144 (6.166) –42.216 (6.033) –19.219 (1.669)
Constant *** *** –24.67 (3.178) *** ***

No. of observations 290 295 290 295

Log likelihood –67.335 –102.305 –137.986 –292.734
Likelihood ratio
94.33 166.14 285.05 285.75
chi-square
P <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Pseudo-R2
.41 .45 .51 .33
(McFadden’s)
*** ** *
Note: Std. error in parentheses; p < .01; p < .05; p < .10.
All the models were statistically significant (the chi-square statistics of the likelihood

ratio’s p values were significant at .01 level). The models explained the variance between

33% and 51%. The results illustrated that there were statistically significant (positive)

links between GRI Indicator and LPI for low and high Efficacy of Corporate Boards (

= 3.473, = 2.085, p < .01, respectively). Furthermore, the relations amid GRI Report

Count and LPI for low and high Efficacy of Corporate Boards ( = 1.476, = 1.415, p

< .01, respectively) were positive and statistically significant. The output in Table 7

indicates that the impact of the LPI was more evident when the Efficacy of Corporate

Boards was low, and the impact of LPI was less evident when Efficacy of Corporate

Boards was high. The study elaborates more on this outcome in the discussion section.

6. Discussion

The logistics sector is under growing pressure for causing environmental degradation

since its activities depend largely on fossil fuels (He et al., 2017; Rashidi and Cullinane,

2019). Both domestic and international stakeholders press the sector to adopt eco-

friendly alternatives in procurement, warehousing, packaging, and delivery processes to

save energy and material usage (Hung Lau, 2011; Lai and Wong, 2012). These

discussions led to the emergence of the green logistics concept, which represents the

adoption of environmentally friendly practices throughout the supply chain (Wu and

Dunn, 1995). The LPI developed by the World Bank is accepted as an indicator of green

logistics performance in recent studies (Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017; Aldakhil et al.,

2018; Khan et al., 2018). Although these studies provide important insights about

28
determinants of LPI (Aldakhil et al., 2018), and the link between LPI and economic

indicators and environmental sustainability (Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017; Khan et al.,

2018), this study connects LPI and sustainability reporting activity of the logistics sector

which aims to help legitimize the activities of the logistics sector against local and

international stakeholders. Moreover, this study tests how the efficacy of corporate

boards moderates the highlighted link to suggest implications for internal governance

mechanisms of firms since how sustainable supply chain practices are aligned with

governance mechanisms remain unclear (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016).

So far, sustainability reporting and adoption of the GRI framework was largely

ignored in logistics research with a few exceptions (Ciliberti et al., 2008; Piecyk and

Björklund, 2015; Massaroni et al., 2016). Thus, this study suggests that adoption of GRI

framework for stand-alone sustainability reporting which may help logistics sector

achieve two purposes; establishment of a systematic structure for tracking detailed

sustainable practices in the supply chain to assess performance (Lee and Wu, 2014) and

restoring and enhancing the sector’s image and reputation in the eyes of stakeholders

through transparency (Lähtinen et al., 2016; Naidoo and Gasparatos, 2018). These efforts

may help particularly developing countries improve their LPI, lessen environmental

degradation, and achieve cleaner production.

The results provide strong empirical evidence regarding the link between green

logistics performance and tendency to issue sustainability reports as well as the number

of sustainability reports in the industry. This link is proven for all six sub-indicators of

the logistics sector performance index. Thus, the first hypothesis “Higher green logistics

performance is more likely to be associated with sustainability reporting using the GRI

guidelines” is accepted. The result supports the argument that efficient logistics

operations are critical to bolster companies’ efforts to contribute to sustainable

29
development (Yu et al., 2016; He et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2018). The outcome of the

study justifies the proposition that engagement in green logistics practices results in

higher transparency and disclosure of sustainability initiatives. Prior studies voiced the

scarcity of sustainability reporting and the lack of structured internal and external

reporting systems in the supply chain (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). As a remedy to

this issue, following GRI guidelines in sustainability reporting may provide uniformity

and comparability in the report content across periods and firms (Kuzey and Uyar, 2017).

The GRI (2015) also provides a readily available list of disclosure items under economic,

environmental, and social categories (Alazzani and Wan-Hussin, 2013). The individual

metrics under these dimensions may help logistics firms to establish an internal system to

establish and track green logistics practices (Naidoo and Gasparatos, 2018). For example,

under environmental dimensions, it requires the disclosure of energy consumption (i.e.,

fuel and renewable, internal and external energy consumption, reduction in energy

consumption), materials usage (i.e., by weight and volume, renewable and non-

renewable, recycled, etc.) emissions (i.e., indicators on GHG emissions), and supplier

environmental assessment (GRI, 2015).

In addition, considering each performance dimension, the following implications can

be inferred. First, the efficiency of the customs clearance process (LPIC) implies

simplicity, agility, and predictability of procedures (Rashidi and Cullinane, 2019). This

means saving time, energy, and cost which contribute to environmentally sustainable

development (Khan et al., 2018). Interruption in the customs clearance process may cause

inefficiencies in other parts of the supply chain including delay in delivery, and increase

in waste of energy, inventory, and labor costs (Hsu et al., 2009). Thus, the finding

confirms that the efficiency of LPIC contributes to the economic and sustainable

development of the sector which leads to the existence and level of sustainability

30
reporting. Second, the quality of the infrastructure concerning trade and transportation

(LPIIN) involves ports, railroads, roads, information technology, and communication

media (Rashidi and Cullinane, 2019). The quality of these infrastructures is likely to

influence environmental sustainability in two ways: reducing GHG emissions and energy

consumption (Khan et al., 2018). Conversely, a poor infrastructure implies more energy

consumption, higher hazardous gas emissions and waste, and faster and larger

environmental degradation. Therefore, the higher the quality of the infrastructure, the

greater the propensity for sustainability reporting. Third, ease of arranging competitively

priced shipments (LPIIS) stimulates sustainability reporting. This result might be

explained as follows: Competitive pricing entails less consumption of energy (Aldakhil et

al., 2018; Khan et al., 2018) and other resources, such as packaging materials. Moreover,

this dimension of logistics performance can be more aligned with the economic

dimension of sustainability such that competitive prices help the prosperity of the public

and foster local and nonlocal economic development. Fourth, the quality of the logistics

services (LPIQC) is a statistically significant determinant of sustainability reporting

adoption. This consequence might be explained by the reality that the quality of the

logistics services decreases fossil and carbon emissions and improves environmental

quality (Aldakhil et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2018). Corroborating this finding, Laari et al.

(2018) found that higher quality logistics service providers are more proactive in

ecological issues, and hence are more likely to adopt green logistics practices than those

which provide lower quality logistics services. They argue that those practices help them

create an advantage by differentiation in the long-run. Fifth, the capability of tracking

and tracing consignments (LPITT) enables logistics service providers to track the route

the shipment follows and whether it is an on-time shipment process. Although tracking

consignments require the adoption of advanced information technologies and

31
consumption of energy, the environmental damage, and costs arising from the lack of a

tracking system, which, in turn, results in failure to ship the correct product to the right

address, are likely to be more hazardous. From an economic perspective, delivering

quality first hand is less costly than failure and correction costs. Besides, Kim and Min

(2011) argue that tracking consignments compared to other dimensions of LPI causes less

environmental degradation since it is largely influenced by market characteristics

described by the level of competition and market sophistication. Finally, the frequency

with which shipments reach the consignee on schedule (LPIT) has a statistically

significant association with sustainability reporting. Aldakhil et al. (2018) and Khan et al.

(2018) find that shipments that do not reach the consignee on schedule increase fossil and

carbon emissions, which, in turn, significantly harm environmental sustainability and

human lives. Thus, delivering shipments at the expected time helps achieve a sustainable

business environment. Khan et al. (2019b) also proved that the improvement in the

above-cited individual dimensions of LPI contributes to the manufacturing value-added,

trade openness, and economic growth. However, they argue that particularly poor

infrastructure and inefficiency in the customs clearance process weakens the competitive

position of developing countries in trading with developed countries.

Considering the results regarding the moderating role of corporate governance

between green logistics performance and sustainability reporting, the authors obtained

stronger evidence for the substitution effect than the complementary effect (Eng and

Mak, 2003; Gul and Leung, 2004; Allegrini and Greco, 2013). Thus, the second

hypothesis (2b) “The LPI and sustainability reporting relation is stronger in a low corporate

governance environment” is accepted. The findings revealed that the link between green

logistics performance and sustainability reporting is more pronounced in low corporate

governance environments characterized by the inefficacy of the corporate boards. This

32
finding raises a question about the efficacy of corporate boards of directors (Liao et al., 2018).

As boards of directors are the ultimate decision-making body in corporations, they are key to

developing corporate sustainability strategies. For example, one way of doing this is to adjust

the composition of boards of directors with female members or knowledgeable directors on

CSR issues or establishing CSR committees (Amran et al., 2014; Ben-Amar et al., 2017).

Then, these board-level configurations might help the logistics sector develop more precise

roadmaps and key performance metrics to improve each dimension of LPI and how to

communicate green logistics practices with relevant stakeholders, including suppliers,

customers, civic organizations, and the society.

7. Conclusion

This study tests the link between green logistics performance and the existence and

number of sustainability reports in the logistics sector. In seeking empirical evidence for

this association, the authors took advantage of the LPI and the GRI framework, both of

which have been used by prior researchers. In addition, the study tests whether this main

investigation is moderated by the corporate governance mechanism, namely, by the

efficacy of boards of directors. This is the first empirical cross-country study focused on

sustainability reports and its determinants in the logistics sector that incorporated the

moderating effect of corporate governance. This sector was selected because it has a

heavy influence on climate and environmental degradation as the sector relies mainly on

transportation and is considered a source of GHG and other harmful emissions. In doing

so, the authors wanted to contribute to the social, environmental, and economic

development of the industry.

The study provides robust evidence that green logistics performance has a significant

positive association with the existence and level of sustainability reporting in the

logistics sector. This is valid for the composite green logistics performance indicator, as

33
well as its six metrics. In the preceding section, the results were elaborated and each LPI

dimension was related to sustainable development and reporting propensity in the sector.

Overall, this robust empirical evidence confirms that green logistics practices go hand in

hand with the desire for transparency and accountability of sustainability initiatives in the

logistics sector. Second, the authors found that the primary research investigation (i.e.,

the relation between green logistics performance and sustainability reporting) is

significantly affected by the corporate governance environment. In weak corporate

governance environments characterized by ineffective boards of directors, the logistics

performance and sustainability reporting link is stronger. With this finding, the

substitution effect has been proven between corporate governance and sustainability

reporting. In other words, sustainability reporting practices fill the gap arising from poor

corporate governance contexts.

The study suggests several points to implement green logistics practices and to link

those practices with sustainability reporting in the logistics sector. First, firms should

engage in sustainable procurement practices as it is considered as a main practice of

sustainable supply chains (Delmonico et al., 2018). Doing so, the logistics sector will

better align its practices to GRI’s sustainability reporting practices which advise the

usage of recyclable materials and preference of eco-friendly suppliers 5. Moreover,

sustainable procurement practices are well connected to arranging competitively priced

shipments dimension of LPI as the customers are ready to pay a premium for green

logistics practices (Hazen et al., 2012b). Second, prior studies found that education and

training of employees are among the most influential factors in improving LPI (Ekici et

al., 2019). Besides, Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour (2016) and Yu et al. (2020) pointed

out the necessity of integration of green human resource practices into green supply chain

5
Please see the indicators of G4-EN1 and G4-EN2 (GRI, 2015, p. 52) about materials consumption and G4-
EN32 (GRI, 2015, p. 63) about screening suppliers based on environmental criteria.

34
management to ensure the establishment of truly sustainable supply chains, and to

establish cooperation with external stakeholders. This evidence suggests that the

alignment of human resources towards green practices plays a significant role in

improving LPI particularly in the dimensions of the logistics services quality and on-

schedule delivery of shipments to consignees. Third, prior studies found that

technological readiness (Ekici et al., 2019) and information systems (de Camargo Fiorini

and Jabbour, 2017) are of crucial importance in enhancing LPI and sustainable supply

chain management. They are particularly relevant for enabling and supporting tracking

and tracing consignments, customs clearance efficiency, and on-schedule delivery of

shipments to consignees. Fourth, overall infrastructure development of the countries

enhances LPI by facilitating timely delivery of shipments to destinations (Ekici et al.,

2019) while reducing GHG emissions and energy consumption (Khan et al., 2018).

Moreover, the improvements of ports, terminals, and airports enable accessing long-

distance local and international markets more easily and facilitate the delivery of

shipments on-time and trade (Kabak et al., 2019).

Furthermore, prior studies showed the effect of various stakeholders (i.e., customers,

the government, suppliers) on the adoption of green supply chain practices (Seles et al.,

2016; Gong et al., 2019; Baah et al., 2020). By further linking LPI to sustainability

reporting which also aims to address stakeholders’ concerns, this study indicates the key

role that stakeholders play in prompting logistics sector to engage with green practices

and to communicate the outcomes of those initiatives with a sustainability report. Linking

LPI with sustainability reporting under the guidance of GRI is enabled as it requires the

disclosure of how firms reduced material usage and fossil energy consumption, increased

the portion of renewable energy in total energy consumption (Uyar et al., 2020).

Moreover, verification of the link between LPI and sustainability reporting suggests that

35
adoption of GRI framework for sustainability reporting may help firms in aligning their

labor practices with green supply chain management since the framework includes a sub-

category of “labor practices and decent work” under “social” disclosure dimension (GRI,

2015).

The study might provoke new thoughts and practices concerning the transformation of

production and operations into more eco-friendly operations practices (Liu et al., 2019).

Furthermore, numerous studies documented evidences that green supply chain practices

not only enhance sustainability performance (Stefanelli et al., 2014; Cousins et al., 2019)

but also operational and financial performance (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2015; Cousins et

al., 2019; Baah et al., 2020). Thus, the highlighted dimensions of green logistics

performance may foster the circular economy (Zeng et al., 2017) while promoting the

overall economic development of the countries (Kabak et al., 2019).

7.1. Implications for theory and practice

The implications that can be drawn from the results are as follows. The positive

connection between LPI and sustainability reporting validated the signaling theory in the

logistics sector. Thus, the results imply that that logistics firms which are aligned with

green logistics practices are more likely to provide more sustainability information about

their activities to stakeholders (Connelly et al., 2011; Thorne et al., 2014; Alon and

Vidovic, 2015). In other words, this study emphasizes the importance and

complementarity of two aspects of sustainability; engagement in sustainable practices

and communicating the outcomes of those engagements with stakeholders. Moreover,

investment in sustainability initiatives and reporting is particularly important in weak

corporate governance environments. The reports meet investors’ accountability and

transparency needs especially in the environments where boards of directors are not

influential in controlling managers’ behaviors.

36
 Furthermore, the adoption of green logistics practices may lead to efficiency in

operations and cleaner production (Baah et al., 2020) and a reduction in environmental

degradation (Liu et al., 2018). Six individual dimensions of LPI provides specific

guidelines and implications for sector representatives. For example, poor transportation

infrastructure causes more environmental degradation and human health problems (Khan

et al., 2019b) while the quality of infrastructure increases renewable energy consumption

(Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017). Moreover, efficiency in the customs clearance process

reduces energy consumption and costs (Zaman and Shamsuddin, 2017). Thus, as the

green logistics practices help the sector align with sustainable development, they may

help the sector prosper in the domestic as well as international markets (Aldakhil et al.,

2018). Ultimately, improvement in logistics sector performance may spur economic

growth and enhance the competitiveness of the countries in international trade (Mariano

et al., 2017; Tang and Abosedra, 2019).

Moreover, the study indicated the relevance of sustainability reports for the logistics

sector. The sector representatives might incorporate sustainability reporting practices into

their overall strategies so that the reports signal the companies’ engagement with green

logistics practices. It is also presumed that engaging in sustainability initiatives and

disclosing relevant information will appease growing environmental concerns and help

the logistics sector legitimize its activities and sustain its existence in the long run.

According to the World Bank’s LPI survey, top LPI performers expressed that shippers

frequently demand eco-friendly alternatives (Arvis et al., 2018). This remark justifies the

foundation of this study and its findings and implications. The authors hope that this

study also contributes to the green logistics agenda of international bodies, including the

International Transport Forum and the International Energy Agency (Arvis et al., 2018).

The findings may also assist policy-makers in promoting cleaner production through

37
sustainable initiatives of the logistics sector. The policy-makers may benefit from the

results in formulating more integrated guidelines for sustainable development of the

logistics sector considering three pillars on which the study is built; green logistics

practices, sustainability reporting, and internal corporate governance mechanism.

Besides, as a key part of the supply chain, integration of green practices into the

logistics sector operations may aid in ensuring the sustainability of the whole supply

chain (Liu et al., 2018). The results of the study may particularly of interest to supply

chain managers since they are at the position of affecting the social and environmental

performance of firms through supplier selection and delivery choices (Carter and Liane

Easton, 2011). As one of the dimensions of this study is sustainability reporting,

communication of sustainable supply chain practices to customers may help supply chain

managers augment the competitive posture of companies in the market (Krause et al.,

2009; Lähtinen et al., 2016). Moreover, in terms of both sustainability practices and

reporting, the focus of overall management and supply chain managers might diverge

since their perspectives are different (Bai et al., 2012). While viewing the enterprise in a

holistic picture, overall management may miss the particularities of the supply chain.

That is why the findings linking six pillars of the LPI and sustainability reporting will

provide more insights particularly to supply chain managers in broadening their

perspectives and achieving the transformation of the supply chain towards more eco-

friendly practices. Supply chain managers with their own perspectives and the findings of

the study may integrate green logistics practices into the overall corporate sustainability

strategy. They can benefit from the GRI guidelines’ energy efficiency, materials usage,

recycling, waste management metrics in developing an environmentally friendly supply

chain (GRI, 2015).

38
 Although the findings suggest implications for both developed and developing

countries in the sample, the findings are particularly relevant for developing countries for

several reasons; they will produce more carbon dioxide emissions due to high economic

growth rate in the coming years (Mariano et al., 2017), and they are under domestic and

international pressures which force them to undertake eco-friendly alternatives in their

operations through energy and material usage efficiency (Lai and Wong, 2012). Engaging

in green logistics practices may help them alleviate growing international environmental

concerns and overcome trade barriers in international trade (Lai and Wong, 2012). In this

respect, reporting the outcomes of green logistics practices through a particular stand-

alone report (i.e., sustainability report) may help the logistics sector of developing

countries legitimize their activities against international stakeholders as well. Moreover,

alignment of the regulatory framework of developing countries with green logistics

practices and self-regulation of the logistics sector (Sohail et al., 2006) may aid those

countries to achieve higher LPI and mitigate concerns of stakeholders. As seen in

Appendix Table A.1, developing countries are quite low scorers in terms of LPI whereas

developed countries are higher performers. Therefore, the study provides guidelines to

improve LPI through improving its six dimensions, sustainability reporting adoption, and

shaping corporate structures accordingly. Kim and Min (2011) assert that the quality of

infrastructure in developing countries is not at the level of global standards, may cause

interruptions in the supply chain, and even undermines other dimensions of the LPI.

7.2. Limitations and future research avenues

The study has several limitations, and thus, the findings should be considered

accordingly. First, the logistics sector performance data were available only for some

years (i.e., 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016) and certain countries. Second, as the focus

of the study is specifically the logistics sector, the validity of the results for other

39
industries might require further investigations. Third, despite the fact that the GRI

Disclosure database is unique and quite comprehensive in publishing sustainability

reports worldwide, there might be some reports which are not uploaded to this system;

thus, those reports are outside the scope of this study. Fourth, although the explanatory

power of the study models is fairly good, there is a gap and opportunity for other

institutional factors that might affect the sustainability performance and reporting link.

For example, the regulatory framework of nations, particularly regarding environmental

issues, may have a direct influence on green logistics practices as well as sustainability

initiatives. Furthermore, the power of non-governmental organizations or stakeholders

(i.e., stakeholder-orientation) can be integrated into the study model as a moderator to

investigate whether LPIs and sustainability reporting practices of the logistics sector

differ accordingly. This study is a cross-country study that draws conclusions and offers

implications from a global perspective. However, the model of the study may provoke

country-level research topics that may be investigated based on questionnaire surveys or

qualitative studies. Such a study may be useful in providing insights to local sector

representatives and may help the sustainable development of the logistics sector locally.

40
References

Abbasi, M., Nilsson, F., 2016. Developing environmentally sustainable logistics:

exploring themes and challenges from a logistics service providers’ perspective.

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 46, 273-283.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.04.004.

Adhikari, A., Tondkar, R.H., 1992. Environmental factors influencing accounting

disclosure requirements of global stock exchanges. Journal of International

Financial Management & Accounting. 4 (2), 75-105.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.1992.tb00024.x.

Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2015. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green

and sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 86, 360-377.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.005.

Alazzani, A., Wan-Hussin, W.N., 2013. Global Reporting Initiative's environmental

reporting: a study of oil and gas companies. Ecological Indicators. 32, 19-24.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.019.

Aldakhil, A.M., Nassani, A.A., Awan, U., Abro, M.M.Q., Zaman, K., 2018. Determinants

of green logistics in BRICS countries: an integrated supply chain model for green

business. Journal of Cleaner Production. 195, 861-868.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.248.

Allegrini, M., Greco, G., 2013. Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary

disclosure: evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Journal of Management &

Governance. 17 (1), 187-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9168-3.

Alon, A., Vidovic, M., 2015. Sustainability performance and assurance: influence on

reputation. Corporate Reputation Review. 18 (4), 337-352.

https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2015.17.

41
Amran, A., Lee, S.P., Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and

strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality.

Business Strategy and the Environment. 23 (4), 217-235.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767.

Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D., Walker, J., 2010. The determinants of corporate

sustainability performance. Accounting & Finance. 50 (1), 31-51.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629x.2009.00315.x.

Arvis, J.F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K., Kiiski, T.,

2018. Connecting to compete 2018: trade logistics in the global economy. World

Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/29971.

Baah, C., Jin, Z., Tang, L., 2020. Organizational and regulatory stakeholder pressures

friends or foes to green logistics practices and financial performance:

investigating corporate reputation as a missing link. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 247, 119125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119125.

Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Wei, X., Koh, L., 2012. Evaluating ecological sustainable performance

measures for supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal. 17 (1), 78-92. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212221.

Bappy, M.M., Ali, S.M., Kabir, G., Paul, S.K., 2019. Supply chain sustainability

assessment with Dempster-Shafer evidence theory: implications in cleaner

production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 237, 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117771.

Battini, D., Calzavara, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2016. Sustainable packaging

development for fresh food supply chains. Packaging Technology and Science. 29

(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2185.

42
Ben Othman, H., Zeghal, D., 2008. A study of corporate governance disclosure and its

country-level determinants in the emerging markets. Research in Accounting in

Emerging Economies. 8, 125-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-3563(08)08005-

5.

Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., McIlkenny, P., 2017. Board gender diversity and corporate

response to sustainability initiatives: evidence from the Carbon Disclosure

Project. Journal of Business Ethics. 142 (2), 369-383.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1.

Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S.R., Ozturk, I., Bhattacharya, S., 2016. The effect of

renewable energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from top 38

countries. Applied Energy. 162, 733-741.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.104.

Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., 2020. Sustainability reporting assurance: creating

stakeholder accountability through hyperreality?. Journal of Cleaner Production.

243, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118596.

Carter, C. R., Liane Easton, P., 2011. Sustainable supply chain management: evolution

and future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management. 41 (1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420.

Cerbioni, F., Parbonetti, A., 2007. Exploring the effects of corporate governance on

intellectual capital disclosure: an analysis of European biotechnology companies.

European Accounting Review. 16 (4), 791-826.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701707011.

Cheng, E.C., Courtenay, S.M., 2006. Board composition, regulatory regime and

voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting. 41 (3), 262-289.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2006.07.001.

43
Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., 2017. Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of

signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Social Responsibility Journal. 13

(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-10-2015-0147.

Chiu, T.K., Wang, Y.H., 2015. Determinants of social disclosure quality in Taiwan: an

application of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics. 129 (2), 379-398.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2160-5.

Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility: standard

adoption and practices in Italian companies. International Journal of Production

Economics. 113 (1), 88-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.049.

Colicchia, C., Marchet, G., Melacini, M., Perotti, S., 2013. Building environmental

sustainability: empirical evidence from Logistics Service Providers. Journal of

Cleaner Production. 59, 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.057.

Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., 2011. Signaling theory: a

review and assessment. Journal of Management. 37 (1), 39-67.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419.

Cormier, D., Ledoux, M.J., Magnan, M., Aerts, W., 2010. Corporate governance and

information asymmetry between managers and investors. Corporate Governance.

10 (5), 574-589. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011085553.

Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., Fugate, B., 2019. Investigating green supply

chain management practices and performance: the moderating roles of supply

chain ecocentricity and traceability. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management. 39 (5), 767-786. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-

2018-0676.

de Camargo Fiorini, P., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2017. Information systems and sustainable

supply chain management towards a more sustainable society: where we are and

44
 where we are going. International Journal of Information Management. 37 (4),

241-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.12.004.

de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., de Oliveira Frascareli, F.C., Jabbour, C.J.C., 2015. Green

supply chain management and firms’ performance: understanding potential

relationships and the role of green sourcing and some other green practices.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 104, 366-374.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.017.

Dekker, R., Bloemhof, J., Mallidis, I., 2012. Operations Research for green logistics-An

overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. European Journal of

Operational Research. 219 (3), 671-679.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.010.

Delmonico, D., Jabbour, C.J.C., Pereira, S.C.F., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Renwick,

D.W.S., Thomé, A.M.T., 2018. Unveiling barriers to sustainable public

procurement in emerging economies: evidence from a leading sustainable supply

chain initiative in Latin America. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 134,

70-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.033.

Dobroszek, J., Mourao, P., Grzesiak, L., 2019. Identification of the similarities and

differences of logistics controller, manager and specialist: a study based on a

content analysis. The International Journal of Logistics Management. 30 (1), 261-

283. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2017-0281.

Donnelly, R., Mulcahy, M., 2008. Board structure, ownership, and voluntary disclosure

in Ireland. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 16 (5), 416-429.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00692.x.

45
Ekici, Ş.Ö., Kabak, Ö., Ülengin, F., 2019. Improving logistics performance by reforming

the pillars of Global Competitiveness Index. Transport Policy. 81, 197-207.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.06.014.

Eng, L., Mak, Y., 2003. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of

Accounting and Public Policy. 22 (4), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-

4254(03)00037-1.

Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., 2015. Multilevel approach to sustainability

report assurance decisions. Australian Accounting Review. 25 (4), 346-358.

https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12104.

Formentini, M., Taticchi, P., 2016. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance

mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 112, 1920-1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.072.

Gong, M., Gao, Y., Koh, L., Sutcliffe, C., Cullen, J., 2019. The role of customer

awareness in promoting firm sustainability and sustainable supply chain

management. International Journal of Production Economics. 217, 88-96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.033.

González-Benito, J., González-Benito, Ó., 2006. The role of stakeholder pressure and

managerial values in the implementation of environmental logistics practices.

International Journal of Production Research. 44 (7), 1353-1373.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500435199.

GRI, 2015. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, The

Netherlands.

GRI, 2018. Sustainability Disclosure Database. http://database.globalreporting.org/

(accessed 25 October 2018).

46
Gul, F.A., Leung, S., 2004. Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary

corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 23 (5), 351-379.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.07.001.

Guner, S., Coskun, E., 2012. Comparison of impacts of economic and social factors on

countries' logistics performances: a study with 26 OECD countries. Research in

Logistics & Production. 2 (4), 330-343.

Hazen, B.T., Hall, D.J., Hanna, J.B., 2012a. Reverse logistics disposition decision-

making: developing a decision framework via content analysis. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 42 (3), 244-274.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211225954.

Hazen, B.T., Wu, Y., Cegielski, C.G., Jones-Farmer, L.A., Hall, D.J., 2012b. Consumer

reactions to the adoption of green reverse logistics. The International Review of

Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 22 (4), 417-434.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2012.690777.

He, Z., Chen, P., Liu, H., Guo, Z., 2017. Performance measurement system and strategies

for developing low-carbon logistics: a case study in China. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 156, 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.071.

Herold, D.M., 2018. Has carbon disclosure become more transparent in the global

logistics industry? An investigation of corporate carbon disclosure strategies

between 2010 and 2015. Logistics. 2 (3), 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics2030013.

Herold, D.M., Lee, K-H., 2017. The influence of the sustainability logic on carbon

disclosure in the global logistics industry: the case of DHL, FDX and UPS.

Sustainability. 9 (4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040601.

47
Ho, L.J., Taylor, M.E., 2007. An empirical analysis of triple bottom-line reporting and its

determinants: evidence from the United States and Japan. Journal of International

Financial Management & Accounting. 18 (2), 123-150.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646x.2007.01010.x.

Hsu, C.I., Shih, H.H., Wang, W.C., 2009. Applying RFID to reduce delay in import cargo

customs clearance process. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 57 (2), 506-519.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.02.003.

Hung Lau, K.H., 2011. Benchmarking green logistics performance with a composite

index. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 18 (6), 873-896.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771111180743.

Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2016. Green human resource management and

green supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas. Journal of

Cleaner Production. 112, 1824-1833.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.052.

Janelle, D.G., Gillespie, A., 2004. Space–time constructs for linking information and

communication technologies with issues in sustainable transportation. Transport

Reviews. 24 (6), 665-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000292452.

Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs

and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 3 (4), 305-360.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.

Kabak, Ö., Ekici, Ş.Ö., Ülengin, F., 2019. Analyzing two-way interaction between the

competitiveness and logistics performance of countries. Transport Policy. In press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.10.007.

48
Karaman, A.S., Kilic, M., Uyar, A., 2018. Sustainability reporting in the aviation

industry: worldwide evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy

Journal. 9 (4), 362-391. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2017-0150.

Khan, S.A.R., Jian, C., Zhang, Y., Golpîra, H., Kumar, A., Sharif, A., 2019a.

Environmental, social and economic growth indicators spur logistics performance:

from the perspective of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 214, 1011-1023.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.322.

Khan, S.A.R., Sharif, A., Golpîra, H., Kumar, A., 2019b. A green ideology in Asian

emerging economies: from environmental policy and sustainable development.

Sustainable Development. 27 (6), 1063-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1958.

Khan, S.A.R., Qianli, D., SongBo, W., Zaman, K., Zhang, Y., 2017. Environmental

logistics performance indicators affecting per capita income and sectoral growth:

evidence from a panel of selected global ranked logistics countries. Environmental

Science and Pollution Research. 24 (2), 1518-1531.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7916-2.

Khan, S.A.R., Zhang, Y., Anees, M., Golpîra, H., Lahmar, A., Qianli, D., 2018. Green

supply chain management, economic growth and environment: a GMM based

evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production. 185, 588-599.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.226.

Kilic, M., Uyar, A., Karaman, A.S., 2019. What impacts sustainability reporting in the

global aviation industry? An institutional perspective. Transport Policy. 79, 54-65.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.04.017.

49
Kim, I., Min, H., 2011. Measuring supply chain efficiency from a green perspective.

Management Research Review. 34 (11), 1169-1189.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111178738.

Krause, D.R., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2009. Special topic forum on sustainable supply

chain management: introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing

management. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 45 (4), 18-25.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03173.x.

Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., 2017. Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on

firm value: evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 143, 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.153.

Laari, S., Töyli, J., Ojala, L., 2018. The effect of a competitive strategy and green supply

chain management on the financial and environmental performance of logistics

service providers. Business Strategy and the Environment. 27 (7), 872-883.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2038.

Lähtinen, K., Guan, Y., Li, N., Toppinen, A., 2016. Biodiversity and ecosystem services

in supply chain management in the global forest industry. Ecosystem Services. 21,

130-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.006.

Lai, K.H., Wong, C.W., 2012. Green logistics management and performance: some

empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing exporters. Omega. 40 (3), 267-

282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.07.002.

Lambrechts, W., Son-Turan, S., Reis, L., Semeijn, J., 2019. Lean, green and clean?

Sustainability reporting in the logistics sector. Logistics. 3 (1), 1-23.

https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics3010003.

50
Lee, K.H., Wu, Y., 2014. Integrating sustainability performance measurement into

logistics and supply networks: A multi-methodological approach. The British

Accounting Review. 46 (4), 361-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.005.

Liao, L., Lin, T., Zhang, Y., 2018. Corporate board and corporate social responsibility

assurance: evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics. 150 (1), 211-225.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3176-9.

Liu, J., Yuan, C., Hafeez, M., Yuan, Q., 2018. The relationship between environment and

logistics performance: evidence from Asian countries. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 204, 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.310.

Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Batista, L., Rong, K., 2019. Green operations: what's the role of

supply chain flexibility? International Journal of Production Economics. 214, 30-

43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.026.

Mahoney, L.S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., LaGore, W., 2013. A research note on standalone

corporate social responsibility reports: signaling or greenwashing?. Critical

Perspectives on Accounting. 24 (4-5), 350-359.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.008.

Marchet, G., Melacini, M., Perotti, S., 2014. Environmental sustainability in logistics and

freight transportation: a literature review and research agenda. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management. 25 (6), 775-811.

https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-06-2012-0065.

Mariano, E.B., Gobbo Jr., J.A., Camioto, F.de C., Rebelatto, D.A.do N., 2017. CO2

emissions and logistics performance: a composite index proposal. Journal of

Cleaner Production. 163, 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.084.

Markley, M.J., Davis, L., 2007. Exploring future competitive advantage through

sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

51
 Logistics Management. 37 (9), 763-774.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030710840859.

Martí, L., Puertas, R., García, L., 2014. The importance of the Logistics Performance

Index in international trade. Applied Economics. 46 (24), 2982-2992.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394.

Massaroni, E., Cozzolino, A., Wankowicz, E., 2016. Sustainability reporting of logistics

service providers in Europe. International Journal of Environment and Health. 8

(1), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijenvh.2016.077662.

Menard, S., 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mitra, S., Datta, P.P., 2014. Adoption of green supply chain management practices and

their impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian manufacturing firms.

International Journal of Production Research. 52 (7), 2085-2107.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.849014.

Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 2007. An examination of corporate reporting,

environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations

Management. 25 (5), 998-1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.003.

Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2002. Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study.

Transportation Journal. 41 (4), 23-35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20713503.

Naidoo, M., Gasparatos, A., 2018. Corporate Environmental Sustainability in the retail

sector: drivers, strategies and performance measurement. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 203, 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.253.

Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social

responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach.

Journal of Cleaner Production. 56, 173-184.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.009.

52
Oberhofer, P., Dieplinger, M., 2014. Sustainability in the transport and logistics sector:

lacking environmental measures. Business Strategy and the Environment. 23 (4),

236-253. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1769.

Orji, I.J., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H., 2019. The critical success factors of using social

media for supply chain social sustainability in the freight logistics industry.

International Journal of Production Research. 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1660829.

Piecyk, M.I., Björklund, M., 2015. Logistics service providers and corporate social

responsibility: sustainability reporting in the logistics industry. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 45 (5), 459-485.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-08-2013-0228.

Pourhejazy, P., Kwon, O.K., Lim, H., 2019. Integrating sustainability into the

optimization of fuel logistics networks. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 23

(3), 1369-1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1373-7.

Rahman, T., Ali, S.M., Moktadir, M.A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., 2019. Evaluating barriers to

implementing green supply chain management: an example from an emerging

economy. Production Planning & Control. 1-26.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1674939.

Rashidi, K., Cullinane, K., 2019. Evaluating the sustainability of national logistics

performance using Data Envelopment Analysis. Transport Policy. 74, 35-46.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.014.

Rediker, K.J., Seth, A., 1995. Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative

governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal. 16 (2), 85-99.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160202.

53
Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W.S., Tavasszy, L., 2018. Measuring the relative importance of

the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport

Policy. 68, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007.

Ribeiro S.K., Kobayashi S., Beuthe M., Gasca J., Greene D., Lee D.S., Muromachi Y.,

Newton P.J., Plotkin S., Sperling D., Wit R., 2007. Transport and its

infrastructure. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New

York, NY, USA.

Rogers, D.S., Tibben-Lembke, R., 2001. An examination of reverse logistics practices.

Journal of Business Logistics. 22 (2), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-

1592.2001.tb00007.x.

Schulze, H., Bals, L., Johnsen, T.E., 2019. “Individual competences for sustainable

purchasing and supply management (SPSM): a literature and practice perspective.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 49 (3),

287-304. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-01-2018-0036.

Seles, B.M.R.P., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Dangelico, R.M., 2016. The

green bullwhip effect, the diffusion of green supply chain practices, and

institutional pressures: evidence from the automotive sector. International Journal

of Production Economics. 182, 342-355.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.033.

Sethi, S.P., Rovenpor, J.L., Demir, M., 2017. Enhancing the quality of reporting in

Corporate Social Responsibility guidance documents: the roles of ISO 26000,

Global Reporting Initiative and CSR‐sustainability monitor. Business and

Society Review. 122 (2), 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12113.

54
Shaw, S., Grant, D.B., Mangan, J., 2010. Developing environmental supply chain

performance measures. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 17 (3), 320-339.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771080001424.

Sohail, M., Maunder, D.A.C., Cavill, S., 2006. Effective regulation for sustainable public

transport in developing countries. Transport Policy. 13 (3), 177-190.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.11.004.

Sohn, M., Sohn, W., Klaas-Wissing, T., Hirsch, B., 2015. The influence of corporate

social performance on employer attractiveness in the transport and logistics

industry: insights from German junior talent. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management. 45 (5), 486-505.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-07-2014-0150.

Spence, M., 1974. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 87 (3),

355-374.

Spence, M., 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets.

American Economic Review. 92 (3), 434-459.

https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200.

Stefanelli, N.O., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2014. Green supply chain

management and environmental performance of firms in the bioenergy sector in

Brazil: An exploratory survey. Energy Policy. 75, 312-315.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.019.

Suhi, S.A., Enayet, R., Haque, T., Ali, S.M., Moktadir, M.A., Paul, S.K., 2019.

Environmental sustainability assessment in supply chain: an emerging economy

context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 79, 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106306.

55
Tacken, J., Rodrigues, V.S., Mason, R., 2014. Examining CO2e reduction within the

German logistics sector. The International Journal of Logistics Management. 25

(1), 54-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-09-2011-0073.

Tang, C.F., Abosedra, S., 2019. Logistics performance, exports, and growth: evidence

from Asian economies. Research in Transportation Economics. 78, 100743.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2019.100743.

Thorne, L., Mahoney, L.S., Manetti, G., 2014. Motivations for issuing standalone CSR

reports: a survey of Canadian firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal. 27 (4), 686-714. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2013-1393.

Uyar, A., Karaman, A.S., Kilic, M., 2020. Is corporate social responsibility reporting a

tool of signaling or greenwashing? Evidence from the worldwide logistics sector.

Journal of Cleaner Production. 253, 119997.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119997.

Uyar, A., Kılıç, M., 2012. The influence of firm characteristics on disclosure of financial

ratios in annual reports of Turkish firms listed in the Istanbul Stock Exchange.

International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation. 8 (2),

137-156. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijaape.2012.046603.

Winter, M., Knemeyer, A.M., 2013. Exploring the integration of sustainability and

supply chain management: current state and opportunities for future inquiry.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 43 (1),

18-38. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031311293237.

Wong, W.P., Soh, K.L., Sinnandavar, C.M., Mushtaq, N., 2018. Could the service

consumption-production interface lift national logistics performance?. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling. 128, 222-239.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.002.

56
World Bank, 2018. World Development Indicators Database. https://data.worldbank.org/

(accessed 27 December 2018).

World Bank LPI, 2018. World Development Indicators Database.

https://lpi.worldbank.org/ (accessed 27 December 2018).

World Economic Forum, 2018. Global Competitiveness Index.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index-2017-2018/downloads/

(accessed 20 October 2018).

Wu, H.J., Dunn, S.C., 1995. Environmentally responsible logistics systems. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 25 (2), 20-38.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510083925.

Yu, M.C., Wang, C.N., Ho, N.N.Y., 2016. A grey forecasting approach for the

sustainability performance of logistics companies. Sustainability. 8 (9), 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201608.0204.v1.

Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., Wong, C.Y., Fynes, B., 2020. Green human resource

management and environmental cooperation: an ability-motivation-opportunity

and contingency perspective. International Journal of Production Economics. 219,

224-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.013.

Zaman, K., Shamsuddin, S., 2017. Green logistics and national scale economic

indicators: evidence from a panel of selected European countries. Journal of

Cleaner Production. 143, 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.150.

Zeng, H., Chen, X., Xiao, X., Zhou, Z., 2017. Institutional pressures, sustainable supply

chain management, and circular economy capability: empirical evidence from

Chinese eco-industrial park firms. Journal of Cleaner Production. 155, 54-65.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.093.

57
Appendix
Table A.1
List of countries included in the study.
Country Average LPI Country Average LPI Country Average LPI
Germany 4.119 Saudi Arabia 3.144 Côte d'Ivoire 2.598
Singapore 4.111 Estonia 3.135 Venezuela 2.597
Netherlands 4.101 Lithuania 3.134 Cambodia 2.594
Sweden 4.033 Greece 3.118 Honduras 2.576
Belgium 3.994 Panama 3.074 Nigeria 2.573
United Kingdom 3.986 Cyprus 3.059 Russia 2.565
Hong Kong SAR, China 3.979 Kuwait 3.052 Georgia 2.562
Japan 3.961 Mexico 3.044 Macedonia 2.556
Switzerland 3.925 Malta 3.039 Mauritius 2.547
United States 3.908 Brazil 3.022 Iran 2.544
Luxembourg 3.901 Argentina 3.016 Senegal 2.534
Austria 3.892 Romania 3.000 Montenegro 2.534
Canada 3.886 Vietnam 2.998 Sri Lanka 2.533
Denmark 3.864 Oman 2.976 Tanzania 2.532
Finland 3.859 Bulgaria 2.975 Moldova 2.497
France 3.841 Croatia 2.972 Jamaica 2.488
Norway 3.824 Indonesia 2.956 Ghana 2.486
Ireland 3.798 Philippines 2.943 Nicaragua 2.484
Australia 3.792 Peru 2.848 Azerbaijan 2.465
United Arab Emirates 3.723 Egypt 2.823 Algeria 2.452
Italy 3.667 Jordan 2.803 Namibia 2.447
Spain 3.658 Uruguay 2.780 Bolivia 2.433
South Africa 3.574 Tunisia 2.763 Albania 2.432
New Zealand 3.570 Lebanon 2.746 Armenia 2.421
China 3.504 Pakistan 2.745 Cameroon 2.403
Malaysia 3.486 Ukraine 2.739 Ethiopia 2.389
Portugal 3.438 Kenya 2.738 Zambia 2.386
Czech Republic 3.390 Ecuador 2.724 Mozambique 2.375
Israel 3.385 El Salvador 2.721 Kyrgyzstan 2.337
Poland 3.365 Costa Rica 2.712 Zimbabwe 2.314
Turkey 3.362 Serbia 2.698 Mongolia 2.289
Iceland 3.332 Morocco 2.694 Nepal 2.268
Thailand 3.293 Bosnia 2.690 Gabon 2.251
Qatar 3.273 Colombia 2.679 Tajikistan 2.231
Hungary 3.241 Dominican Rep. 2.678 Haiti 2.163
Chile 3.205 Botswana 2.675
Bahrain 3.195 Guatemala 2.648
Slovenia 3.174 Paraguay 2.629
Slovak Republic 3.156 Kazakhstan 2.620
Latvia 3.154 Benin 2.615
India 3.152 Bangladesh 2.610

58
Green logistics performance and sustainability reporting practices of the logistics sector:

the moderating effect of corporate governance

Highlights

• Green logistics performance has a significant (+) association with sustainability

reporting.

• Corporate governance moderates between green logistics practices & sustainability

reporting.

• There is a substitution effect between corporate governance and sustainability reporting.

• Sustainability initiatives meet transparency needs of investors in poorly regulated

contexts.

• The study provides implications for logistics sector, policy-makers, and supply chain

managers.
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: