The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Impact of smart logistics on smart Smart logistics

and smart city
city sustainable performance: sustainability

an empirical investigation
Himanshu Kumar Shee , Shah J. Miah and Tharaka De Vass 821
Victoria University Business School, Melbourne, Australia
Received 26 July 2020
Revised 17 November 2020
Abstract 28 January 2021
Accepted 18 February 2021
Purpose – Technologies continue to disrupt logistics and freight transport (known as smart logistics), but
their impacts on smart city sustainability is underinvestigated. Drawing on technology, organisation and
environment (TOE) perspective, the objective of this study is to empirically investigate the hierarchical effects
of smart logistics on smart city sustainable dimensions (i.e. environmental, social and economic).
Design/methodology/approach – The study used cross-sectional survey to collect data from urban
transporters, warehouse managers, retailers and information technology (IT) managers in Australia. Data were
analysed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesised relationship between constructs of
smart logistics and smart city sustainable performance.
Findings – The findings reveal that information and communications technologies (ICTs) use and IT
capability (ITC) have positive and significant effects on smart logistics. Technology-enabled smart logistics
have an immediate positive effect on smart city environment, which in turn has positive impacts on social and
economic performance.
Practical implications – The study informs managers that smart logistics equipped with freight transport
telematics can improve smart city environment through enhanced tracking and tracing of goods movement.
The improved environmental stewardship is likely to support social and economic performance.
Originality/value – Smart city research remains primarily theoretical and focussed on concerns surrounding
sustainable growth amid urbanisation and digitalisation. City logistics and urban freights play key role in
smart city economic growth, but vehicular pollution pose social and environmental challenges. Technology-
assisted smart logistics are likely to improve smart city sustainable performance but yet to find how they affect
each other.
Keywords Smart logistics, Smart city, Sustainable performance, TOE framework, SEM, Australia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Cities are increasingly transforming themselves from traditional (non-smart) ways of living
to becoming “smart” through utilisation of information and communication technologies
(ICTs). Widespread digitalisation and proliferation of sensing, computing, data
communication and networking technologies are revolutionising the functioning of smart
cities (Zheng et al., 2020). The emerging smart cities are poised to address growing challenges
and complexities by sustaining urban and economic growth while caring for environmental
and social issues (Law and Lynch, 2019). However, it is not yet clear how these technologies
can support the smart city sustainability. Research on smart cities has been growing in the
literature (Law and Lynch, 2019; Mora et al., 2019; Tachizawa et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2020),
but the definition of what comprises a smart city remains inconsistent (Albino et al., 2015;
Mora et al., 2019). Linking technologies and sustainability, we define that smart cities deploy
digital and communication technologies in city-wide activities to improve efficiency, manage
complexity and enhance quality of life, leading to sustainable city operations.
Urban population growth stimulates the growth of city infrastructure, urban transport,
retails and shopping malls and a range of services for residents. Urban freight transports The International Journal of
Logistics Management
Vol. 32 No. 3, 2021
pp. 821-845
The authors acknowledge sincere thanks to the anonymous reviewers, associate editor and editor-in-chief © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
Professor Britta Gammelgaard for offering their valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-07-2020-0282
IJLM (UFTs), in particular, play a major role in city logistics that challenges goods delivery in full
32,3 and on time (DIFOT). UFT also has inherent threats of CO2 emission (Hickman et al., 2011),
which remains all-time challenges for cities and smart cities in particular. Freight transport
telematics on the other hand support functionalities such as real-time vehicle tracking and
tracing, navigation, meeting scheduled delivery windows and assist in pollution reduction
(Gatta et al., 2017; Zacharewicz et al., 2011). Moreover, ubiquitous communication
technologies are increasingly offering innovative solutions for complex logistics, making
822 UFTs more intelligent and efficient. For conceptual simplicity, this is termed as smart
logistics, which is based on increased visibility achieved through real-time data capture and
share (Uckelmann, 2008). In absence of an agreed definition, we define smart logistics as the
products/vehicles that possess auto-identification tags and sensors to capture real-time data
about objects, environments and able to communicate data with others within the network;
these features make the process flexible, extendable and intelligent. Here, both products and
vehicles are embedded with web-enabled communication devices (e.g. radio-frequency
identification [RFID] tags, sensors) connected to location-based global positioning systems
(GPS). Technology like RFID tags, surveillance cameras, sensors, Zigbee/Wi-Fi, actuators,
smart mobile phones and handheld tablets are increasingly making their way into smart
logistics space and transforming conventional supply chain communication ever before
(Autry et al., 2010). This calls for an investigation on how the technology-equipped smart
logistics can enhance smart city sustainability.
Smart city studies are theoretically oriented towards multidimensions and
multistakeholder perspectives, occur in isolation and deal with some discrete aspects of
smart city operations. A recent survey-based study shows smart city governance (i.e.
transparency, collaboration, participation, communication, accountability) has significant
effect on improving citizens’ quality of life (De Guimar~aes et al., 2020). Other theoretical
studies on smart cities are quite rhetoric on urbanisation, relating to what makes a city
“smart” and discuss the importance of stakeholders participation (Albino et al., 2015;
Allwinkle and Cruickshank, 2011; Hollands, 2008); smart city performance evaluation using
the triple helix model (Lombardi et al., 2012; Zygiaris, 2013) and cooperative city logistics and
its impact on city performance, business viability and sustainability using a single case study
(Nathanail et al., 2016). Furthermore, Gatta et al. (2017) propose a decision support system for
UFTs planning, considering the city culture and stakeholder engagement, and Law and
Lynch (2019) review technology trends resulting in security challenges. Benevolo et al. (2016)
analyse smart mobility initiatives (i.e. reduction of vehicular pollution, noise, transfer cost
and speed, traffic congestion and people safety) and investigate the role of ICTs in supporting
these actions. This shows lack of empirical studies on how smart logistics can improve smart
city sustainable performance through improvement of triple bottom line.
The objective, therefore, is to empirically investigate the hierarchical impact of city-bound
smart logistics on smart city sustainable dimensions. Technology, organisation and
environment (TOE) framework is used as theoretical lens. The following research questions
address this objective.
RQ1. What supply chain technologies (SCTs) and capabilities support smart logistics
functionalities?
RQ2. How do smart logistics functionalities affect smart city environmental
performance?
RQ3. What extent the environmental improvement affects social and economic aspects
of smart cities?
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 undertakes a literature review to
compile earlier studies on smart logistics and smart cities, leading to hypotheses development
in Section 3; Section 4 outlines methodology; Section 5 entails discussion and implications and Smart logistics
Section 6 provides conclusion and limitations. and smart city
sustainability
2. Literature review
2.1 The technology–organisation–environment (TOE) framework
The TOE framework is used as theoretical lens in this study. From an organisational
perspective, innovation adoption centres around two theories: diffusion of innovation (DOI)
823
theory (Rogers, 2003) and TOE framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). TOE is typically
preferred because it incorporates environmental scanning as a factor that determines likely
adoption success (Lai et al., 2018; Maduku et al., 2016). Rogers (2003) suggests that factors
such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability shape the
technology adoption decision. Autry et al. (2010) claim that perceived usefulness and ease of
use drive the intention to adopt SCTs. As firms possess and live on technological legacy, they
are often vulnerable to external disruptive technologies (Radu, 2020). The adoption of these
emerging technologies (e.g. smart sensors, GPS connectivity, in-cabin camera) enables
communication between logistics service providers (LSPs), shippers, transporters and
retailers for tracking and tracing of goods movement. From technological perspective, a firm
needs to assess its technological legacy prior to acquire and implement these innovative
technologies for supporting real-time communication about smart logistics to smart city.
The organisational context within TOE refers to a firm’s top management leadership and
support, resource availability (including skilled human resources), adequate funding and
employee willingness to learn and upskill for technology adoption. As firms are progressing
to meet the vision of Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain 4.0 (SC 4.0) paradigms (Taboada and
Shee, 2020), top management support is central to shaping up firms’ intention to adopt
innovative technologies (Ramayah et al., 2016; Shee et al., 2018). Industry 4.0 envisions that
the Internet of Things (IoT) embedded in global networks of machines in a smart factory
environment is likely to connect suppliers, manufacturers and customers in real time
(Tachizawa et al., 2015). SC 4.0 envisions higher efficiency and effectiveness through
automation. This perspective is extended to smart logistics in smart city context, where
understanding of organisational capability and readiness is critical in technology adoption.
The environmental context denotes the external environment in which firms conduct their
businesses. The rate of technological change in the external environment, known as
“technological turbulence”, pushes firms to adopt suitable supply chain tools and
technologies (Autry et al., 2010). Some of the leading and popular ones are the IoT (e.g.
RFID tags and sensors), short-range wireless technology (Zigbee), palm-held devices,
smartphones, GPS and video surveillance. LSPs (or shippers) and transporters engaged in
city logistics must assess the suitability of these technologies. While technological turbulence
affects the adoption decision, understanding their useful functionalities is vital in adoption
intention. De Guimar~aes et al. (2020) claim that smart cities improve quality of life through
transparent communication and governance that these technologies can support.

2.2 Smart city

Early research explores multiple dimensions of smart cities by considering them through
virtual, cyber, digital, networked and real-time lenses (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017); later
research characterises them by terms like intelligent city, knowledge city and sustainable city
(Benevolo et al., 2016). Overall, the term “smart” focusses on city-wide ICT infrastructure for
real-time data exchange (Mora et al., 2019). With increasing engagement of multiple
stakeholders with complex smart city operations, technological solutions are expected to
serve transportation, utilities, buildings and citizens. Research in this area thus focusses more
IJLM on emerging wave of technologies such as IoT, big data, advanced analytics, cloud
32,3 computing, security and faster network connectivity (SmartCityMarket, 2020; Zheng et al.,
2020). Although cities are increasingly investing on these technologies to foster economic
growth, realise a sustainable environment and enhance residents’ quality of life (Law and
Lynch, 2019), little research has been undertaken to investigate how they affect smart city.
Smart city market size is set to grow by more than US$2118bn between 2020 and 2024
because of falling prices of connected devices (SmartCity_world, 2020). There were 152 smart
824 city projects in 2013 that included projects from the USA (35), Europe (47), Asia (50), South
America (10) and the Middle East and Africa (10) (Lee et al., 2014, p. 8). Recently, 100 smart
city projects in India have been initiated to improve business growth through connectivity
(SmartCity_world, 2020). While cities are racing to become smart and sustainable, it is
believed that such projects will not only meaningfully enhance the economy but
simultaneously contribute to a healthy society and enhanced quality of life (Deloitte, 2020).
Further, it will improve environmental performance. However, more studies are needed to
understand the effect of digital technology, particularly in city logistics and urban freight, on
sustainability.
The literature indicates avenues to undertake future research. The “smart city” being
primarily a theoretical concept, studies are yet to explore how they are affected by other
sectors (i.e. logistics). For example, Tachizawa et al. (2015) call for an empirical analysis of
supply chain effecting smart city operations, and Lee et al. (2014) keen to see how a sector-
based analysis (e.g. smart transportation) can influence smart city operations beyond the
current focus on infrastructure, energy, healthcare and education. While smart cities seek to
improve quality of life (social sustainability) (De Guimar~aes et al., 2020), we emphasise that
attaining environmental sustainability is prerequisite to achieve social well-being as well as
economic performance. What extent smart logistics can improve the environmental
performance, then social and economic, remains a point of investigation in this study.
The smart city concept is complex, comprising six characteristics: economy; people;
governance; mobility; environment and living (Giffinger and Gudrun, 2010; Zheng et al.,
2020). We have consolidated them into three sustainability dimensions: economic
sustainability (productivity, entrepreneurship, labour market); environmental
sustainability (mobility [transport] and environment characteristics [natural resources])
and social sustainability (people [e.g. social and ethnic plurality, public participation and
creativity] and living [e.g. quality of life]). The remaining characteristics (e.g. citizen-centric
participation and transparency) relate primarily to governance and cut across all three
bottom lines (Fernandez-Anez et al., 2018). We believe that stakeholders engaged with smart
city operations are responsible and act as proxies to keep the city smart and sustainable.

2.3 Measuring smart city sustainability

Sustainability at firm and supply chain levels is measured across environmental, social and
economic dimensions (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Koberg and Longoni, 2019; Seuring and
M€uller, 2008; Shee et al., 2018). Seuring and M€ uller (2008) explain that sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) is about managing the flow of material, information and funds in
a supply chain while satisfying triple bottom line. Pagell and Shevchenko (2014) argue that
SSCM ideally maximises firm profitability while caring for the environment and society.
Therefore, questions remain as how to measure smart city sustainable performance. This is a
complex issue since a smart city is a multidimensional system faced with challenges from
diverse stakeholders engaged in social, political, economic activities and knowledge sharing
(Fernandez-Anez et al., 2018). To keep it simple, we focus on logistics service providers who
are associated with city logistics. Therefore, the sustainability approach of logistics firms (e.g.
distribution centre, transporters) is factored in as proxies for measuring smart city
sustainable performance. For example, sustainable city logistics are believed to address the
issues of smart city sustainability (Russo and Comi, 2012). Law and Lynch (2019) highlight Smart logistics
city-wide investment on ICTs to drive sustainability. However, empirical studies are scarce. and smart city
City logistics and urban freights are central to urban economies, but they present
numerous environmental challenges (Schliwa et al., 2015). Cities, however, need to offer
sustainability
quality of life for residents (De Guimar~aes et al., 2020), including timely access to goods and
services. Particularly, transport-based threats to quality of life include road congestion,
vehicular emission and pollutants (McKinnon, 2015; Russo and Comi, 2012), the use of raw
materials, energy (fuel, electricity), water consumption, product repairs, returns and recycling 825
(Svensson, 2007). Given their importance in contemporary urban transport networks,
particularly in last mile goods delivery (Kolawole et al., 2018), motorised transport vehicles
need to be smart enough to minimise environmental pollution. Therefore, smart city
environmental sustainability can partly be measured by the extent the LSPs and freight
transporters pursue the environmental practices at their level.
Social sustainability is given relatively less importance within SSCM (Mani et al., 2018)
because of its measurement complexities and time staggering effects on society and
community (Ashby et al., 2012; Touboulic and Walker, 2015); problems of identifying and
prioritising complex social dimensions (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2014) and inadequate
information to measure social dimensions (Popovic et al., 2018). However, this is increasingly
recognised due to growing pressure from regulatory authorities, customers, communities,
suppliers, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders (e.g. shareholders,
employees, clients and pressure groups) (Mani et al., 2018). Narimissa et al. (2020) state
that city-bound logistics impact health and well-being, road safety and accidents, employee
motivation and satisfaction. Therefore, smart city social sustainability is believed to depend
on the extent the LSPs and freight transporters care for environment. As a city is a
conglomerate of many such LSPs/shippers and transporters, their actions are likely to affect
the city’s social performance. Environmental practices of LSPs act as proxy for attaining
smart city social performance, which is not frequently discussed in the literature.
Firms’ economic performance is generally measured through labour productivity, after-
tax profit, market share and gross revenues (Shee et al., 2018). As the triple bottom line
(Elkington, 1998) draws attention, it is believed that economic success is not likely be
sustained at the cost of environment and society; a smart city is expected to enhance each of
these three dimensions for the benefits of inhabitants. Law and Lynch (2019) argue that
emergent technologies spur a stronger economic growth and offer an added competitive
advantage to firms. However, studies on how smart logistics, equipped with these
technologies, affect economic performance need further investigation.
While the literature provides a tailored approach to measure three dimensions of supply
chain sustainability (Qorri et al., 2018), progress across all three may not be realised
simultaneously. There is always a hierarchical or staggering effect where environmental
issues dominate social issues (Ashby et al., 2012; Touboulic and Walker, 2015). For example,
noise pollution, litter and smoke from vehicles, illegal waste disposal, noxious gas and odour
and the use of banned plastic bags, etc. (EPA, 2020) have drawn attention of communities.
Environment-friendly and ISO14000 certified firms can attract media and community
attention for their green products and services. This leads to sizable profit margins and
economic prosperity. We therefore argue that environmental sustainability remains ahead of
others and has a flow on effect on social and economic outcomes. Measuring the hierarchical
effect of three bottom lines is novel in this study.

2.4 Smart logistics and supply chain technologies

Russell (2000) defines logistics as getting the right product to right customer in right
quantities and condition and delivered at the right place, time and cost, a principle otherwise
known as the seven rights (7R’s) of logistics. These 7R’s ideally meet customer service level;
IJLM thus, timely monitoring and visibility of logistics are key to service level (Busse et al., 2017).
32,3 Product visibility by tracking and tracing benefits all partners, including LSPs, transporters,
retailers and end customers. This is achieved through tight coordination amongst all partners
in a supply chain (Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016), and the freights need to be embedded
within SCTs (Autry et al., 2010). SCTs are defined as “the tools and techniques that may be
implemented to effectuate integrated supply chain management within or across
organisational boundaries” (Autry et al., 2010, p. 523). While scholars in the field discuss
826 technology adoption (Autry et al., 2010); supply chain visibility (Busse et al., 2017) and use of
SCTs for improving supply chain resilience (Kamalahmadi and Parast, 2016), research is yet
to explore as to what extent these technology-enabled smart logistics can benefit smart cities.
According to the Gartner report, connected things (IoT) are expected to climb to 9.7 bn by
2020, up from an estimated 1.1 bn in 2015 (Azevedo, 2015). A total of 12 m RFID tags were sold
in 2011 and are estimated to rise to 209 bn by 2021 (Marr, 2014). Further, Internet-based cloud
technologies, big data analytics and business intelligence support the phenomenon of digital
SC 4.0, envisioned with the IoT at its core (Tjahjono et al., 2017). Hopkins and Hawking (2018)
state that GPS-connected in-cabin IoT retina scanners can monitor driver fatigue by tracking
pupil size and blink frequency, and IoT in fleet management can monitor truck idle time
through GPS. Lee and Lee (2015) claim that IoT-enabled vehicle track and trace systems and
route optimisation can cut costs and improve supply chain efficiency. However, little is
known about the emerging technologies’ contribution to smart city sustainability
performance.
In the logistics space, many vehicles, machines and people are engaged in daily activities
for picking, kitting, packing, moving and tracking of freights. However, application of SCTs
remains mostly fragmented and localised within distribution centres. Visibility thus remains
a major concern along a supply chain. As a matter of convenience, smartphones are a very
common form of communication. With the progress of ubiquitous and mobile computing
(Mora et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020) and cloud technologies (Shee et al., 2018), logistics
activities powered by the IoT offer wireless sensing of every activity, thereby improving
efficiency in warehouse, storage and transportation en route to the smart city. Jabeur et al.
(2017) offer a mapping of smart logistics characteristics, with multi-agent systems framed as
providing solutions to common challenges; Uckelmann (2008) discusses the technical
components of smart logistics based on similar condition of smart products and services;
Kirch et al. (2017) propose a smart logistics zone for logistics and manufacturing processes.
Thus, limited literature is mostly focussed on technology-driven smart logistics along supply
chains. But its effect on smart city sustainability is scarce. We have summarised smart
logistics functionalities, related technologies and their suitable applications in Table 1.

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses development

This study conceptualises that city-bound logistics develops its smart functionalities through
ICT (ICT use) and firm-level IT capabilities (ITCs). Smart logistics with full visibility of
products and vehicles en route smart city will likely improve environmental conditions and
that in turn will enhance social and economic performance. The hierarchical arrangement
prioritising environment over social and economic dimensions in this study is novel. The
model is shown in Figure 1.

3.1 Relationship between ICT and smart logistics

City logistics remain ineffective, mainly because of multiple deliveries to diverse destinations
under restricted routing schedule and delivery windows. Gatta et al. (2017) argue that
infrastructures (e.g. pedestrian paths, bike lanes), road network, urban configuration, social
 Smart logistics
Smart logistics
No functionalities Related technologies Suitable applications and smart city
sustainability
1 Identification Barcode, RFID, wireless sensors, Ensure a secured identification of objects
retina scanner at all stages of the supply chain
2 Location services Global positioning systems (GPS) Satellite navigation used to determine
ground location of objects/people in real
time 827
3 Condition IoT sensors (cooling unit, missing Allows to view the current state of
monitoring parts/ cargo, tyre pressure, vehicle products/vehicles to ensure good
brake) condition, error detection, missing parts
and so on
4 Connectivity 4G, 5G network Communication network supports IoT-
enabled objects connected to cloud
5 Visibility GPS Real-time tracking and tracing of
movement of goods/vehicles
6 Environmental IoT wireless sensors Able to interact with environment and
scanning communicates data at granular level
(temperature, pollutants)
7 Autonomous Embedded IoT sensors and actuators Allows human to delegate activities to
smart products and machines
8 Compatible Middleware between warehouse Integrate existing technologies with new
management systems (WMSs) and technologies
enterprise resource planning (ERP)
9 Data analytics WMS and ERP systems Analyse data and generate reports for
business intelligence
10 Safety and security IoT wireless sensors Real-time data help in safety of objects, Table 1.
reliability and also security (e.g. food Smart logistics
items and dangerous goods) functionalities and
Source(s): Compiled from Kirch et al. (2017), Jabeur et al. (2017), Taboada and Shee (2020), Uckelmann (2008) related technologies

SmtCity_
ICT_use Eco
H1
+

+
H4

Smt_ H3+ SmtCity_ Figure 1.

+ Logistics Evn H5
H2 + Smart logistics–smart
ITC SmtCity_
city sustainable
SP conceptual model

habits, legislation and regulations create city-specific logistics issues. As no single solution
can address city-bound logistics issues (Marcucci et al., 2014), we narrow down this
multidimensional, multistakeholder complex research area into a simple model of ICT-
enabled urban (smart) logistics. Increasing expectations surrounding quality of life warrant
better integration of urban freight with digital and communication technologies for enhanced
visibility and transparency.
A smart city is based on the power of ICTs, which enables high speed data transfer
capitalising on current 3G/4G network, National Broadband Network (NBN) and future 5G
network (Taboada and Shee, 2020). This can be factored in into city logistics and urban
freight. Benevolo et al. (2016) highlight the role of ICTs in supporting smart mobility,
emphasising intelligent transportation systems (ITSs) and advanced applications to collect,
store and process data. ITS supports a whole range of heterogeneous applications such as
demand control systems for access to reserved areas (e.g. cordon pricing, congestion pricing,
IJLM electronic tolling, with GPS-pay as you drive); integrated parking guidance systems; variable
32,3 message signs (VMSs); urban traffic control (UTC); video surveillance systems for security
and traffic data collection systems (Benevolo et al., 2016). As ITS is perceived to have positive
effects on quality of life (Benevolo et al., 2016), the extent to which shippers capitalise on these
technologies warrants extra investigation. From TOE technological perspective, firms need
to assess their own SCTs (e.g. warehouse management systems [WMSs], enterprise resource
planning [ERP]), support customers in online ordering, e-business and inter- and intra-firm
828 communication. As SCTs, interchangeably used for ICTs and ITSs, have positive effect on
smart logistics functionalities, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Shippers’ ICTs use positively impacts smart logistics.

3.2 Relationship between ITC and smart logistics

SCTs can benefit urban freight with real-time data communication and intelligence.
According to the TOE framework’s technological dimension perspective, firm’s IT
infrastructure and capabilities should support the adoption and deployment of SCTs. IT
infrastructure includes hardware, software and networking, while capabilities are employee
competencies, skills and experience (Lai et al., 2018). Firms with greater IT infrastructure and
capabilities are believed to be in better position to adopt and deploy these technologies. Autry
et al. (2010) state that technology acceptance depends on legacy and compatibility, and Hsu
et al. (2014) argue that perceived business benefits of IT determine its adoption than external
pressure. As SCTs continue to support smart logistics functionalities, the shippers need
appropriate IT capabilities to deploy them. Moreover, employee capabilities also support
adoption. Thus, shippers’ IT capabilities play a critical role in supporting smart logistics
functionalities. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Shippers’ IT capabilities positively impact smart logistics.

3.3 Relationship between smart logistics and smart city environment

Smart logistics and mobility supported by SCTs have the capacity to share data in real time
(Benevolo et al., 2016). Fleet telematics make city logistics more visible and flexible enough to
meet changing environment. It enables transporters to access the city in allocated time
windows, understand traffic fluxes and suggest possible improvements. Many forms of
transport have inherent negative environmental effect (e.g. respiratory and cardiovascular
disorder) due to CO2 emission, air pollution, noise, accidents, vibration and visual intrusion
(Hickman et al., 2011). This is believed to be resolved by either deploying low-carbon engine
technologies, the use fleet telematics or both. Digital communication, control and quick
response can control vehicle movement, resulting in lower pollution. Thus, smart logistics not
only offer increased cost efficiency and effective delivery but also helps in lowering
environmental pollution. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:
H3. Smart logistics has a positive effect on smart city environment.

3.4 Effect of smart city environment on economic and social performance

There are mixed opinions on the interaction between environmental, economic and social
dimensions of sustainability. According to the triple bottom line perspective, firms should not
merely seek economic gains but attempt to demonstrate progress along environmental and
social dimensions. Investigating the staggering effect of one on another dimension will reveal
more information than their concurrent effects (Shee et al., 2018). Environmental practices in
compliance with environmental laws and regulations, pollution remediation, preservation of
natural resources and energy can help minimise negative impacts on communities, water and
air. De Giovanni (2012) states that good environmental practices promote positive actions Smart logistics
that positively influence economic performance. Ameer and Othman (2012) find that superior and smart city
environmental sustainability practices contribute to higher sales growth, return on assets,
profits before taxes and cash flow. The evidence indicates that better environmental
sustainability
performance results in enhanced economic performance. Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed.
H4. The smart city environment positively impacts smart city economic performance. 829
Touboulic and Walker (2015) claim that environmental and economic issues have drawn
more attention than social issues. However, there is growing pressure from customers,
government, activists and stakeholders to consider the social dimension of sustainability
(Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009), particularly along supply chains (Popovic et al., 2018).
Mani et al. (2018) identify important social dimensions such as health and well-being, safety,
social policy, job satisfaction, accident rates and job losses. In supply chains, these
dimensions are mostly associated with road transport and vehicular pollution, which account
for about 18.8% of global CO2 emission (Shiraki et al., 2020). As smart logistics is likely to
improve smart city environments, we believe that improved environmental performance will
have a positive influence on social dimensions within the smart city. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H5. The smart city environment has a positive effect on smart city social performance.

4. Methodology
4.1 Sampling
A cross-sectional survey was undertaken using Qualtrics, an online tool that allows
development, distribution and collection of survey responses. While online surveys are cost-
effective (Ansari and Kant, 2017), research indicates that their results do not differ
significantly from traditional mail surveys (Deutskens et al., 2004). Potential respondents
(n 5 550) were contacted through Linkedin, Facebook and community contact lists. Of these,
120 agreed to participate. A total of 109 respondents returned the online survey, three of
which were found incomplete. After deleting those three, 106 responses (88.33% response
rate) were retained for analysis. The data were collected between April and July 2019.
The sample size determination remains a vexing question in covariance-based structural
equation modelling (CB-SEM). The CB-SEM is inherently a “large sample” analysis approach,
where the sample size is generally preferred over 200 (Lai et al., 2018). However, there are
studies found to have used small sample size. For example, Hazen et al. (2015) find that about
36% of articles having sample size smaller than 200, while others have even 100 cases or less.
Studies using Monte Carlo simulation report sample sizes of 40, 90, 150 and 200, where there
is no difference noticed in effect size for small sample (Goodhue et al., 2007). Westland (2010)
finds that 80% of articles draw conclusions from samples which are too small to be
significant. Other examples include Rai et al. (2006) used 110 cases; Klein and Rai (2009), 91
cases; Inman et al. (2011), 107 cases; Benitez-Amado and Walczuch (2012), 63 cases and lately,
Shee et al. (2018), 105 cases.
Fleet telematics systems (e.g. vehicle tracking, navigation, driver fatigue and performance
management, customer delivery tracking) are commonly used by about 35% of road freight
transports in Australia, and 85% of which are big transporters with 25 or more trucks
(Nuttall, 2014). These big transporters in Australia are Toll Hodlings (11% market share);
Schenker Australia Pty Limited (5%); Linfox (4%) and Kuehne & Nagel Pty Ltd (3%). As the
light commercial road freight transports dominant Australia’s non-bulk goods market with
advantages of door-to-door service, competitive price, convenience and reliability, the real-
IJLM time data sharing remains all-time issues due to lack of telematics (Stark, 2021). Thus, a
32,3 sample size of 106 firms in this study represents the major characteristics of road freight
transports that use minimal telematics.

4.2 Measures
The questionnaire was designed following the procedure for online surveys laid out by
830 Dillman (2011). The multi-item questionnaire was adapted from the literature and uses a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 4 (neither agree/disagree) and 7
(strongly agree). To ensure reliability and validity, we used at least three items to form the
content of each construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The detailed measurements and
their sources are presented in Appendix.
The original version of the questionnaire was pretested by two fellow academics, two
recently graduated research scholars and two professionals from distribution centres, who
checked clarity of wording, sentence, instructions and completion time. Suggestions were
integrated into the final design, and the Qualtrics link of the final version was distributed to
full sample through Linkedin.

4.3 Data analysis

4.3.1 Data analysis technique. We used SPSS 26.0 and AMOS-SEM 26.0 to analyse survey
data. Mean, standard deviation, data normality, t-test, exploratory factor analysis and
participant demography were analysed using SPSS. The full measurement model and
structural model were analysed by using AMOS-SEM. Non-response bias and common
method bias (CMB) tests were performed to uncover any bias in survey data. This was
followed by assessment of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability) and
validity (discriminant) of constructs. Structural path model tested the model fit and
hypotheses testing.
4.3.2 Demography. Respondents were 69% male and 31% female. They represented
across grocery distribution centres and retail (31.1%), freight transports (8.5%), restaurants
and cafe (3.8%) and others (34.9%), a category that covered manufacturing, agri-products,
medical consumables, software, utilities and packaging. Respondents’ roles ranged from
chief executive officer (CEO)/director/general manager (18%), supply chain and logistics
manager (42.5%), IT manager (5%) and others having logistics knowledge (21%).
Educational qualification varied from mostly bachelor’s (45%), master’s (41.5%) and PhD
(4%). Work experience varied from <5 years (49%), 5–10 years (27%) and >10 years (24%).
Employees and other demographic details can be referred in Table 2.
Table 3 presents the frequency of technologies and their business users identified in the
data set. The last column summarises select businesses such as distribution centres, grocery
retails, freight transporters and motor vehicle parts where bar codes, RF guns, sensors, RFID
tags, smartphone and mobile applications are often used. Other high-level technologies with
restricted use are security and surveillance cameras, image recognition, Internet-enabled
equipment with sensors and actuators. These technologies enable all stakeholders to track
and trace goods movement at different stages.

4.4 Test of non-response bias and common method bias

Non-response bias can pose problem in survey research (Wagner and Kemmerling, 2010) and
can be checked for any significant difference between early and late responses (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977). This is based on the assumption that late responses represent the opinion
of non-respondents (Chen et al., 2004). Demographic variables such as education, employees,
work experience and position were used in a t-test that yielded no significant differences
 Frequency Cumulative Frequency Cumulative
Smart logistics
Demographics (N 5 106) % % (N 5 106) % % and smart city
sustainability
Business types Work experience
Restaurant, cafe, 4 3.8 3.8 <5 years 52 49.1 49.1
takeaway
Freight transport 10 9.4 13.2 5–10 years 29 27.4 76.4
Distribution 33 31.1 44.3 >10 years 25 23.6 100.0 831
centre and grocery
retail
Household goods 6 5.7 50 Employees
(furniture)
Clothing, footwear 3 2.8 52.8 <100 21 19.8 19.8
and accessories
Electrical, 3 2.8 55.6 101–200 15 14.2 34.0
electronic,
computer
Pharmaceutical, 4 3.8 59.4 201–500 5 4.7 38.7
cosmetic, toiletry
Motor vehicles 2 1.9 61.3 501–1,000 15 14.2 52.8
and parts
Fuel and 1 0.9 62.2 >1,000 50 47.2 100.0
convenience
stores
Departmental 4 3.8 66 Annual turnover
stores
Others types 36 34 100
Job position <$100 8 7.5 7.5
CEO/MD/director/ 19 17.9 17.9 $101–300 10 9.4 17.0
GM
Operations/ 45 42.5 60.4 $301–500 7 6.6 23.6
supply chain/
logistics
IT manager 5 4.7 65.1 $501–1,000 11 10.4 34.0
Staff 22 20.8 85.8 >$1,000 70 66.0 100.0
Others 15 14.2 100.0 IT investment
Education (AU$1,000)
High school 3 2.8 2.8 <$100 17 16.0 16.0
Diploma, 7 6.6 9.4 $101–500 11 10.4 26.4
certificate course
Bachelor’s 48 45.3 54.7 $501–2000 19 17.9 44.3
Master’s 44 41.5 96.2 $2001– 12 11.3 55.7
5,000
PhD 4 3.8 100.0 >$5,000 47 44.3 100.0
Strategic involvement Gender
I am a key 12 11.3 11.3 Male 73 68.9 68.9
decision- maker
To a considerable 35 33.0 44.3 Female 33 31.1 100.0
extent
To a moderate 32 30.2 74.5
extent
To a slight extent 11 10.4 84.9 Table 2.
Not involved 16 15.1 100.0 Respondents’ profile
IJLM The number of
32,3 references* Select business types with frequency (no. of
Technology types Used Planned companies)

1 RFID-related tagging and 21 3 Distribution centre (DC) and grocery retail (9),
tracking transporters (5), food processing (2), motor vehicles
and parts (1)
832 2 Internet-based barcode 15 2 DC and grocery retail (7), transporters (5), motor
technology (e.g. QR code) vehicles and parts (1)
3 GPS-based location 28 3 DC and grocery retail (9), transporters (5), motor
awareness vehicles and parts (1)
4 Internet-based sensors and 16 2 DC and grocery retail (7), transporters (3), motor
scanners vehicles and parts (1)
5 Handheld/palm-held tablets 22 2 DC and grocery retail (7), transporters (5), motor
or smart devices vehicles and parts (1)
6 Smartphones and mobile 24 – DC and grocery retail (10), transporters (4), motor
applications vehicles and parts (1)
7 Appliances/equipment/ 10 2 DC and grocery retail (4), transporters (3)
beacons
8 Wearable devices 5 3 DC and grocery retail (2), transporters (1)
9 Security and surveillance 15 2 DC and grocery retail (5), transporters (4)
10 Transportation devices 10 – DC and grocery retail (5), transporters (3)
11 Internet-based equipment 12 – DC and grocery retail (5), transporters (3)
12 Internet-based fixed devices 10 – DC and grocery retail (3), transporters (3)
13 Real-time streaming 12 2 DC and grocery retail (3), transporters (3)
analytics
14 Data analytics using IoT data 10 3 DC and grocery retail (2), transporters (3)
15 Autonomous reporting/alert 8 – DC and grocery retail (2), transporters (3)
16 Autonomous reporting/ 5 – Transporters (2)
action
17 Image recognition via IoT 4 1 Transporters (2)
Table 3.
Frequency of 18 Any other technology (please 2 – Microsoft workplace (WP) and great plains (GP
technologies and specify) dynamics) for information systems; robotic process
business users automation
identified in sample Note(s): *Some technologies were identified multiple times for various businesses, giving a number higher
data set than total responses (n 5 106)

(p < 0.05) between early (72) and late (34) responses, indicating no concern for non-
response bias.
Given that the cross-sectional data were collected at one point in time, the data suffer from
CMB. Data with CMB cause the correlation to be inflated and affect the structural relationship
in a model (Malhotra et al., 2006). We used Harmon’s one-factor model, where exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) of all the items yielded 11 factors, with eigenvalue greater than 1. This
accounted for a cumulative 61.54% of total variance, while the first factor itself accounted for
24.65%. Harman’s single-factor congeneric test using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) also
showed a poor model fit with chi-square (χ 2) 5 2445.14, df 5 945, p 5 0.000, χ 2/df 5 2.587 and
lower indices like goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 5 0.454, non-normed fit index (NFI) 5 0.306,
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.123 (Hair et al., 2018). The poor model
fit indicated the absence of CMB in the data.

4.5 Psychometric assessment of reliability and validity

The psychometric assessment was undertaken using a full measurement model. The model
fits the data with chi-square (χ 2) 5 213.317, p 5 0.023, (Bollen-Stine p 5 0.597, i.e. p > 0.05),
chi-square/df 5 1.226, comparative fit index (CFI) 5 0.956, Tucker–Lewis index Smart logistics
(TLI) 5 0.947, RMSEA 5 0.046. The GFI, adjusted GFI (AGFI) and NFI were below the and smart city
threshold values, but the model refinement was stopped at this stage because GFI and AGFI
were driven by sample size, and NFI underrated model fitting in small sample (Hair et al.,
sustainability
2018). Moreover, further drop of items leads to minimisation of items per construct, which
may risk the theory testing (Marsh et al., 1998). Hence, GFI, AGFI and NFI are not included in
support of fit indices (Hair et al., 2018). It is noteworthy to mention that although SEM has
become a very popular data analytic tool, it is known to have some level of inconsistency 833
when the analysis is stopped at acceptable threshold values (Tomarken and Waller, 2005).
The reliability and validity of constructs further support this assertion. Cronbach’s alpha
and composite reliability (CR) were used to test the reliability that reflects internal
consistency of items under each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The values ranged
from 0.73 to 0.85, satisfying the threshold 0.7 (Hair et al., 2018). Item reliabilities were
confirmed by factor loadings that exceeded 0.5 (p < 0.001) (see Table 4).
Convergent validity is tested by average variance extracted (AVE), which indicates the
amount of item variation explained by the construct (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). All AVE values were estimated above 0.5, except for smart logistics (0.43).
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) assert AVE greater than 0.4 is acceptable. The convergent
validity of the constructs was thus confirmed. Discriminant validity was performed by
comparing the square root of AVE values with the correlation coefficients of the remaining
constructs. This indicates that the latent construct can explain more of the variances in its
items than it shares with another construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). A higher AVE value
explains that the observed items explain more variance than the error items (Wamba et al.,
2016). The square root of AVE is shown along the diagonal, and these values are more than
the correlation coefficients below the diagonal. There is no issue with discriminant validity
(see Table 4).

4.6 Structural path model and hypotheses testing

Structural path model shows direct effects of ICTs use and ITCs on smart logistics;
hierarchical effect of smart logistics on environment and then on social and economic
performance (Figure 2). The path analysis yielded χ 2 5 242.623, p 5 0.002 (Bollen-Stine
p 5 0.438, i.e. p > 0.05), χ 2/df 5 1.319, CFI 5 0.934, TLI 5 0.925, RMSEA 5 0.055. Although
the χ 2 test (χ 2 5 242.623 at p < 0.05) was unable to determine good model fit, the Bollen-Stine
bootstrap (p 5 0.438) was assessed to support the fit at p > 0.05 (Bollen and Stine, 1992; Hazen
et al., 2015). Thus, the model fits the data moderately well, with indices close to their specified
limits (see Table 5).
The results supported all five hypotheses. H1 and H2 were supported for significant and
positive effect of ICTs use (β 5 0.25, p < 0.05) and ITCs (β 5 0.35, p < 0.05) on smart logistics,
respectively. H3 was supported for positive and significant effect of smart logistics on smart
city environmental performance (β 5 0.46, p < 0.05). Then, the smart city environment was
found to have positive and significant effect on social performance (β 5 0.65, p < 0.05) and
economic performance (β 5 0.52, p < 0.05). Thus, H4 and H5 were supported.

4.7 Post hoc analysis

The model was further tested by drawing paths from smart logistics to social performance
and economic performance to check whether the latter two were affected by the former in
hierarchical analysis. These two paths were not earlier hypothesised, but we wanted to carry
out their effects in post hoc analysis. The question is whether smart logistics, driven by SCTs,
directly impact social and economic bottom lines. The model was identified (χ 2/df 5 1.322,
TLI 5 0.924; CFI 5 0.934, RMSEA 5 0.055), but the paths smt_Logistics → smtCity_SP (0.17,
 32,3

834
IJLM

Table 4.
Factor loadings,

AVE, correlation,
Cronbach alpha, CR,

discriminant validity
Construct Alpha CR AVE Item Factor loading 1 2 3 4 5 6

(1) ICT_use 0.78 0.80 0.59 ICT6 0.92 0.768

ICT8 0.52
ICT9 0.80
(2) ITC 0.81 0.83 0.63 ITC1 0.53 0.342 0.794
ITC4 0.88
ITC5 0.90
(3) Smt_logistics 0.75 0.75 0.43 SL2 0.75 0.348 0.418 0.656
SL3 0.69
SL4 0.57
SL5 0.54
(4) SmtCity_Evn 0.84 0.84 0.58 EV2 0.66 0.164 0.197 0.472 0.762
EV3 0.64
EV4 0.81
EV5 0.89
(5) SmtCity_Eco 0.73 0.73 0.48 ECO3 0.68 0.086 0.103 0.248 0.524 0.693
ECO4 0.74
ECO5 0.65
(6) SmtCity_SP 0.85 0.85 0.60 SP2 0.78 0.107 0.128 0.307 0.651 0.341 0.775
SP4 0.86
SP6 0.76
SP7 0.68
Note(s): Diagonal values represent the square root of AVE
Values below the diagonal are the correlation coefficient (significant at p < 0.05)
Smart logistics
and smart city
sustainability

835

Figure 2.
Structural model with
path coefficients
IJLM Direct t- Direct effect Indirect Indirect effect
32,3 Hypothesis Path effect values results effect results

H1 ICT_use→ 0.248** 2.079 Supported – –

smt_Logistics
H2 ITC→ smt_Logistics 0.353** 2.775 Supported – –
H3 Smt_Logistics→ 0.464*** 3.402 Supported – –
836 smtCity_Evn
– Smt_Logistics→ 0.03 – Not 0.23** Supported
smtCity_Eco supported
– Smt_Logistics→ 0.17 – Not 0.25** Supported
smtCity_SP supported
H4 SmtCity_Evn→ 0.522*** 4.061 Supported – –
smtCity_Eco
Table 5. H5 SmtCity_Evn→ 0.649*** 6.285 Supported – –
Direct and indirect smtCity_SP
effect Note(s): ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.05

t 5 1.428, p 5 0.153) and smt_Logistics→ smtCity_Eco (0.03, t 5 0.228, p 5 0.820) were non-
significant, indicating that smart logistics had no direct effect on smart city social and
economic performance. Examination of indirect effect reveals that smart logistics positively
impacts social (0.23, p < 0.01) and economic performance (0.23, p < 0.01) through
environmental performance (see Table 5).

5. Discussion and implications

The smart city, amid the contrasting objectives of diverse stakeholders, demands a striking
balance between environmental, social and economic bottom line to remain sustainable. This
study has focussed on stakeholders engaged in urban logistics and freight transports and
undertaken first time an empirical study to investigate the extent to which smart logistics
affect smart city sustainability.
The TOE framework was drawn to understand three contexts: technological (technology
characteristics and readiness, ICT legacy, capability and business integration);
organisational (firm size, top management support, human and slack resources) and
environmental (competition intensity, technological turbulence, threat of Industry 4.0)
aspects. Earlier, authors have used the TOE framework to validate the adoption of RFID
implementation (Wamba et al., 2016), cloud computing (Hsu et al., 2014), electronic data
interchange (Chwelos et al., 2001) and ERP (Ruivo et al., 2014). This study builds on and
extends these findings to validate the adoption of emerging technologies to support smart
logistics functionalities (refer Table 1).

5.1 Key findings

This study proposed ICTs use and ITCs as key drivers of smart logistics. The path analysis
offered a moderate model fit confirming their hierarchical positive effects, first on
environmental performance and subsequently on social and economic performance. Also,
Table 3, in support of ICTs and ITCs, shows that distribution centres, grocery retail and
freight transporters mostly use bar codes, RFID tags, sensors and GPS to support smart
logistics functionalities. From the perspective of technology dimension within TOE, this
supports the claim that smart logistics functionalities need these technologies (Table 1) in
city-bound freight transports.
 The results further revealed that the current ICTs use was likely to have positive and Smart logistics
significant effects on smart logistics initiatives. This indicates that LSPs appear to use in- and smart city
cabin cameras, sensor technologies and GPS to track and trace driver behaviour. Such
visibility helps share risk information to the right people at right time (Stone and
sustainability
Rahimifard, 2018). From technological perspective, adoption of additional technologies
such as video surveillance cameras, speed control, safety alerts and e-business portals
would enhance support for smart logistics initiative. However, items dealing with these
technologies were dropped during path analysis (see Appendix), indicating that currently 837
they are not popularly used. Further, the positive and significant relationship between
ITCs and smart logistics indicates that current ITCs support smart logistics
functionalities and help capture, store and transfer data for business intelligence.
Respondents reported that they had sufficient support staff for emerging technology
implementation and upskilling. From TOE’s organisational perspective, this implies that
firms with stronger ITC have a better chance to move towards smart logistics. This
answers RQ1 on what supply chain technologies and capabilities support smart logistics
functionalities.
As SCTs in logistics are progressing through phases of development from RFID tags to
wireless sensor networks (WSNs) to the IoT allowing things to connect (de Vass et al., 2020;
Xu et al., 2014), LSPs are making their forays to adopt these emerging technologies into smart
logistics. From TOE’s environmental perspective, coupled up with threat of upcoming
Industry 4.0 technologies (Taboada and Shee, 2020), the LSPs, in this study, lag behind in
adoption of technologies in smart logistics. However, common SCTs such as bar codes, RFID
tags, WMS and ERP systems are commonly used in customer ordering, processing and
dispatch (Autry et al., 2010).
Results also show a positive and significant relationship between smart logistics and
smart city environmental performance. Smart logistics support timely communication about
delivery risk arising out of traffic conditions. Early alerts reduce operational costs by
decreasing the risk associated with missing delivery windows, longer waiting time, inventory
stock out and customer complaints. Further, identifying waste in warehouse/retail/
production in the form of excess inventory, waiting time and defective items can help
prevent repeat deliveries leading to reduced vehicular emission and pollutants. Meeting
regulatory compliance requirements (speed limit, loading zones and delivery windows) and
collecting packaging materials back for recycling help minimise environmental damage. This
answers RQ2 on how smart logistics functionalities affect smart city environmental
performance.
The positive and significant relationship between a smart city environment and social
performance indicates that environmental stewardship is likely to support better
occupational health and safety (OHS), improve resident well-being, reduce disruption in
daily routines, mitigate property damage and facilitate leisure and entertainment. The
positive and significant relationship with economic performance also shows that smart cities
with better environmental conditions will likely improve economic growth through higher
productivity and diversified revenue streams. Reduced emissions, less pollutants and overall
green approach encourage stakeholders to engage and invest in businesses, leading to
sustainable economic growth. As a smart city invests more on ICT to foster a stronger
economy (Law and Lynch, 2019), city-bound smart logistics appear to support growth
through positive environmental stewardship. Thus, the immediate positive effect of
technology-driven smart logistics on smart city environment has subsequent flow-on
effects on social and economic performance. However, the effect of smart city social
dimensions on economic growth (De Giovanni, 2012) was not significant (p > 0.05) in this
study. This has been reported as future study. This answers RQ3 on what extent the
environmental improvement affects social and economic aspects of smart cities.
IJLM 5.2 Implications: theory and practice
32,3 Drawing on TOE perspective, this research extends its applicability to adoption of
technologies in smart logistics context. The research framework empirically demonstrating
a significant relationship between smart logistics and smart city sustainable performance
offers new insights for smart city literature. While earlier studies, without pieces of
empirical evidence, have claimed that ICT improves economic growth and city liveability
(Law and Lynch, 2019; Zheng et al., 2020), this study reveals that smart logistics
838 functionalities, powered by SCTs including ICT, improve social and economic dimensions
indirectly through improvement in environmental condition. The hierarchical relationships
have simplified the interaction conflicts of triple bottom line and contribute by confirming
that environmental stewardship will likely to have concurrent positive effect on economic
and social dimensions. Further, from TOE perspective, increased adoption of SCTs into
smart logistics and freight transports depends on LSPs’ ICT status quo and ITCs to
accommodate more technologies. Environmental benefits are likely to materialise only
when LSPs perceive to adopt suitable SCTs and capable of deploying them. The study
offers a model with a more deterministic relationship as compared to other theoretical
studies in the literature.
Practically, the significant relationship between smart logistics and smart city
sustainability offers insights and support for smart city planners, engineers, developers
and local government in planning and execution. While these stakeholders are engaged in
smart city development with ICT as enabler of stronger economy, sustained environment and
enhanced quality of life, the engagement of LSPs/shippers/freight transporters will definitely
add value to smart city sustainability through technology-enabled smart logistics. Although
the cities have emerged as a common place of interest for all stakeholders, LSPs/shippers in
particular will act as proxy for sustaining environmental and socio-economic performance
through adoption of emerging technologies. As cities race to become smart and sustainable,
these technologies (e.g. fleet telematics) will help create a less polluted environment, benefit
both urban residents and businesses and support social and economic growth.

6. Conclusion and limitations

This empirical study proposes that technology-assisted smart logistics functionalities are
likely to have positive impact on smart city sustainability. Hierarchical effects indicate that
smart logistics with environmental stewardship have positive effect on social and economic
performance which is a unique contribution of this study. From TOE perspective,
stakeholders associated with urban freights need to assess their legacy technologies,
organisational capabilities and competitor position before adoption of these emerging
technologies in urban logistics and freight transports.
This study has also limitations, thus opening up ways for future research. The study has
used a cross-sectional survey, but such a method cannot collect detailed information on the
matter of enquiry. Therefore, future study should combine surveys with interviews to gather
detailed insights. Also, the sample size used in this study appears inadequate, resulting in
only a moderate model fit. A larger sample size in future research will help undertake
measurement invariance test between small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large
firms, revealing the difference between these two groups about the effect of smart logistics on
smart city sustainability. As technologies keep progressing, future studies may consider a
pool of technologies like the IoT, blockchain, artificial intelligence, big data and other relevant
technologies embedded in smart logistics and investigate how their adoption will benefit the
smart city sustainability. Further, future studies with bigger sample size may test the effect of
smart city social performance on economic performance or vice versa that was found
insignificant in this study.
ORCID iDs Smart logistics
Himanshu Kumar Shee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6990-154X and smart city
Shah J. Miah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3783-8769 sustainability
Tharaka De Vass http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5585-5140

References
839
Albino, V., Berardi, U. and Dangelico, R.M. (2015), “Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance,
and initiatives”, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Allwinkle, S. and Cruickshank, P. (2011), “Creating smarter cities: an overview”, Journal of Urban
Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Ameer, R. and Othman, R. (2012), “Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study
based on the top global corporations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 61-79.
Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains”,
Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-86.
Ansari, Z.N. and Kant, R. (2017), “A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 2524-2543.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ashby, A., Leat, M. and Hudson-Smith, M. (2012), “Making connections: a review of supply chain
management and sustainability literature”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-516.
Autry, C.W., Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J. and Richey, R.G. (2010), “The effects of technological
turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology acceptance and adoption”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 522-536.
Azevedo, M. (2015), “Global government spending on Internet of Everything skyrockets”, available at:
https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type5webcontent&articleId51721624 (accessed 10
May 2020).
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1998), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Benevolo, C., Dameri, R.P. and D’auria, B. (2016), “Smart mobility in smart city”, Empowering
Organizations, Springer, pp. 13-28.
Benitez-Amado, J. and Walczuch, R.M. (2012), “Information technology, the organizational capability
of proactive corporate environmental strategy and firm performance: a resource-based
analysis”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 664-679.
Bibri, S.E. and Krogstie, J. (2017), “Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary
literature review”, Sustainable cities and society, Vol. 31, pp. 183-212.
Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R.A. (1992), “Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation
models”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 205-229.
Busse, C., Schleper, M.C., Weilenmann, J. and Wagner, S.M. (2017), “Extending the supply chain
visibility boundary”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 18-40.
Carter, C.R. and Rogers, D.S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 360-387, doi: 10.1108/09600030810882816.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A.A. (2004), “Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 505-523.
Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (2001), “Empirical test of an EDI adoption model”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 304-321.
IJLM De Giovanni, P. (2012), “Do internal and external environmental management contribute to the triple
bottom line?”, International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
32,3 pp. 265-290.
De Guimar~aes, J.C.F., Severo, E.A., J
unior, L.A.F., Da Costa, W.P.L.B. and Salmoria, F.T. (2020),
“Governance and quality of life in smart cities: towards sustainable development goals”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 253, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119926.
de Vass, T., Shee, H. and Miah, S.J. (2020), “IoT in supply chain management: a narrative on retail
840 sector sustainability”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, pp. 1-20,
doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1787970.
Deloitte (2020), “Super smart city, happier society with higher quality”, available at: https://www2.
deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/public-sector/articles/super-smart-city.html (accessed 30 April 2020).
Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Oosterveld, P.J.M.l. (2004), “Response rate and response
quality of internet-based surveys”, An experimental study, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Dillman, D.A. (2011), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method–2007 Update with New
Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide, John Wiley & Sons.
Elkington, J. (1998), “Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century
business”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
EPA (2020), “Environment portection autority, reporting pollution (online)”, available at: https://www.
epa.vic.gov.au/report-pollution/reporting-pollution (accessed 7 May).
uell, J.M. and Giffinger, R. (2018), “Smart City implementation and
Fernandez-Anez, V., Fernandez-G€
discourses: an integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna”, Cities, Vol. 78, pp. 4-16.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gatta, V., Marcucci, E. and Le Pira, M. (2017), “Smart urban freight planning process: integrating desk,
living lab and modelling approaches in decision-making”, European Transport Research
Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 32-43.
Giffinger, R. and Gudrun, H. (2010), “Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning
of the cities?”, ACE - Architecture, City and Environment, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 7-26.
Goodhue, D., Lewis, W. and Thompson, R. (2007), “Research note—statistical power in analyzing
interaction effects: questioning the advantage of PLS with product indicators”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 211-227.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S.
(2017), “Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Hair, J.F., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Black, W.C. (2018), Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.,
Cengage.
Hazen, B.T., Overstreet, R.E. and Boone, C.A. (2015), “Suggested reporting guidelines for structural
equation modeling in supply chain management research”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 627-641.
Hickman, R., Ashiru, O. and Banister, D. (2011), “Transitions to low carbon transport futures: strategic
conversations from London and Delhi”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 1553-1562.
Hollands, R.G. (2008), “Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or
entrepreneurial?”, City, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 303-320.
Hopkins, J. and Hawking, P. (2018), “Big data analytics and IoT in logistics: a case study”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 575-591.
Hsu, P.-F., Ray, S. and Li-Hsieh, Y.-Y. (2014), “Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing
mechanism, and deployment model”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 474-488.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to JIT, Smart logistics
operational performance and firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 343-355. and smart city
Jabeur, N., Al-Belushi, T., Mbarki, M. and Gharrad, H. (2017), “Toward leveraging smart logistics
sustainability
collaboration with a multi-agent system based solution”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 109,
pp. 672-679.
Kamalahmadi, M. and Parast, M.M. (2016), “A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise
and supply chain resilience: major findings and directions for future research”, International 841
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171, pp. 116-133.
Kirch, M., Poenicke, O. and Richter, K. (2017), “RFID in logistics and production–Applications,
research and visions for smart logistics zones”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 178, pp. 526-533.
Klein, R. and Rai, A. (2009), “Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain
relationships”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 735-762.
Koberg, E. and Longoni, A. (2019), “A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in
global supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 1084-1098, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.033.
Kolawole, E., Prem, C. and Ferry, J. (2018), “Estimating transportation network impedance to last-mile
delivery : a case study of Maribyrnong city in Melbourne”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 110-130, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0247.
Lai, Y., Sun, H. and Ren, J. (2018), “Understanding the determinants of big data analytics (BDA)
adoption in logistics and supply chain management: an empirical investigation”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 676-703.
Law, K.H. and Lynch, J.P. (2019), “Smart city: technologies and challenges”, IT Professional, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 46-51.
Lee, I. and Lee, K. (2015), “The internet of things (IoT): applications, investments, and challenges for
enterprises”, Business Horizons, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 431-440.
Lee, J.H., Hancock, M.G. and Hu, M.-C. (2014), “Towards an effective framework for building smart
cities: lessons from Seoul and San Francisco”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 89, pp. 80-99.
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H. and Yousef, W. (2012), “Modelling the smart city performance”,
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 137-149.
Maduku, D.K., Mpinganjira, M. and Duh, H. (2016), “Understanding mobile marketing adoption
intention by South African SMEs: a multi-perspective framework”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 711-723.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: a comparison
of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52
No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A. and Delgado, C. (2018), “Enhancing supply chain performance through
supplier social sustainability: an emerging economy perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 195, pp. 259-272, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.025.
Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Valeri, E. and Stathopoulos, A. (2014), Urban Freight Transport Modelling: An
Agent-specific Approach, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
Marr, B. (2014), “Big data: 25 amazing need-to-know facts”, available at https://www.
smartdatacollective.com/big-data-25-facts-everyone-needs-know/ (accessed 10 May 2020).
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J.R. and Grayson, D. (1998), “Is more ever too much? The number of
indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 181-220.
McKinnon, A.C. (2015), Green Logistics : Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, 3rd
ed., Kogan Page, London.
IJLM Mora, L., Deakin, M. and Reid, A. (2019), “Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to
reveal the main development paths of smart cities”, Technological Forecasting and Social
32,3 Change, Vol. 142, pp. 56-69.
Narimissa, O., Kangarani-Farahani, A. and Molla-Alizadeh-Zavardehi, S. (2020), “Evaluation of
sustainable supply chain management performance: dimensions and aspects”, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1002/sd.1959.
Nathanail, E., Gogas, M. and Adamos, G. (2016), “Smart interconnections of interurban and urban
842 freight transport towards achieving sustainable city logistics”, Transportation Research
Procedia, Vol. 14, pp. 983-992.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nuttall, S. (2014), “New automotive research: the use of telematics in road freight transport companies
in”, available at: https://www.acaresearch.com.au/australian-market-research-blog/bid/333093/
New-Automotive-Research-The-Use-of-Telematics-in-Road-Freight-Transport-Companies
(accssed 27 January 2021).
Pagell, M. and Shevchenko, A. (2014), “Why research in sustainable supply chain management should
have no future”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-55, doi: 10.1111/
jscm.12037.
Popovic, T., Barbosa-Povoa, A., Kraslawski, A. and Carvalho, A. (2018), “Quantitative indicators for
social sustainability assessment of supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 180,
pp. 748-768.
Qorri, A., Mujkic, Z. and Kraslawski, A. (2018), “A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability
performance of supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 189, pp. 570-584, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.073.
Radu, L. (2020), “Disruptive technologies in smart cities: a survey on current trends and challenges”,
Smart Cities, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1022-1038.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006), “Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply
chain integration capabilities”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Ramayah, T., Ling, N.S., Taghizadeh, S.K. and Rahman, S.A. (2016), “Factors influencing SMEs
website continuance intention in Malaysia”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 150-164.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed., Free Press, New York.
Ruivo, P., Oliveira, T. and Neto, M. (2014), “Examine ERP post-implementation stages of use and
value: empirical evidence from Portuguese SMEs”, International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 166-184.
Russell, S.H. (2000), “Growing world of logistics”, Air Force Journal of Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 12-17.
Russo, F. and Comi, A. (2012), “City characteristics and urban goods movements: a way to
environmental transportation system in a sustainable city”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 39, pp. 61-73.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2014), “Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply
chains”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 232-241.
Schliwa, G., Armitage, R., Aziz, S., Evans, J. and Rhoades, J. (2015), “Sustainable city logistics—
making cargo cycles viable for urban freight transport”, Research in Transportation Business
and Management, Vol. 15, pp. 50-57.
uller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
Seuring, S. and M€
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-1710.
Shee, H., Miah, S., Fairfield, L. and Pujawan, N. (2018), “Cloud-enabled process integration improves
supply chain performance and firm sustainability: the moderating role of top management”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 500-517.
Shiraki, H., Matsumoto, K.i., Shigetomi, Y., Ehara, T., Ochi, Y. and Ogawa, Y. (2020), “Factors affecting Smart logistics
CO2 emissions from private automobiles in Japan: the impact of vehicle occupancy”, Applied
Energy, Vol. 259, pp. 1-10. and smart city
SmartCity_world (2020), “Smart city market”, available at: https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/
sustainability
smart-cities-news/smart-city-market-set-to-grow-by-2118bn-by-2024-5761 (accessed 18
October).
SmartCityMarket (2020), “Smart city market size”, available at https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/
Market-Reports/smart-cities-market-542.html?gclid5EAIaIQobChMIj_TLw-W97AIVVQ4rCh1 843
YNg1tEAAYASAAEgKe1PD_BwE (accessed 18 October).
Stark, M. (2021), “New study reveals lack of freight data sharing and standards is impacting delays”,
MHD Supply Chain News, available at http://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2021/01/07/new-study-
reveals-lack-of-freight-data-sharing-and-standards-is-impacting-delays/#more-50876 (accessed
26 January).
Stone, J. and Rahimifard, S. (2018), “Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the
literature and synthesis of a novel framework”, Supply Chain Management: International
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 207-238.
Svensson, G. (2007), “Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM): conceptual
framework and empirical example”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 262-266, doi: 10.1108/13598540710759781.
Taboada, I. and Shee, H. (2020), “Understanding 5G technology for future supply chain management”,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and applications, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1080/13675567.
2020.1762850.
Tachizawa, E.M., Alvarez-Gil, M.J. and Montes-Sancho, M.J. (2015), “How ‘smart cities’ will change
supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 237-248.
Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E. and Pelaez, G. (2017), “What does Industry 4.0 mean to supply
chain?”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 1175-1182.
Tomarken, A.J. and Waller, N.G. (2005), “Structural equation modeling: strengths, limitations, and
misconceptions”, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 31-65.
Tornatzky, L. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technology Innovation, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, Vol. 165.
Touboulic, A. and Walker, H. (2015), “Theories in sustainable supply chain management: a structured
literature review”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 16-42.
Uckelmann, D. (2008), “A definition approach to smart logistics”, in Balandin, S., Moltchanov, D. and
Koucheryavy, Y. (Eds), Next Generation Teletraffic and Wired/Wireless Advanced Networking,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 5174.
Wagner, S.M. and Kemmerling, R. (2010), “Handling nonresponse in logistics research”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 357-381.
Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, J.F., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2016), “Big data
analytics and firm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 356-365.
Westland, J.C. (2010), “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 476-487.
Xu, L.D., He, W. and Li, S. (2014), “Internet of things in industries: a survey”, IEEE Transactions on
industrial informatics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 2233-2243.
Zacharewicz, G., Deschamps, J.-C. and Francois, J. (2011), “Distributed simulation platform to design
advanced RFID based freight transportation systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 62 No. 6,
pp. 597-612.
IJLM Zheng, C., Yuan, J., Zhu, L., Zhang, Y. and Shao, Q. (2020), “From digital to sustainable: a scientometric
review of smart city literature between 1990 and 2019”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258,
32,3 pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120689.
Zygiaris, S. (2013), “Smart city reference model: assisting planners to conceptualize the building of
smart city innovation ecosystems”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 217-231.

Appendix
844 Questionnaire
Answer the question following: [1 5 strongly disagree, 4 5 neither agree or disagree, 7 5 strongly agree]
*items were dropped.

Section A
Smart logistics (SL) operations [Cronbach alpha 5 0.75] (Gunasekaran et al., 2017)
What extent you agree/disagree with your organisation that uses technology-driven vehicle
mobility in city-bound logistics.
*SL1. Has full visibility of our supply chain (e.g. real-time tracking of goods movement)
SL2. Appropriately manages supply chain risk (e.g. delivery failure, stock out, customer complaint)
SL3. Has identified all cost components and can control the total cost for servicing our customers
SL4. Has the ability to deliver product in full and on time (DIFOT) to customers
SL5. Has identified all types of waste (e.g. excess inventory, waiting, defective items)
*SL6. Has the ability to deliver right lot sizes and shipping case sizes to customers
*SL7. Has the ability to minimise safety stock in our supply chain

Section B
Use of SC technologies [Cronbach alpha 5 0.78] (Benevolo et al., 2016)
What extent your organisation uses SC technologies in logistics operations.
*ICT1. Guide customers how to use electronic commerce web sites
*ICT2. Customers use web site to enquire and order goods online
*ICT3. Customers use web site to book space for containers/transport online
*CT4. Customers use web site to check container tracking and tracing online
*ICT5. Website can help integrate our supply chain partners
ICT6. Adopts advanced technologies (e.g. GPS tracking) to control vehicles mobility
*ICT7. Adopts customer relationship management system to collect market information and
analyse
ICT8. Collect online transactions data and analyse to reduce operational costs
ICT9. Uses GPS tracking and automotive navigation that help in delivery

Section C
IT infrastructure capability (ITC) [Cronbach alpha 5 0.81] (Lai et al., 2018)
What extent you agree or disagree on your firm’s capability.
ITC1. IT infrastructure available is adequate to capture, storage and transfer data
*ITC2. Realise the potential benefits of intelligent transport systems (ITSs) in logistics
*ITC3. Is planning to adopt ITSs in near future
ITC4. Have sufficient supporting staff while implementing any new technology
ITC5. Have sufficient resources for employee training
Section D Smart logistics
Environmental performance (EV) [Cronbach alpha 5 0.84] (Shee et al., 2018)
What extent you agree/disagree that your smart logistics improve smart city environmental and smart city
performance. sustainability
*EV1. Reduced materials, water and/or energy consumption through our storage, delivery and
disposal
EV2. Reduced pollution emission and waste in warehouse/retails/production level
EV3. Met packaging and regulatory compliances 845
EV4. Moved to low carbon emission technology in transportation
EV5. Minimised losses to environment through improved vehicle technologies
*EV6. Helped managing goods returns and end-of-life returns

Section E
Economic performance (ECO) [Cronbach alpha 5 0.73] (Shee et al., 2018)
What extent you agree/disagree that your smart logistics improve smart city economic performance
*ECO1. Improved service level associated with goods delivery in full and on time
*ECO2. Improved transportation cost resulting from better road network and safer delivery
ECO3. Helped finding new revenue streams
ECO4. Achieved relatively better market share in last few quarters (vs my competitors)
ECO5. Enhanced labour productivity in city bound logistics
*ECO6. Attained cost savings due to reduced packaging waste, use of fuel-efficient vehicle, etc.

Section F
Social performance (SP) [Cronbach alpha 5 0.85] (Shee et al., 2018)
What extent you agree/disagree that your smart logistics improve smart city social performance.
*SP1. Improved worker motivation and satisfaction
SP2. Provided better occupational health and safety conditions
*SP3. Created new jobs through a mix of products and services offerings
SP4. Improved social well-being of individual and community
*SP5. Profit shared with the society
SP6. Efforts made to reduce damages to lives, property and future disasters
SP7. Facilitated leisure, entertainment and easy lifestyle

Section G
Demographic profile:
Gender; educational qualification; employees in your organisation; annual revenue (average) over
last three years; IT-related investment; business type; how long you have been working in this; job
designation; level of involvement in strategic decision-making.

Corresponding author
Himanshu Kumar Shee can be contacted at: Himanshu.Shee@vu.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com