Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rtbm

A multi-criteria decision model for stakeholder management in city logistics

⁎
Konstantina Katsela , Henrik Pålsson
Department of Design Sciences, Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund University, PO Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper describes the development and application of a multi-criteria decision model to support stakeholder
City logistics management in city logistics by prioritising among the diversity of stakeholders' goals. The decision model was
Decision model applied and tested in a longitudinal case study of a city logistics initiative in Sweden with ten stakeholders. The
Analytical hierarchy process data were collected included semi-structured interviews and surveys with the stakeholders, participant ob-
Stakeholders
servation and archival records. The results were analysed using a multi-criteria decision model, which utilises
Stakeholders' goals
Participant observation
the analytic hierarchy process to rank alternative goals and their importance. The proposed multi-criteria de-
cision model provides a structured approach to managing the multiple stakeholders in city logistics and their
goals. The model helps to identify the overall goals that need the most attention and which of these goals need to
be considered for each stakeholder and to what extent. This paper offers a multi-criteria decision model for
stakeholder management in city logistics, something that is lacking in the literature.

1. Introduction (shippers, freight carriers, administrators, residents, others; NGOs and

Transportation for the supply and disposal of goods in cities must
become more efficient to secure sustainable and attractive cities with
minimal pollution, congestion and traffic noise (Benjelloun, Crainic, &
Bigras, 2010; Crainic, 2008; Kennedy, Miller, Shalaby, Maclean, &
Coleman, 2005; OECD, 2003). To address these challenges, city logistics
initiatives have been implemented around the world to test various
concepts. A majority have used urban consolidation centres (UCCs) to
bundle deliveries within cities (Johansson & Björklund, 2017; van
Rooijen & Quak, 2008; Yamada and Taniguchi, 2006). Several of these
initiatives include environmental zones, access restriction schemes, use
of environmentally sound vehicles and non-road modes such as light
rail systems for freight movement (Allen & Browne, 2010).
Despite their potential, a large proportion of the initiatives have
failed to become permanent, as there are several challenges to over-
come (Browne, Allen, Andersen, & Woodburn, 2006). These include a
lack of collaboration between the public and private sector (BESTUFS,
2007) and difficulties coordinating the various motives and goals of the
many stakeholders in city logistics (Lagorio, Pinto, & Golini, 2016;
Lindholm, 2010). Other challenges are low profitability (Gammelgaard,
2015), reluctance in the transport industry to use the UCCs, insufficient
rules and regulations, and policy measures that are perceived as unfair
(Schoemaker, 2002). This paper focuses on the challenges related to
coordinating motives and goals.
The diversity of goals and motives of different stakeholders
property owners) are great challenges in city logistics (Alves, da Silva
Lima, Custódio de Sena, Ferreira de Pinho, & Holguín-Veras, 2019;
Anand, Yang, Van Duin, & Tavasszy, 2012; Taniguchi & Tamagawa,
2005). Shippers are interested in timely and cost efficient deliveries
with a high service level. Freight carriers aim for as much business as
possible and being able to perform cost-efficient deliveries. City ad-
ministrators and governments primarily look for minimal environ-
mental effects of city distribution while also promoting economic ac-
tivity to have a vibrant and attractive city (Benjelloun et al., 2010).
NGOs can play a crucial role in implementing the provisions of city
logistics, either directly through their own activities and research, or
indirectly by helping to build capacity within government, city ad-
ministrators and other institutions to better meet the city logistics
commitments.
The differences in stakeholder interests in city logistics means that
they have different perspectives on how to improve the transport
system, which may lead to conflicts of interest and missed opportunities
to obtain the best possible solution. Thus, to obtain more sustainable
and liveable cities through a city logistics initiative, the stakeholders'
goals should be coordinated (Guerlain, Renault, Francesco Ferrero, &
Sébastien Faye, 2019; Oliveira et al., 2018; Browne & Gonzalez-Feliu,
2017; Russo & Comi, 2016; Lindholm & Thalenius, 2006; OECD, 2003).
This paper addresses the challenge of stakeholder coordination and
management of the diversity of goals among stakeholders. The purpose
of the research is to develop and apply a decision model to support

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: konstantina.katsela@plog.lth.se (K. Katsela), henrik.palsson@plog.lth.se (H. Pålsson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100439
Received 30 September 2019; Received in revised form 30 January 2020; Accepted 31 January 2020
2210-5395/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Konstantina Katsela and Henrik Pålsson, Research in Transportation Business & Management,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100439
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
stakeholder management in city logistics by prioritising among the
diversity of the stakeholders' goals. The decision model is applied in a
longitudinal case study of a city logistics initiative with ten stakeholders
in the City of Malmö, Sweden. The case study followed the development
and pilot implementation of the initiative over three years. The initial
idea of a city logistics initiative evolved into a novel business model
through a pre-study of user needs and of the goals and motives of dif-
ferent stakeholders. This led to a city logistics initiative, which con-
solidated goods both in an urban consolidation centre (UCC) and in a
micro-terminal in the city centre. A transport provider invested in a
new lorry with the latest environmental technologies to distribute large
volumes of goods from the UCC to customers and to the micro-terminal.
Another transport provider invested in another smaller and fossil-free
vehicle to distribute goods from the micro-terminal to the city centre. In
addition to consolidation, the initiative also offered logistics services,
such as waste handling and external storage. This paper focuses on the
challenges related to managing the diversity of stakeholder goals.
Section 5 presents a detailed description of the city logistics initiative in
the City of Malmö, but before that, the next section presents a literature
review of stakeholder theory and its relation to decision-making.
Thereafter, Section 3 presents the generic multi-criteria decision model,
followed by the methodology in Section 4. Then, the paper presents the
case study of this city logistics initiative where the generic model is
applied. This is followed by the results from the analysis in Section 6.
The paper ends with a discussion, conclusions, implications and future
research recommendations.
2. Stakeholders' decision-making in city logistics
This literature review section consists of two parts. The first part
reviews stakeholder theory and its relation to decision-making. It also
reviews the collaboration, interdependence and goals of stakeholders in
city logistics. The second part reviews the decisions models for stake-
holder management.
2.1. Stakeholders in city logistics
Stakeholders can be defined as “any group or individual who can af-
fect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives”
(Freeman, 1984). In city logistics, stakeholders are those that have a
stake in the outcomes of an initiative. The stake could be an interest or a
right (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2000). An interest is a circumstance in
which an organisation will be affected by a decision. A right is the
moral and legal rights when an organisation has a legal claim to be
treated in a certain way. According to Taniguchi (2014), the stake is
based on the diverse motives and goals of stakeholders that potentially
can influence the decision-making during the implementation of city
logistics solutions.
Stakeholder theory attempts to identify the fundamental question of
which groups of stakeholders deserve or require attention. It addresses
both how to prioritise among various stakeholder demands and how to
consider the relationship dynamics among the stakeholders, where
stakeholders have direct relationships with one another (Bridoux,
Coeurderoy, & Durand, 2011; Rowley, 1997).
The relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders are
essential for success (Bridoux et al., 2011; Harrison & Wicks, 2013;
Leana & Rousseau, 2000). It is necessary to understand such relation-
ships to cope with environmental turbulence and uncertainty (Savage,
Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991). This helps to manage heterogenic
motives and goals for maximum value creation and financial benefits by
coordinating behaviours in collective endeavours (Bridoux et al., 2011;
Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2013).
A synthesis of stakeholder groups in city logistics literature (Barceló,
2003; Björklund & Johansson, 2018; Meixell & Luoma, 2015;
Taniguchi, Thompson, Yamada, & Duin, 2001) results in five general
categories: shippers, freight carriers or transport providers,
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
administrators, residents, and others. The last category includes NGOs
and property owners. Each stakeholder group contributes knowledge,
insights and support in shaping a city logistics initiative's vision, ob-
jectives and value creation (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2013; Harrison &
Wicks, 2013).
Many stakeholders in city logistics collaborate, which affects their
behaviour (Gammelgaard, Andersen, & Figueroa, 2017; Taniguchi &
Tamagawa, 2005). City logistics initiatives must acknowledge the ef-
fects of such collaboration on forming mutual goals and striving in the
same direction (Bertolini, le Clercq, & Kapoen, 2005). Stathopoulos,
Valeri, and Marcucci (2012) emphasise the importance of analysing
stakeholders' collaboration procedures and their different needs and
constrains in relation to city logistics strategies. According to Gatta,
Marcucci, Nigro, Patella, and Serafini (2018), Browne and Gonzalez-
Feliu (2017), and Awasthi and Proth (2006), the consideration of such
collaboration is a success factor for city logistics solutions. Without a
common understanding between stakeholders, it might be difficult to
obtain sustainable solutions for city logistics. Stathopoulos et al. (2012)
accentuate that it is necessary to understand the different stakeholders'
relationships and the asymmetries of their power to be able to imple-
ment city logistics solutions. They point out that asymmetries of power
can determine the level of collaboration between the stakeholders of an
initiative and the circulation of expenses and advantages between them.
Stakeholder collaboration and management can facilitate efficient
city logistics (Browne & Gonzalez-Feliu, 2017; Gammelgaard et al.,
2017). Taniguchi and Tamagawa (2005) created an example to describe
how the behaviour of stakeholders can result in a vicious circle unless
the behaviour is properly managed. The vicious circle can start with the
shipper charging a delay penalty when the transport providers miss the
delivery time. To avoid penalties, the transport providers increase their
delivery frequencies, which leads to lower fill rates in the lorries and
thus increases the environmental impact. When the environmental
impact reaches a certain level, residents are affected negatively, and
accordingly complain to the city administrators. Then, the city ad-
ministrators implement city logistics measures, which in turn affect the
transport providers. Hence, the vicious circle pinpoints the need for
stakeholder collaboration and management to analyse and align goals
from a holistic perspective.
Since the individual stakeholder groups often have different goals
for their participation in city logistics initiatives, conflicts may arise.
City administrators can take a neutral stance to mediate in such con-
flicts, which can facilitate the implementation of city logistics solutions
(Taniguchi et al., 2001). However, city administrators usually disregard
involving transport providers in the decision-making of city logistics
due to inadequate consideration of the transport providers' pre-
requisites in urban development (Browne & Gonzalez-Feliu, 2017).
Thus, transport providers are often seen more as an obstacle to policy
implementation than as enablers and core participants (Stathopoulos
et al., 2012). As a result, the distribution of goods has been regarded as
a problem rather than an essential activity. City administrators have
thus focused more on the policies for individual vehicle activities than
on the supply chains that these vehicle activities are part of (Browne &
Gonzalez-Feliu, 2017).
2.2. Decision models for stakeholders in city logistics
The stakeholder theory perspective is that an organisation has re-
lationships with several stakeholder groups (Harrison & Wicks, 2013).
To maintain support from these stakeholder groups, an organisation
needs to be aware of and balance their interests and goals (Clarkson,
1998; Evan & Freeman, 1993; Harrison & Wicks, 2013). However, in-
separable resources and heterogenic stakeholders may challenge or
constrain managers in balancing stakeholder interests and goals. Still,
little research has considered stakeholder decision-making in the con-
text of stakeholder management principles and stakeholder theory (de
Colle, 2005; Harrison & Thompson, 2015; Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo,
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
2011).
Most of the literature on decision models for stakeholders in city
logistics uses an agent-based approach. In order to consider the multi-
stakeholder domain in city logistics initiatives, a common approach for
decision models in the current research is agent-based modelling (e.g.
Alves et al., 2019; Anand, Van Duin, & Tavasszy, 2014, 2016; Taniguchi
& Tamagawa, 2005). Another one used is a system-based approach (e.g.
Awasthi & Proth, 2006). One study used the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) methodology for route planning (Semanjski & Gautama, 2019).
The agent-based models have developed different decision models, such
as a multi-perspective semantic data model and a validation approach.
The models have drawn some significant insights in terms of stake-
holders' preferences for personal and career objectives within the in-
itiatives (e.g. Anand et al., 2016). The studies show that by under-
standing the way the heterogeneous stakeholders collaborate helps to
understand the inefficiency of city logistics. Based on this finding, other
researchers have concluded that better decisions are implemented when
they are stakeholder driven (Le Pira et al., 2017; Lindholm & Blinge,
2014).
3. The multi-criteria decision model
This paper proposes a multi-criteria decision model for city logistics,
based on the generic model developed by Hosseini and Brenner (1992),
which, in turn, is based on Saaty's (1980) original work and develop-
ment of the AHP decision model (see references in Hosseini & Brenner,
1992). We chose the Hosseini and Brenner work because it provides a
procedure to validate stakeholder theory using the AHP framework and
presents clear guidance for applying the AHP. This AHP decision model
ranks alternative goals (preferences) and their importance in a stake-
holder value matrix. The AHP is a measurement theory, which can take
several factors into consideration simultaneously (Saaty, 1987). It can
synthesise or conclude various factors in decision problems by making
numerical trade-offs between these factors. According to Saaty (1987,
p. 161), the AHP “is used to derive ratio scales from both discrete and
continuous paired comparisons. These comparisons may be taken from ac-
tual measurements or from a fundamental scale which reflects the relative
strength of preferences and feelings. The AHP has a special concern with
departure from consistency, its measurement and on dependence within and
between the groups of elements of its structure. It has found its widest ap-
plications in multi-criteria decision making, planning and resource allocation
and in conflict resolution.”
The AHP and the value matrix are useful in this study of multiple
stakeholders and their goals because it enables the identification of
which overall goals should be given the most attention, and to what
extent the goals of each stakeholder should be considered. The devel-
opment of the multi-criteria decision model involves three basic steps
(Hosseini & Brenner, 1992). A summary of the main elements of each
step follows. A detailed description of the methodology and its ap-
proach is provided in Hosseini and Brenner (1992).
Step 1. Describe a complex multi-attribute problem as a hierarchy.
The first step is the creation of a hierarchical decision model with
three levels, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Level 1 states the overall objective
of the decision model. Level 2 identifies and describes the various sta-
keholders. Level 3 describes the goals for the stakeholders to engage in
a city logistics initiative.
Step 2. Estimate the relative weights for importance (or preference,
influence, likelihood, etc.) of various criteria on each level of the
hierarchy.
In the second step, the influence weights (R) and the goals' value of
each stakeholder (W) are calculated and described in Level 2 and Level
3, respectively, of the model. The methodology suggests that influence
weights should be calculated by first making pairwise comparisons of
all stakeholders to calculate influence ratings (R1,2 to Rn-1,n), as de-
scribed in Fig. 2. Next, a matrix describing the relative influence of each
stakeholder versus each of the other stakeholders is created by using the
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
influence ratings and all stakeholders on both axes (see example in
Table 1). The matrix should be created from the perspective of the
stakeholder on the y-axis (left column). If stakeholder 1 (on the y-axis)
is more influential than stakeholder 2 (on the x-axis), the influence
rating value (in this example R1,2) should be used; otherwise the in-
verted value should be used (i.e. stakeholder 2 is more influential than
stakeholder 1). The matrix is completed when all n * n cells are filled in
a similar manner. Thereafter, each cell in the matrix (Table 1) should be
normalised for each stakeholder (1 to n) on the x-axis (each column), as
shown in Table 2. Finally, the influence weights of each stakeholder
(R1-Rn) should be calculated as the average value of the normalised
matrix for each stakeholder (right column in Table 2). Accordingly, the
influence weight shows the average influence of each stakeholder
compared to the others. To measure the consistency of the judgement in
the data, an “inconsistency ratio” was calculated, as suggested by Saaty
(1980) and Hosseini and Brenner (1992). The inconsistency ratio
measures the extent to which the pairwise comparisons are consistent
by calculating the difference between the consistency in the actual
rankings by a respondent and the expected rankings. For instance, if a
respondent ranks goal I to goal II by a factor of 3, and goal II to goal III
by a factor of 2, the respondent should rank goal I to goal III by a factor
of 6. If this is not the case, there is an inconsistency. Saaty (1980) re-
commends that an inconsistency ratio of maximum 0.1 is acceptable.
Otherwise, the most inconsistent rankings should be carefully reviewed.
The numerical goals in Fig. 1 for each stakeholder (from W1,1 to
Wn,n) should be calculated in a similar manner as described for the
influence weights (R). The calculations should use the data of goals of
the stakeholders collected in the semi-structured interviews.
Step 3. Integrate the relative weights to develop an evaluation of
the hierarchy with respect to the overall objectives of the problem.
The overall weights per stakeholder were calculated by multiplying
the influence weight (R) by the goals value for each stakeholder (W)
resulting in composite stakeholder value matrix weights. The values in
this matrix describe which of the goals need to be considered for each
stakeholder and to what extent in order to manage the decision making
of urban consolidation.
4. Method
The empirical data presented in the paper were captured in a
longitudinal case study of a city logistics initiative. The case study was
guided by Yin (2014, pp. 72–99) for the overall research design and to
capture, document and analyse data. The details are presented in the
following subsections.
4.1. Research design
Case study research can be divided into theory generation, theory
testing, and theory elaboration (Ketokivi & Choi, 2014). The case study
presented falls into the third category, as it elaborates on the general
multi-criteria decision model presented in Section 3. The study aims to
understand the model in the contextual setting of city logistics.
A case study was selected to provide rich data from multiple sources
of stakeholder coordination and management, which is lacking in the
current literature. The case study approach helped to capture the
complexity of interactions between stakeholders, between their goals,
and how these goals affect the other stakeholders. A longitudinal study
was beneficial to understand first-hand how the goals affected the de-
cisions and the behaviour of the stakeholders during an implementation
process. The unit of analysis was to the coordination of stakeholder
goals in a city logistics initiative.
4.2. Data collection
The case study captured data from multiple sources including par-
ticipant observation during one year, semi-structured interviews,
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 1. An integrated and cost-efficient goods transport system in the city with minimal environmental impact and sufficient logistics services.

surveys and archival records. The participant observation data related Table 1
to various sources when a city logistics initiative was tested in the city Relative influence of the stakeholders.
of Malmö, such as monthly consortia meetings and weekly im- Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder n
plementation meetings. All data were documented in a case study
protocol (Yin, 2014). The protocol provided guidance and assistance in Stakeholder 1 1 R1,2 or 1/R1,2 R1,n or 1/R1,n
the data collection and the analysis as well as assistance into creating Stakeholder 2 R2,1 or 1/R2,1 1 R2,n or 1/R2,n
Stakeholder n Rn,1 or 1/Rn,1 Rn,2 or 1/Rn,2 1
the interview guide. The protocol followed a chronological order cov-
Sum ƩColumn 1 ƩColumn 2 ƩColumn n
ering the implementation process of the initiative and its performance
outcomes. The protocol has 70 pages with six sections: Note: The values compare the stakeholder in the left column with the other
ones. The inverted value is used when the other stakeholder is the more in-
1. An overview of the initiative with all the published reports. fluential one.
2. Data collection sources: meeting minutes, notes, events, presenta-
tions, performance reports, presentations, e-mail summaries, ob- participants' names and contact information, participants' positions
servations and interviews. in the company and roles in the initiative, years of experience in the
3. Other forms of documentation, such as pictures and illustrations. organisation and in logistics projects.
4. Detailed list of the involved stakeholders: organisation, number of 5. Links to interview transcriptions and survey results.
participants from each organisation involved in the initiative, 6. References to bibliographical information and relevant documents:

Fig. 2. Example of data collection for calculating influence ratings (R1,2 to Rn-1,n).

4
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
Table 2
Influence weight calculations.
Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2
Stakeholder 1 R1,1Norm = 1/ƩColumn 1 R1,2Norm = (R1,2 or 1/R1,2)/ƩColumn 2
Stakeholder 2 R2,1Norm = (R2,1 or 1/R2,1)/ ƩColumn 1 1)/ƩColumn 2
Stakeholder n Rn,1Norm = (Rn,1 or 1/Rn,1)/ ƩColumn 1 Rn,2Norm = (Rn,2 or 1/Rn,2)/ƩColumn 2
Journal publications on city logistics initiatives, best practices re-
ports (e.g. BESTUFS and OECD)
The participant observation data (consortia meetings, separate
meetings between the researchers and the stakeholders, events and
presentations) revealed five general goals for the stakeholders' partici-
pation in the city logistics initiative. The goals were compared to goals
described in the stakeholders' engagement literature (e.g. Bridoux et al.,
2011; Harrison & Wicks, 2013). The five goals are defined as follows:
Economic efficiency: goods being delivered at the lowest possible cost.
Environmental efficiency: the city logistics initiative should reduce
emissions, particles, noise, etc. Few and small delivery trucks: goods
should be delivered this way in order to have an attractive city with
minimal congestion, physical disturbance and traffic safety. Delivery
quality: receiving goods on time with minimal stops and deliveries, but
with the needed frequency. Finally, marketing advantage: the ability to
differentiate the delivery service offering in the market place.
We conducted semi-structured one-hour interviews with eight sta-
keholders in order to deepen and support the insights from the parti-
cipant observation activities on the stakeholders' goals to participate in
the city logistics initiative (Table 3). We used surveys to capture data
from the two big groups of stores and citizens. The interviews were
audio recorded and transcribed. The respondents were all experienced
in urban challenges and well familiar with the city logistics initiative;
each of them had represented their organisation in the city logistics
initiative for 2–3 years. The respondents frequently discussed the city
logistics initiative internally in their organisations in order to represent
the organisation's standpoint.
The store survey was part of a comprehensive study of the stores'
perspectives on city logistics. An interviewer visited the stores when the
stores had the lowest workload. To increase the response rate, the in-
terviewer informed them of the research study, the purpose and the
actors behind it, that the survey would take 10–15 min to complete,
that the answers should be treated in aggregate and anonymously, and
that all answers were important to get an accurate picture of the in-
terest for the city logistics initiative. The respondents were from 76
store managers/owners and 26 permanent employees with solid in-
dustry experience. In total, 185 stores were visited, of which 104 re-
sponded to the survey, representing a response rate of 56.2%.
The city conducts a citizen survey twice a year to capture the citi-
zens' opinions on various questions. We used the results of this survey to
capture the citizens' goals (Citizen Survey, 2016). The survey used a
stratified sample where 754 out of 1985 citizens answered the survey,
which corresponds to a response rate of 38%.
The semi-structured interviews and the surveys focused on two parts
Table 3
Respondents in the interview study.
Stakeholder group Respondent position
Municipality Project and Strategy Coordinator from the Planning Department
Transport provider 1 Business Development and Sales Manager
Transport provider 2 Sales Manager
Property owner Business Area Manager, Retail
City cooperation organisation City Cards and Membership issues responsible
Haulier organisation Project manager
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise Transport, Logistics and Customs Responsible
Retail consumer organisation CEO
5
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Stakeholder n Influence weight
R1,nNorm = (R1,n or 1/R1,n)/ƩColumn n Mean (R1,1Norm;R1,2Norm;R1,nNorm)
R2,1Norm = (R2,n or 1/R2,n)/ƩColumn n Mean (R2,1Norm;R2,2Norm;R2,nNorm)
Rn,nNorm = 1)/ƩColumn n Mean (Rn,1Norm;Rn,2Norm;Rn,nNorm)
that generated data for the model: the goals the stakeholders wanted to
achieve with their participation in the city logistics initiative, and the
influence of the stakeholders on the city logistics initiative. For con-
textual understanding and insights into each stakeholder's participa-
tion, the interviews also covered general information about the orga-
nisation, their learning and output from the initiative, and challenges in
the initiative.
In the first part, the five stakeholder goals were discussed (economic
efficiency, environmental efficiency, few and small trucks, delivery quality,
and marketing advantage). The researcher conducting the interviews
explained the meaning of these goals and asked the responding stake-
holders if they wanted to add more, but none needed to do so. They felt
the ones presented covered their goals. Next, the five goals were dis-
cussed and rated in terms of pairwise comparisons using the ratio scale
by Saaty (1988): each goal was compared to the other four, one by one.
For example, economic efficiency was first compared to environmental
efficiency where the respondent could rate these two goals as being
equally important, or that one was moderately more important than the
other, etc. as explained in the ratio scale in Table 4.
To measure the consistency of the judgement in the data, we cal-
culated a consistency ratio as suggested by Hosseini and Brenner
(1992). The inconsistency ratio for both the influence weights (0.1) and
the relative goals (ranged from 0.07 to 0.1) for the different stake-
holders was acceptable, as both were equal to or lower than the re-
commended limit of 0.1 (Saaty, 1980). Afterwards, the interview results
were compared to the other data about goals in the case study protocol.
This is elaborated upon in the next section, 4.3 Data analysis.
The second part of the interview covered the relationships between
the responding stakeholder and the other stakeholders. It examined
how the responding stakeholder perceived the organisation's relative
importance to the city logistics initiative compared to each of the other
stakeholders. To do so, the responding stakeholder described the or-
ganisation's contribution to the initiative, experience of each of the
other stakeholders, and how the organisation affected and was affected
by the other stakeholders. To convert the data into the multi-criteria
decision model, they were first compared to the other data in the case
study protocol, and then converted into a ratio scale of 1–9, as illu-
strated in Table 4. In this way, we captured the relative influence of
each stakeholder.
4.3. Data analysis
The data were analysed in three stages. In the first stage, the par-
ticipant observation data were analysed with the aim of identifying the
different goals, which are described in the previous section, 4.2 Data
Work experience in the organisation (years)
3
1
15
10
6
4
4
14
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
Table 4
The ratio scale (Saaty, 1988).
Intensity of importance Definition
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance of one over another
5 Essential or strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments
Reciprocals When activity i compared to j is assigned one of the above numbers, then activity j compared to i is assigned its reciprocal.
Rationals Ratios arising from forcing consistency of judgements.
collection. In this stage, the researchers read the case study protocol.
Each part that mentioned goals was marked and then summarised. The
identified goals were compared to the literature about city logistics
goals.
In the second stage, the results of the interviews and the surveys
were used as input to the steps in the multi-criteria decision model. The
two researchers did this individually. They completed the scores for
influence ratings (Fig. 2) and the goals ratings. The intensity of im-
portance was gathered from the interviews and translated into figures
as described in Hosseini and Brenner (1992). For example, if the re-
spondent replied that two goals were equally important, that cell of the
goals matrix received the value 1. In the process of rating, the re-
searchers triangulated the interview and survey data with the partici-
pant observation data. Thereafter, the researchers compared the ratings
and discussed differences by going back to the raw data until they
reached consensus. This crosschecking helped to ensure that the inter-
pretation and evaluation of the data were not influenced by their per-
sonal views (Douglas & Johnson, 1977).
In stage three, the researchers went back to the case study protocol
with the participant observation data (meeting minutes, notes, web-
sites, etc.). They summarised each stakeholder's goal or discussion
about goals and motives and compared them to the ones in stage two.
This only resulted in some minor modifications. The final part of stage
three was to verify the researchers' understanding of influences and
goals from the results of the model by presenting and discussing the
results among the stakeholders in the consortia group of the city lo-
gistics initiative.
After having described and motivated the method applied in this
paper, the next section describes the case to which the multi-criteria
decision model was applied.
5. The case study of Samcity in Malmö
The case study followed a city logistics initiative in the City of
Malmö, a multicultural middle-sized city in Sweden with approximately
300,000 residents, for three years. The city is one of the commercial
centres of Sweden, undergoing a transition from being an industrial city
to a city of knowledge. Logistics, retail and wholesale trade, construc-
tion, and property are its strongest sectors. In recent years, the city has
received international awards for its focus on sustainable city devel-
opment.
The municipality has been interested in how to consolidate the
freight flow in the city centre for many years, since the city centre is
endowed with navigable creeks, bodies of water and channel bridges
that are suitable for urban freight transport services. As a result, the
idea of a city logistics initiative was discussed among various stake-
holder groups in 2013. The positive outcome led to a pre-study of user
needs for a city logistics solution as well the goals and motives of dif-
ferent stakeholders for such an initiative. The survey results, with 104
responses from users (i.e. stores in the city centre), showed that about
30% expressed interest in consolidation via the city logistics initiative.
About 30% were also interested in additional logistics services, such as
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Explanation
Two elements contribute equally to the property
Experience and judgement slightly favour one element over another
Experience and judgement strongly favour one element over another
An element is strongly favoured and its dominance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favouring one element over another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
When compromise is needed between two judgements
packaging waste handling, returns handling and external storage, at an
extra cost.
After the pre-study, the development of a business model, followed
by a pilot implementation began. The novelty of the initiative was to
create a sustainable, coordinated goods consolidation centre that meets
users' needs for efficient transportation and services with a minimal
environmental impact in order to achieve an attractive urban en-
vironment in interaction with the ongoing urban development. The idea
was to obtain a user perspective in the business model by providing
value-adding logistics services and a take-back system for packaging
waste along with bundled deliveries. Thus, the city logistics initiative
focused on the efficient and environmentally sound urban freight
transport services in the city centre. The initiative included two trans-
port providers (TP1 and TP2). TP1 was responsible for the transport
operations and the UCC within the city logistics initiative. The UCC was
located just outside the city with access from major roads. The UCC
stored, sorted and consolidated goods for the city centre. TP2 was re-
sponsible for a micro terminal in the city centre. The vehicles used in
the initiative had the initiative's logotype. They included a heavy ve-
hicle running on renewable fuel, and a smaller fossil-free vehicle with
minimal noise for short-distance delivery from the micro terminal. The
heavy vehicle delivered big volumes to stores and smaller orders to the
micro terminal. The city logistics initiative also offered logistics services
to the customers.
To support the development of the initiative, a number of policy
measures were implemented. One example was a measure that allowed
the transport providers to drive on the pedestrian roadways. The mu-
nicipality made an exception that granted permission to drive there. A
requirement was that the drivers had to attend a road safety education
class and pass a test. Another policy measure was the use of signs on the
vehicles explaining that they had been given a dispensation and were
allowed to use specific stop lights in the pedestrian zone. The dis-
pensations were given to support the initiative in its efforts to optimise
transport activities while considering the traffic environment, conges-
tion, safety and the energy savings within the framework of a market
economy.
The initiative consists of ten stakeholders including the municipality
(M), two transport providers (TP1 and TP2), a property owner (PO), a
city cooperation organisation (CCO), a haulage organisation (HO), the
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (CSE), a retail consumer organi-
sation (RCO), the stores (S), and citizens (CZ) in order to develop and
implement a concept for city logistics. Each organisation has a re-
presentative in the initiative. The municipality, which promotes the
economic, environmental and social development of the city, was the
driving force of the initiative.
TP1 is a leading logistics company focused on innovation, quality,
safety and environment. TP2's core competence is recycling; it collects,
treats and recycles waste and residues from industry, organisations and
households throughout Sweden. The PO is a trade association of real
estate entrepreneurs. It has 2300 members that together manage over
7000 properties. The task is to create the best possible conditions for
real estate business life. CCO is a platform for supporting businesses in
6
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
Fig. 3. A hierarchical multi-criteria decision model for sustainable city logistics.
the city through various projects and initiatives in collaboration with
other partners. The goal is to create and maintain an attractive and
vibrant city centre. HO is a haulage organisation dedicated to pro-
moting a sustainable and profitable development of the haulage in-
dustry. It is engaged in various haulage issues related to transport and
social policy to strengthen the Swedish haulage trade, competitiveness
and improve the conditions for trucking companies. CSE represents
businesses in Sweden. Its long-term goal is to ensure that all companies
in Sweden shall have the best possible conditions to operate and grow.
CSE represents almost 60,000 small, medium and large businesses. RCO
is a cooperative association founded in 1899 based on the idea of ex-
cellent food at reasonable prices. This idea has developed over time to
consider the creation of economic benefits, while enabling members
through their consumption to contribute to sustainable development for
citizens and the environment. There are about 665 RCO stores
throughout Sweden that are owned by 3.4 million members in 32
consumer associations. S consists of stores offering a wide range of
consumer goods in different product categories. Some of them are part
of a retail chain, while others are independent retailers. The opening
hours of the stores in the city centre differ, which makes transportation
challenging. The citizens (CZ) live in the city and are affected the most
by city logistics initiatives and solutions.
Within the initiative, there was a fruitful dialogue between the
stakeholders in meetings organised by M. The meetings started by
stating the long-term objectives of the initiative, which combined the
goals of the stakeholders. The objectives were reduced emissions of
greenhouse gases from the transport sector, improved air quality and
road safety, a more attractive and livable city for residents, visitors and
businesses in the form of fewer vehicles, and improved services to re-
tailers and the public sector. The initiative held implementation and
consortia meetings. The implementation meetings took place once a
week with M, TP1, TP2, CCO and HO. The aim of these meetings was to
exchange and analyse information on the progress of the initiative and
its performance. During such a meeting, M, the driving force of the
7
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
initiative, distributed performance reports to the participants so that
they could gain visibility into the performance levels and task progress.
The consortia meetings took place once a month where M, PO, CCO,
RO, HO and CSE participated. These meetings aimed to review and
guide the initiative in the overall direction. The direction and follow-up
actions for the initiative were also decided upon. The actions included
goods flow modelling, business model reviews, and analyses related to
the environmental and economical sustainability performance of the
initiative.
6. Results
To develop a multi-criteria decision model that identifies and de-
scribes the goals that need the most attention, and which of these goals
and to what extent they need to be considered for each stakeholder, the
analysis followed the three steps described in Section 3, The Decision
Model.
6.1. Development of a hierarchy with three levels
In the first step, a hierarchy was developed with three levels re-
presenting: 1) the overall objective, 2) the stakeholders, and 3) their
decision criteria, which are based on the stakeholders' goals. Based on
the nature of the city logistics initiative and its aim, the overall objec-
tive for the multi-criteria decision model in level 1 was sustainable city
logistics, which was defined as “An integrated and cost-efficient goods
transport system in the city with minimal environmental impact and
sufficient logistics services.” In level two of the hierarchy, the stake-
holders were presented, followed by their goals, which also are referred
to as goals in level three. The ten stakeholders are described in the
Section 5. The goals emerged from the participant observation (semi-
structured interviews, meeting minutes and exchange of information
during the meetings) and were investigated in detail in the interview
study and the surveys. Five goals were identified and analysed:
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

• Improving environmental efficiency
• Improving economic efficiency
• Utilisation of few and small trucks in the urban area
• High delivery quality
• Obtaining a marketing advantage
6.2. The hierarchical multi-criteria decision model for sustainable city
logistics
In the second step, the influence weights (R) and the goals (W) of
each stakeholder were calculated and described in level 2 and level 3,
respectively, of the decision model. The influence weight shows the
average influence of each stakeholder compared to the others. As an
illustration, the results show that the most influential stakeholder was
M with an influence weight of 0.320, which was approximately 20
times more influential than the CZ with an influence weight of 0.015.
All influence weights are presented in Fig. 3. The goals were calculated
in a similar manner for each stakeholder. The results of the goals for
each stakeholder are shown in level 3 in Fig. 3. The results show, for
instance, that the transport providers primarily focus on cost efficiency
and that the property owner emphasises few and small vehicles in the
city.
6.3. Prioritisation of stakeholder goals
In the third step, the relative influence weights of each stakeholder
and the organisation's goals were combined in a composite stakeholder
goal matrix for sustainable city logistics (Table 5). The results highlight
which and to what extent the different goals need to be considered for
each stakeholder in order to manage the decision-making of the city
logistics initiative. The matrix shows the most essential combinations of
goals and stakeholders in the decision-making process to keep stake-
holders motivated. Managing those combinations creates possibilities
for the long-term success of city logistics from a management per-
spective. The most essential combinations to manage and highlight are:
• Environmental efficiency (0.15) and few and small trucks (0.10) for
M significance of various stakeholders and their goals. Particularly, it
• Few and small trucks (0.09) for PO
• Economic efficiency (0.06) for TP1
• Delivery quality (0.06) for S
• Economic efficiency (0.05) for S
• Economic efficiency (0.04) for TP2.
The composite stakeholder matrix weight related to marketing ad-
vantage is quite low for all stakeholders. According to the decision
model, it should be considered to some extent, but not prioritised. The
results also show that the goals of five stakeholders should be ranked
lower in the decision-making of sustainable city logistics as their in-
tegrated relative weights of influence and goals are low. These stake-
holders are CCO, CSE, HO, RCO and CZ. Out of these, the goals of CCO
should be considered the most because of the highest combined
weights.
7. Discussion
Stakeholders participate in city logistics initiatives for different
reasons. As a result, their individual goals may unintentionally be in
conflict with each other and with the overarching goals of the city lo-
gistics initiative. This paper embraces the fact that the principles of
stakeholder theory can bring clarity to these challenges (Mainardes
et al., 2011). Within a city logistics initiative, the decision makers make
several strategic and operational decisions that affect the urban freight
systems and the public sector in terms of policies, rules and regulations
(Taniguchi, 2014). To reach the overarching goals, it is essential that all
decisions follow a logical path where the goals of various stakeholders
are properly managed. Otherwise, there is a risk that the behaviour of
the stakeholders can result in a vicious circle (Bridoux & Stoelhorst,
2013; Taniguchi & Tamagawa, 2005). This paper develops a multi-
criteria decision model for stakeholder management that helps decision
makers follow such a logical path. The proposed decision model guides
both strategic and operational decisions in the direction of fulfilling the
overarching goals of the city logistics initiative. This section discusses
the methodological aspects of the proposed decision model and its
features compared to alternative decision models. Thereafter, the sec-
tion discusses learning in the case in which the decision model was
applied.
From a methodological perspective, the multi-criteria decision
model applies stakeholder theory in combination with AHP, which is
novel in the context of city logistics (Alves et al., 2019). By doing so, the
proposed multi-criteria decision model attempts to identify the funda-
mental question of which groups of stakeholders deserve or require
attention, which can be translated into how stakeholder demands
should be prioritised.
The AHP in the multi-criteria decision model combines several
factors in decision problems by making numerical trade-offs between
these factors. This is useful in city logistics with multiple stakeholders
because the decision model helps to evaluate numerically the relative
makes it possible to distinguish which overall goals need the most at-
tention and to what extent each stakeholder needs to be considered.
The general advantages of using AHP in city logistics is that it allows for
multi-criteria decision-making and that it is applicable for the decision-
making of several stakeholders. It also helps to structure and compare
qualitative data by transforming them into quantitative ones. This
transformation can be challenging because this procedure includes the
interpretation of qualitative data. To tackle this challenge, this paper
proposes a structured approach. Another challenge is that the analysis
must start from the beginning if a new goal or stakeholder is added or
removed from the decision model. Generally, the goals of a particular
stakeholder in a project are usually quite stable. For instance, if the
municipality prioritises environmentally efficient freight transport, it is

Table 5
Composite stakeholder goal matrix weights for sustainable city logistics.
Stakeholder Environmental efficiency Economic efficiency Few and small trucks Delivery quality Marketing advantage

Transport Provider 1 (TP1) 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02

Transport Provider 2 (TP2) 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01
Municipality (M) 0.15 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.02
Property Owner (PO) 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.02
City Cooperation Organisation (CCO) 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01
Haulier Organisation (HO) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (CSE) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01
Retail Consumer Organisation (RCO) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Stores (S) 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02
Citizens (CZ) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Overall value concern 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.12

8
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
likely to be maintained throughout a project. However, there may be
new stakeholders over time. To include their goals, the data need to be
complemented. This is not overwhelming, though, since the current
data can be kept and complemented or reduced with the changes, and
then the calculations can be updated.
The proposed multi-criteria decision model complements other de-
cision models in city logistics. The few existing models are usually agent
based modelling, examples being a multi-perspective semantic data
model, agent-based simulation and ex-ante assessment models. Such
models are strong in identifying the set of agents (one agent per sta-
keholder), but less effective in understanding the heterogenetic goals of
the stakeholders and how they affect the decision process in city lo-
gistics initiatives. In comparison, our multi-criteria decision model ef-
fectively captures and ranks different stakeholder goals, which can
support better decision-making (Le Pira et al., 2017; Lindholm & Blinge,
2014).
To test the multi-criteria decision model, we applied it to an actual
city logistics initiative. In our case, the application showed that the
goals cannot always be aligned. The study confirmed that the goals
need to be fulfilled to various extents for the different stakeholders in
order to obtain more sustainable and liveable cities (Banister, 2005;
OECD, 2003). In particular, the municipality had the greatest stake in
the initiative, followed by the transport providers, property owners and
stores. This is in line with Taniguchi et al. (2001) who claimed that the
municipality should take a leading role in the implementation of city
logistics solutions. The increased knowledge from our multi-criteria
decision model consists of getting information about the extent to
which the other stakeholders should be addressed.
The goal matrix weights depicted in Table 5 show that the stake-
holders have interests in similar goals to a great extent, but their focuses
vary. Overall, the combination of the stakeholders' goals are of almost
equal importance when it comes to environmental efficiency, economic
efficiency, using few and small trucks, and having high delivery quality.
However, the goal for gaining a marketing advantage from using city
logistics is considerably lower.
The multi-criteria decision model (Table 5) also shows that that the
single most important goal is that the municipality wants to improve
the environmental efficiency of freight transport in the city, followed by
both the municipality and the property owner wanting few and small
trucks in the city. Next, the goal matrix shows that the transport pro-
viders need to obtain economic efficiency and the stores need economic
efficiency and high delivery quality. Noticeably, the goals of five of the
organisations involved are less important in the management of this
city logistics initiative, that is, their stake in the initiative is smaller
than that of the other five stakeholders. An effect of this is that the goals
of the five with less stake in the initiative should be considered when
possible, but they should not be prioritised when they contradict the
goals of the other stakeholders. However, in such cases, the stake-
holders with a lower priority should be informed and the decisions and
actions should be motivated.
Another benefit of the goal matrix in the multi-criteria decision
model is to gain insights into the importance of different goals. The
strongest single goal, and the main goal of the municipality, is to im-
prove the environmental efficiency of city logistics. However, the re-
lative value of this goal for the other organisations is low. This clearly
indicates the risk of losing the interest of other organisations if other
goals are not continuously included in city logistics management.
Improved economic efficiency is important for all organisations except
the citizens. This importance is not surprising, particularly for the trade
and industry organisations. However, improving economic efficiency
may be different for a transport provider than for a store. For instance,
the services a transport provider offers need to be profitable, whereas a
modified supply of goods should result in the store either becoming
more cost efficient or increasing its sales. Thus, these differences need
to be understood. The goal of using few and small trucks is mainly
important to the municipality and the property owners. This needs to be
9
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
analysed in combination with the economic efficiency goal of the
transport providers, which may be facilitated by larger vehicles, in
order to prevent a conflict between these goals. Regarding the delivery
quality and marketing advantage goals, there seems to be consensus
among the different stakeholders.
8. Conclusions
The diversity of stakeholders and the heterogeneity of their goals
are recognised as major challenges of city logistics to reach viable so-
lutions (Anand et al., 2012), but only a limited number of studies have
addressed stakeholder management. To address this gap in the litera-
ture about stakeholder management in city logistics (Awasthi & Proth,
2006; Stathopoulos et al., 2012), this paper proposes and tests a multi-
criteria decision model based on stakeholder theory and AHP. Stake-
holder theory influences the study because this theory emphasises that
the more motivated the stakeholders are, the easier it becomes for the
organisations to retain stakeholders' support and participation to thrive
over time (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2013; Harrison & Wicks, 2013). The
multi-criteria decision model helps rank the relative importance of
multiple stakeholders' goals that need to be considered for each stake-
holder. Thus, it offers a structured approach to prioritise both between
stakeholders and between their goals. The decision model explains
numerically the relative importance of various stakeholders and their
goals. It identifies the overall goals that need the most attention, and
which goals need to be considered for each stakeholder and to what
extent. Thus, it enables users to manage stakeholders in city logistics
from a holistic perspective by systematic ratings and comparisons of the
relative importance of various stakeholder goals.
The proposed multi-criteria decision model was tested in an actual
city logistics initiative where data were captured in a longitudinal case
study with multiple data sources. The case study provides empirical
insights into how to increase the likelihood of keeping all stakeholders
motivated for long-term participation in the initiative by presenting
evidence for the overall importance of different goals and how to
prioritise between stakeholders and between their goals.
From a practical perspective, the multi-criteria decision model can
help practitioners to coordinate goals and to facilitate collaboration, as
it helps to understand the other stakeholders' goals. For managers of
initiatives, it can help to find a balance between various stakeholders
and their goals, which in turn can contribute to an increased success
rate of city logistics initiatives. The outcome of the case study shows
that the multi-criteria decision model can help to make informed trade-
offs between stakeholder goals and to what extent various goals should
be prioritised. The decision model provides a platform for commu-
nication between stakeholders about incompatible goals.
A potential limitation of the multi-criteria decision model is that
some of the stakeholders may have unrealistic goals. For instance, it
might not be possible to reduce the size of the vehicles as perceived by a
stakeholder or it might not be possible to obtain economic benefits as
another stakeholder expects. Such considerations are primarily man-
agement issues. If it is impossible to find an acceptable solution, it
might be possible to exchange stakeholders, particularly if it regards
transport providers who are exchangeable. Although a holistic ap-
proach to the stakeholders' interaction was captured, it would have
been interesting to explore such similarities or differences in terms of
the service being implemented and the stakeholders being involved in
initiatives from different countries. This could demonstrate if there are
any particular differences on national levels. Another potential limita-
tion of the decision model is to secure that all stakeholders interpret the
goals in the same way. To do so, it is essential to define and discuss the
goals. In our case, we also used multiple data sources as well as feed-
back loops in the data analysis. Finally, to complement this study, fu-
ture research should generalise the results of this paper by applying the
multi-criteria decision model to a number of different city logistics in-
itiatives to get general statistics of goals and stakeholder goals to
K. Katsela and H. Pålsson
quantify stakeholder management.
Author contributions
Henrik Pålsson produced drafts of the texts and introduced the idea
to Konstantina Katsela. Both researchers, who shared data collection
and analysis, were responsible for writing the text and research design.
The propositions and final version of the paper were developed in
agreement by both researchers.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Allen, J., & Browne, M. (2010). Sustainability strategies for city logistics. In A. McKinnon,
S. Cullinane, M. Browne, & A. Whiteing (Eds.). Green logistics, improving the environ-
mental sustainability of logistics. Kogan Page.
Alves, R., da Silva Lima, R., Custódio de Sena, D., Ferreira de Pinho, A., & Holguín-Veras,
J. (2019). Agent-based simulation model for evaluating urban freight policy to E-
commerce. Sustainability, 11(15), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154020.
Anand, N., Van Duin, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Ontology-based multi-agent system for
urban freight transportation. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(2), 133–153.
Anand, N., Van Duin, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2016). Framework for modelling mutli-stake-
holder city logistics domain using the agent based modelling approach. Transport
Research Procedia, 16, 4–15.
Anand, N., Yang, M., Van Duin, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2012). CenCLOn: An ontology for city
logistics. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 11944–11960.
Awasthi, A., & Proth, J.-M. (2006). A systems-based approach for city logistics decision
making. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 3(2), 7–17.
Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable Transport - City Transport in the New Century.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Barceló, J. (2003). An overview of models to assist in the design and evaluation of city logistics
projects. Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya.
Benjelloun, A., Crainic, T. G., & Bigras, Y. (2010). Towards a taxonomy of city logistics
projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 6217–6228.
Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2005). Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual
framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in
the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy, 12(3),
207–220.
BESTUFS (2007). Good practice guide on urban freight transport.
Björklund, M., & Johansson, H. (2018). Urban consolidation centre – A literature review,
categorisation, and a future research agenda. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 48(8), 745–764.
Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2011). Heterogeneous motives and collective
value creation. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 711–730.
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2013). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory:
Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal,
35, 107–125.
Browne, M., Allen, J., Andersen, S., & Woodburn, A. (2006). Urban freight consolidation
centers. In E. Taniguchi, & R. G. Thompson (Eds.). Recent advances in city logistics (pp.
253–265). Amsterdam: Elseview.
Browne, M., & Gonzalez-Feliu, J. (2017). Editorial: Sustainable efficiency and manage-
ment issues in urban goods transport: New trends and applications. Research in
Transportation Business and Management, 24, 17–25.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2000). Business and society, ethics and stakeholder
management. Cinn, Ohio: South-Western Publishing.
Citizen Survey (2016). Malmöpanelen 13. available at https://malmo.se/download/18.
486b3990169a51c37f8763a/1553769585515/SE2015_37186_Malm%C3%
B6panelen+nr.13_final.pdf, Accessed date: 22 September 2019.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1998). The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary
readings. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
de Colle, S. (2005). A stakeholder management model for ethical decision making.
International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 6(3–4).
Crainic, T. G. (2008). City logistics.
Douglas, J. D., & Johnson, J. M. (1977). Existential sociology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Evan, W., & Freeman, R. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modem corporation: Kantian
capitalism. In T. Beauchamp, & N. Bowie (Eds.). Ethical theory and business (pp. 97–
106). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Cambridge
University Press.
Gammelgaard, B. (2015). The emergence of city logistics: The case of Copenhagen’s
10
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Citylogistik-kbh. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 45(4), 333–351.
Gammelgaard, B., Andersen, B. G., & Figueroa, M. (2017). Improving urban freight
governance and stakeholder management: A social systems approach combined with
relationship platforms and value co-creation. Research in Transportation Business and
Management, 24, 17–25.
Gatta, V., Marcucci, E., Nigro, M., Patella, S. M., & Serafini, S. (2018). Public transport-
based crowdshipping for sustainable city logistics: Assessing economic and environ-
mental impacts. Sustainability, 11(1), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010145.
Guerlain, C., Renault, S., Francesco Ferrero, F., & Sébastien Faye, S. (2019). Decision
support systems for smarter and sustainable logistics of construction sites.
Sustainability, 11(10), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102762.
Harrison, J. S., & Thompson, S. M. (2015). Strategic management of healthcare organiza-
tions: A stakeholder management approach. New York: Business Expert Press.
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.
Hosseini, J. C., & Brenner, S. N. (1992). The stakeholder theory of the firm: A metho-
dology to generate value matrix weight. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 99–119.
Johansson, H., & Björklund, M. (2017). “Urban consolidation centres: Retail stores” de-
mands for UCC services. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 47(7), 646–662.
Kennedy, C., Miller, E., Shalaby, A., Maclean, H., & Coleman, J. (2005). The four pillars of
sustainable urban transportation. Transport Reviews, 25(4), 393–414.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method.
Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240.
Lagorio, A., Pinto, R., & Golini, R. (2016). Research in urban logistics: A systematic lit-
erature review. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
46(10), 908–931.
Le Pira, M., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., & Pluchino, A. (2017).
Towards a decision-support procedure to Foster stakeholder involvement and ac-
ceptability of urban freight transport policies. European Transport Research
Review, 9(4).
Leana, C. R., & Rousseau, D. (2000). Relational wealth: The advantages of stability in a
changing economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindholm, M. (2010). A sustainable perspective on urban freight transport: Factors af-
fecting local authorities in the planning procedures. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2(3), 6205–6216.
Lindholm, M., & Blinge, M. (2014). Assessing knowledge and awareness of the sustainable
urban freight transport among Swedish local authority policy planners. Transport
Policy, 32, 124–131.
Lindholm, M., & Thalenius, J. (2006). Analys Av Miljöstrategiska Logistikprojekt Stockholm.
TFK.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Issues to resolve.
Management Decision, 49(2), 226–252.
Meixell, M. J., & Luoma, P. (2015). Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain
management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
45L(1–2), 69–89.
OECD (2003). Delivering the goods. 21st century challenges to urban foods transport, Paris.
Oliveira, L. K., Barraza, B., Bertocini, B., Isler, C., Dannúbia, R., Pires, D. R., ... Ferreira, S.
(2018). An overview of problems and solutions for urban freight transport in brazi-
lian cities. Sustainability, 11(12), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041233.
van Rooijen, T., & Quak, H. (2008). Binnenstadservice.Nl: A new type of urban con-
solidation Centre. TNO mobility and logistics. The Netherlands: Delft.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder in-
fluences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.
Russo, F., & Comi, A. (2016). Urban freight transport planning towards green goals:
Synthetic environmental evidence from tested results. Sustainability, 8(4).
Saaty, R., W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process – What is it and how it is used.
Pergamon Journals, 9(3–5), 161–176.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytical hierarchy process? NATO ASI Series, Mathematical
Models for Decision Support Springer (Vol. F48).
Savage, G., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and
managing organizational stakeholders. The executive. Academy of Management, 5(2),
61–75.
Schoemaker, J. (2002). Stadsdistributiecentrum Leiden. In D. Egger, & M. Reusch (Eds.).
BESTUFS – Best practice handbook 2002, BESTUFS, 1999-TN (pp. 10003). .
Semanjski, I., & Gautama, S. (2019). A collaborative stakeholder decision-making ap-
proach for sustainable urban logistics. Sustainability, 11, 234.
Stathopoulos, A., Valeri, E., & Marcucci, E. (2012). Stakeholder reactions to urban freight
policy innovation. Journal of Transport Geography, 22(0), 34–45.
Taniguchi, E. (2014). Green logistics for greener cities concepts of city logistics for sustainable
and livable cities. 1st international conference green cities, Department of Urban
Management, Kyoto University, Kyotodaigaku-Katsura, Kyoto 615–8540, Japan.
Taniguchi, E., & Tamagawa, D. (2005). Evaluating city logistics measures considering the
behavior of several stakeholders. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, 6(12), 3062–3076.
Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R. G., Yamada, T., & van Duin, R. (2001). City logistics: Network
modelling and intelligent transport systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Yamada, T., & Taniguchi, E. (2006). Modelling the effects of city logistics schemes. In E.
Taniguchi, & R. G. Thompson (Vol. Eds.), Recent advances for city logistics, Proceedings
of the 4th international conference on city logistics, Langkawi, Malaysia, 12–14 July,
2005. 2006. Recent advances for city logistics, Proceedings of the 4th international con-
ference on city logistics, Langkawi, Malaysia, 12–14 July, 2005 (pp. 75–89). Elsevier.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.