logistics
Article
Determining Factors for Supply Chain Services Provider
Selection and Long-Term Relationship Maintenance: Evidence
from Greece
Damianos P. Sakas 1 , Nikolaos T. Giannakopoulos 1, * , Nikos Kanellos 1 , Christos Christopoulos 2
and Kanellos S. Toudas 1
Citation: Sakas, D.P.;
Giannakopoulos, N.T.; Kanellos, N.;
Christopoulos, C.; Toudas, K.S.
Determining Factors for Supply
Chain Services Provider Selection
and Long-Term Relationship
Maintenance: Evidence from Greece.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73. https://doi.org/
10.3390/logistics7040073
Academic Editor: Hao Yu
Received: 7 August 2023
Revised: 22 September 2023
Accepted: 28 September 2023
Published: 9 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Logistics 2023, 7, 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040073
1 BICTEVAC Laboratory—Business Information and Communication Technologies in Value Chains Laboratory,
Department of Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, School of Applied Economics and Social
Sciences, Agricultural University of Athens, 118 55 Athens, Greece
2 Global Operations Transformation & Excellence, Swissport International Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland;
christos.christopoulos@swissport.com
* Correspondence: n.giannakopoulos@aua.gr; Tel.: +30-694-00-13-673
Abstract: Background: Due to increased globalization and its subsequent rise in competitiveness, the
role of supply chain services (3PL) in managing logistics, reducing operational and non-operational
costs, and managing customer and supplier relationships, have become of utmost importance.
Customer-centric production has led to the development of a close relationship between production
processes. Amidst all this, the demand for logistic services has dramatically increased, thus putting
more pressure on firms for enhanced operational results, and leading to the outsourcing of their
internal and external logistic activities. On the other hand, supply chain firms that provide 3PL
services seek to enhance their sustainability and predict their customers’ demand. Methods: The
authors collected quantitative data from 81 firms that operate in various industrial sectors in Greece.
A questionnaire was sent for completion, in which firms could rate and evaluate various aspects that
were discerned as important for deciding to cooperate with a 3PL service provider and maintain this
cooperation in the long run. To extract the required outcomes, statistical analyses like categorical
regression (CATREG) and MANOVA were utilized. Results: The demand for 3PL services was affected
by 3PL service providers’ operational performance based on accuracy, reputation, and IT capabilities,
while the customer firms’ intention for maintaining cooperation with 3PL service providers was
affected by their reliability level, improved service efficiency, and trustworthiness. Conclusions: 3PL
service providers should seek to improve the reputation, IT infrastructure, and accuracy of their firm’s
operations to have a continuous demand for their services. Apart from that, 3PL service providers to
maintain the cooperation with their customers, need to enhance the levels of their services reliability
and efficiency, while also creating a bond of trust with their existing customers.
Keywords: logistics; supply chain; sustainability; sustainable supply chain management; sustainable
logistics practices; 3PL services; CATREG; MANOVA
1. Introduction
1.1. Logistics and Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Logistics describes the component of SCM that organizes, executes, and oversees
the successful and efficient movement of supplies, goods, and data across the whole
supply chain [1]. As a result, logistics management is operational in definition, whereas
supply chain management is conceptual. To effectively satisfy the consumer, supply chain
management is primarily concerned with customer service enhancement as well as cost
minimization [2]. In the past few years, supply chain firms have attempted to behave
greener and provide customers with environmentally friendly commodities and services.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/logistics
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 2 of 21

This situation has resulted in the birth of the green supply chain, which tries to emphasize
methods that cause a supply chain to operate in an environmentally friendly manner.
In the setting of supply chains, one can apply the concept of all three growth founda-
tions, including the ecosystem, economics, and society, all of which are critical factors in
establishing global sustainability [3]. Sustainability involves guaranteeing the long-term vi-
ability and continuation of company operations whilst improving the foreseeable wellness
of the entire system. Sustainability encompasses many more challenges than environmental
degradation, which is sometimes conflated with it, like contamination, the conservation of
resources, and elements of human existence including welfare, health, etc. [4].
The figurative recognition of the environment and business as interrelated struc-
tures that, when possible, preserve and recycle supplies and, as required, resist difficult
conditions [5], is critical. Fiscal variables have an impact on the probability of finding natu-
ral resources and the pace of utilization of their novel supplies, and higher costs stimulate
the development of mining and reclamation work [5]. Because of the rising scarcity of assets,
supply chain firms have emerged that are involved with components for reuse, returned
items for health or safety concerns, recycling, and goods for restoration [6]. Therefore, it
can be noted that many factors related to the internal and external environment of supply
chain firms tend to impact the demand for their services, affecting their sustainability.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discern the factors that lead firms to the
decision to outsource their logistics, thus using 3PL services, as well as those that support
firms’ decisions to maintain their cooperation with 3PL service providers. In short, this
research will examine, from the demand side, the factors that lead firms in the Greek
economy to use 3PL services, and the factors that affect their decision to maintain them.
The selected firms operate in sectors where the usage of 3PL services is a common practice.
Hence, it has been discovered that the main factors that affect the decision of customer
firms to outsource their logistics activities to a 3PL service provider are based on reputation,
the accuracy of the 3PL service provider’s operational performance, and their level of IT
capabilities. The demand of the customer firms for 3PL services is expressed by the years of
presence in their industry sector and the period of use of such services. Moreover, the factors
that affect the decision of firms to maintain their cooperation with 3PL service providers
are their reliability level, their improved service efficiency, and their trustworthiness.
The novelty of this research lies in the fact that the authors adopted the same study
and sample both for the analysis of the factors affecting the demand for 3PL services and
for those that affect the decision to maintain them. Furthermore, the demand for 3PL
services has been studied from the spectrum of the customer firms’ years of presence in
their industry sector and the period of use of such services. The total of the 26 determinant
factors underwent extensive statistical analysis, and from the MANOVA, it was discerned
that less traditional and common ones emerged. As seen in the related literature presented
below, the reputation, accuracy of operations, and the 3PL service providers’ capabilities
for IT were key. The authors separated the factors that determine the demand for 3PL
services and those that affect their decision to maintain their cooperation with 3PL service
providers. The above action serves as a distinctive factor for the novelty of the present
research, since, for the 3PL service providers cooperation maintenance, only firms that
currently use these firms were contacted. Given the above, and based on the wide usage
of quantitative research methods in the logistics sector, we established of the following
research questions:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): “Which factors of 3PL services affect the industry sector and the
number of employees of customer firms?”.
Research Question 2 (RQ2): “Which factors of 3PL services affect the usage and the type of 3PL
services used by customer firms?”.
Research Question 3 (RQ3): “Which factors contribute more to the demand of customer firms
for 3PL services?”.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 3 of 21

Research Question 4 (RQ4): “Which factors contribute more to customer firms’ intention to
maintain the usage of 3PL services?”.
Following the reference of the paper’s contribution, the authors present recent liter-
ature and research related to the demand for 3PL services, as well as the maintenance of
collaboration with 3PL service providers (Table 1). The referred literature served as a basis
for the deployment of the present study, fulfilling the need to extend existing knowledge in
the field.

Table 1. Existing literature for 3PL services demand.

Studies Methodology Literature Contribution

Satisfaction and relationship
Smart Partial Least management tend to reduce conflict
Ngah et al. [7]
Squares (PLS) and switch the intentions
of 3PL customers.
The intention of firms to adopt cold 3PL
transportation services is affected by
Smart Partial Least the relative advantage, top
Hassan et al. [8]
Squares (PLS) management support, and
organizational readiness of the 3PL
service provider
Factors such as the need for time- and
Smart Partial Least cost-saving processes, competitiveness,
Narasimharajan and Squares (PLS) and as well as efficient project planning and
Venkatesan [9] Analytical Hierarchical the environmental impact of the 3PL
Process (AHP) service providers were discerned as
important for 3PL services demand.
Accurate management of inventory
Exponential Smoothing, levels and transportation coordination
Kmiecik [10] ARIMA, Machine management comprise the main
Learning techniques variables of 3PL service
providers’ development.
For efficient collaboration and
cooperation maintenance between
Comparative Analysis
Darco and Vlachos [11] customer firms and 3PL service
of Interviews
providers, information sharing and
trust should be promoted.
The most influential factors for
outsourcing a firm’s logistics are the
level of strategic alliances of the 3PL
service provider, the uncertainty and
Khan et al. [12] DEMATEL technique
risk mitigation of the outsourcing
decision, and the deficiency of internal
resources for this service from
the customer firm.
During the COVID-19 pandemic,
Artificial Neural Network
customers intended to use 3PL services
(ANN) and Random
German et al. [13] based on their attitude, satisfaction,
Forest Classifier
perceived value, assurance by the 3PL,
(RFC) methods
and perceived environmental concerns.
The integration of customer firms is
closely related to the operational
Structural Equation efficiency of 3PL service providers, the
Wu et al. [14]
Modeling (SEM) cost reduction possibilities, the
information acquisition, and the IT
capabilities of the 3PL firms.

The present research paper is organized to extract valuable insights from the per-
formed analysis regarding supply chain services and firms’ sustainability as follows: in
the Introduction section, the presentation and analysis of the related theoretical framework
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 4 of 21

that concerns the present study is given, followed by the Materials and Methods section,
where the authors provide an extensive elaboration of the study’s direction, the gathered
sample, and the research questions to be answered. Then, in the Results section, through
extensive statistical analysis (categorical regression, MANOVA), the main outcomes of the
study are presented, while in the Discussion and Conclusions sections, the authors give a
clear depiction of the practical and theoretical implications that arose from the sample’s
examination and applied analysis.

1.2. Demand for 3PL Services

According to Zailani et al. [15], the majority of companies outsource logistics to
decrease operating costs (82.4%), enhance operational flexibility (52.9%), boost their firm’s
dedication to fundamental competitive strengths (49.0%), enhance productivity (49.0%),
and boost the quality of the logistics activities (37.3%). The assignment of some supply
chain activities to an exterior entity is referred to as logistics outsourcing (3PL). Outsourcing
entails foreign businesses doing conventional logistics activities in a company, whereas
all logistics procedures are operated by 3PL service providers [16]. Firms have decided
to outsource either a portion or all of their supply chain functions to gain operational
advantages in the supply chain and concentrate on their primary corporate operations [16].
According to Al-Marsy et al. [17], 3PL service providers could analyze their operational
effectiveness (alongside location-related efficiency) and utilize the information to advise
their customer enterprises in making strategic choices. In a larger sense, logistics activities
encompass shipment, vehicle management, storage, recall and reverse logistics, packaging,
shipping payments, and oversight [18]. Transportation services are among the most often
outsourced. National transportation (80%), storage (66%), global shipping (60%), freight
forwarding (48%), customs clearance (45%), and reverse logistics (34%) are the logistics
operations commonly outsourced worldwide [19].
While cost is a primary motivation for outsourced labor, several other variables should
be considered before the organization may take this step. Corporations are unlikely to
outsource an advantageous operation or a process in which they hold a particular under-
standing or fundamental skill. It seems naive to be giving out this kind of knowledge [20].
The clients of 3PL services show that the fields in which logistics operations could provide
an edge over their competitors are lower logistics costs, boosted satisfaction, exceptional
performance in achieving objectives, utilization of a broader extent, and effective inventory
control [20].
The planning and oversight of 3PL service providers is essential for ensuring profitable
outsourcing choices [21]. The higher the risk that the customer senses, the more crucial the
former becomes. Some of the most important variables of logistics outsourcing are costs,
planning, key expertise, regulations, ambiguity, information technology, and enduring
relationships [21]. Furthermore, several additional factors have been uncovered by other
investigators. Excellent service, risk management, adaptability, expertise, and elegance are
examples of these.
Businesses using a strategic outsourcing perspective seem to put greater emphasis
on boosting flexibility, following cost elements, to the benefit of 3PL service providers’
skill to adapt to shifts in demand, while placing a lesser emphasis on enhancing client
service and the ability for breakthroughs [22]. Based on the findings of the same study, even
though it is mentioned in the research as being one of the essential factors for choosing 3PL
services, sustainability was not judged to be extremely relevant. To this point, it should
be highlighted that the various activities performed by the government, like the pricing
and tax policies, could affect directly the demand for supply chain services, as well as the
sustainability of the firms [23,24].

1.3. Determinant Factors of 3PL Services Demand

Partnering with a 3PL service provider versus internal logistics outsourcing is driven
by a variety of considerations unique to every firm. Growing customer demand for
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 5 of 21

additional services, enhanced visibility across budgetary limitations, elevated restrictions,

fluctuating market situations, and storage challenges have placed companies under severe
stress, and thus 3PL service providers with tailored company solutions have become critical
for delivering performance [25].
A rising factor with a significant impact on business operations is unpredictabil-
ity, regardless of the firms’ declarations of advancement in a broad range of logistics
operations [26]. 3PL services have become critical for logistics management due to the
numerous advantages they offer, including increased efficiency, improved client service
quality, lower managerial, staff, and property expenditures, and reduced facility and equip-
ment impact [7]. The quality of logistics services supplied by a 3PL service provider impacts
the procedure of selecting an appropriate partner. Service quality is related to the service
provider’s service efficiency and expertise, as well as the assessment of its services [27].
The price and the standardization of 3PL services seem to be major factors in enter-
prises’ decisions to choose and/or extend their collaboration with 3PL service providers [28].
Quality, duration, flexibility, and expenditure have been identified as important criteria
too [29]. Other parameters that affect the demand for 3PL services are logistics costs,
service quality [30], connectivity, monitoring and transport capabilities, the timeline for
delivery, technological infrastructure, overall earnings, geographical reach, and a variety of
offered services. According to Soh [31], the most significant efficiency factor is an excellent
grasp of information technology (IT), followed by funding, quality of service, international
associations, administration, and equipment.
Bulgurcu and Nakiboglu [32] discovered that five of the most commonly cited factors
for the on-demand drivers for 3PL services are costs, compatibility, IT operation and service
quality, asset possession, and operational factors. To thrive and preserve their competitive
ability in the market, companies must compete with one another for the opportunity to
acquire the needed essential assets while offering adaptable and rapid services in the
supply chain, which is feasible by using either corporate oversight or supply chain network
oversight [33]. The capability of a robust transportation system, quality accreditation, safety
and health, excellent service, and sustainability credentials, and other factors that need the
highest consideration of corporate decision-makers, are among the most significant and
inspiring of these aspects [34].
Combining the aforementioned factors, Table 2, presented below, displays the factors
determining the selection of 3PL services [32]:

Table 2. Demand factors for supply chain services (3PL).

General Factors Subfactors

(a) Price of the service
(1) Costs (b) Continuous effort to cut costs
(c) Flexibility of payment
(a) Customer satisfaction
(b) Operational performance based on the speed of execution
(c) Operational performance based on delivery time
(2) Quality of Service
(d) Operational performance based on accuracy
(e) Problem-solving capability
(f) Customer orientation
(a) Coverage of functions
(b) Geographical coverage of processes
(c) Ownership of assets for operations
(d) Technological infrastructure for operations
(3) Competitiveness
(e) Sufficient capacity
(f) Flexibility
(g) Information technologies, information technology
capabilities
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 6 of 21

Table 2. Cont.

General Factors Subfactors

(4) General characteristics
(5) Relationship Factors
(c) Willingness to share information
(a) Location
(b) Standardization (ISO, etc.)
(c) Reputation
(d) Experience
(e) Financial stability
(f) Environmental sustainability
(g) Safety and health
(a) Cultural compatibility
(b) Relationships with customers

The above factors for determining demand for supply chain services will be validated
using similar questionnaires in the following chapter of this paper, like the seven factors
for maintaining cooperation with providers of these services, i.e., in companies of various
industries related to the use of 3PL services.

1.4. 3PL Services in Greece

A rather important peculiarity for the Greek sector is the fact that the total of the
supply chain firms is concentrated exclusively in the wider area of the two major urban
centers, Athens and Thessaloniki. In the region of Attica, the available spaces capable of
accommodating modern storage needs approach 5% of the market’s potential. For high-end
spaces of more than 5000 m2 , the market yield in the wider Athens area is around 10%,
while the yields for spaces that exceed 10,000 m2 rise to marginally lower levels.
Over 90% of the companies are based in Attica, while most of them have their main
facilities in Thriasio Pedio and the rest in Peania, Koropi, the “Eleftherios Venizelos”
airport, and in areas in the north of the prefecture, up to Boeotia, and mainly in the re-
gions of Acharne, Krioneri, Avlona, Oinophyta, and Oinoe. Several of the largest supply
chain companies also maintain storage areas and facilities in the wider area of Thessa-
loniki. Major infrastructure projects are setting new standards in the transport and storage
fields at a time when businesses are investing in improving their efficiency through better
goods management.
In Greece, 3PL companies are used by 10% of the existing businesses, compared to
50–70% use in Europe. The total size of the existing 3PL warehouses in Attica is over
400,000 m2 , of which approximately 90% is located in Thriasio Pedio (Mandra, Magoula,
Aspropyrgos, Greece). The logistics sector (services to third parties) generates about 6% of
the country’s GDP, which rises to 9.5% when including the same logistics services provided
internally by many trading and manufacturing enterprises. It gives work to 4.7% of the
employed [35]. Also, the supply chain sector, on the one hand, creates a higher gross added
value per employee, and, on the other hand, recovers at a faster rate in terms of employment
and wages. The recovery in the supply chain sector is largely due to increased activity in
the warehousing industry and other activities related to transportation. Distinctively, the
contribution of this sector to the total activity of the supply chain sector increased from
19.4% in 2009 to 33.9% in 2016 [36].
Regarding the distribution of the Greek economy by broad product category, in the first
place are food and beverages, with a percentage of 32.1%, followed by industrial products
and raw materials, which obtained a share of 16.7%, and in third place are the electrical
appliances, with 9.6%, while other products make up lower percentages [37]. Given the
increasing expansion in worldwide demand for 3PL services, continued expansion of the
supply chain infrastructure is becoming increasingly crucial [38], a similar case to that
of Greece.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 7 of 21

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Deployment
To increase the efficiency of the responses, the questionnaire was prepared with
multiple option questions, deployed in the Google Forms platforms [39], to gather infor-
mation without tiring the reader. Thus, it was divided into two parts, one containing the
“demographic” characteristics of the company concerned, and the other annexing all the
general information relating to its activity (Appendix B). The first part had four open-ended
questions and one multiple-choice question, while the second part had seven multiple-
choice questions, two of which required each option to be rated on a scale of 1 to 4
(completely unimportant to very important). Finally, the second part included two multiple-
choice questions that asked the respondent to choose a preferred demand or retention
factor for sustainable supply chain services. The questionnaire included the demand factors
mentioned in paragraph 1.4, and specifically in Table 1. Quantitative research methods
such as questionnaires, mathematical modeling, and simulation are used in 50% of the
literature. In most questionnaire, there is a section on non-response bias, reliability, and
validity checks. This clearly illustrates the fact that journals are becoming more rigorous in
terms of reliability and validity issues [40]. According to Mangan et al. [41], the majority of
research on logistics is overwhelmingly dominated by quantitative research methods.

2.2. Sample and Data Collection

For this particular survey, responses were collected from 81 companies from various
sectors of the Greek economy throughout the past year (2022). The questionnaire was
distributed through a Google Forms link [39] to firms from various sectors based in Greece,
and the data from their responses were collected in a single Excel file. In addition, the
distribution of the link for the questionnaire’s fulfillment was executed through email
messages to the sample firms’ emails, available for communication with the public (“contact
us” website section) [40]. Most of the firms taking part in this survey were based in Attica
and a few of them were based outside Attica. This survey was addressed to 600 enterprises
that operate in the following sectors (Figure 1): (a) insurance, (b) energy, (c) construction,
(d) technology, (e) retail, (f) wholesale, (g) pharmaceutical, (h) chemical, (i) wholesale and
retail, and (j) service enterprises. These are the industry sectors with the most extensive use
of 3PL. Communication with them was conducted exclusively by e-mail. In total, 87.7% of
the responding companies use 3PL services, with 12.3% not using them, with the period of
use (for the 88% using them) ranging between 1 and 420 months, with an average period of
use of 68.5 months (Figure 2), i.e., about six years.
The method applied to collect the data through the questionnaire was the sending of
emails with the questionnaire attached in the form of a link, while providing the incentive
of communicating to them the results of the survey as a technique to improve their response
rate [41]. The initial mailing of the questionnaires to the 600 firms resulted in the collection
of 35 responses. In a subsequent phase, the response rate improvement methods used
included the polite reminder of our initial conversation, thus personalizing it further [42,43],
which increased the response of the firms by 131%, reaching 81 responses.
Participating firms were asked to answer 11 questions about the factors influencing
their need for 3PL services, including their rating of each factor’s importance on a four-
point Likert scale (very important, probably important, probably unimportant, totally
unimportant), etc. Among these firms, some are new and others have operated for a long
period in their sectors, ranging from 1 to 120 months. Their size also varies as follows: 16%
of the firms employ less than 10 employees, 24.7% employ more than 10 and less than 50,
50.37% employ more than 50 and less than 250, and the remaining 22.3% employ more than
250 employees (Figure 3).
 response rate [41]. The initial mailing of the questionnaires to the 600 firms resulted
Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
in the
collection of 35 responses. In a subsequent phase, the response rate improvement methods
used included the polite reminder of our initial conversation, thus personalizing it further
[42,43], which
response rateincreased the response
[41]. The initial mailing of of
thethe firms by 131%,
questionnaires to the reaching 81 responses.
600 firms resulted in the
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 collection of 35 responses. In a subsequent phase, the response rate improvement methods 8 of 21
used included the polite reminder of our initial conversation, thus personalizing it further
[42,43], which increased the response of the firms by 131%, reaching 81 responses.

Figure 1. Sector/industry of participating companies.

Sector/industryofofparticipating
Figure1.1.Sector/industry
Figure participating companies.
companies.

Figure 2. 3PL services usage.

Participating firms were asked to answer 11 questions about the factors influencing
their need for 3PL services, including their rating of each factor’s importance on a four-
point
Figure Likert
2. 3PL scale (very
services usage.important, probably important, probably unimportant, totally
Figure 2. 3PL services
unimportant), usage. these firms, some are new and others have operated for a long
etc. Among

Participating firms were asked to answer 11 questions about the factors influencing
their need for 3PL services, including their rating of each factor’s importance on a four-
point Likert scale (very important, probably important, probably unimportant, totally
unimportant), etc. Among these firms, some are new and others have operated for a long
 Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

period in their sectors, ranging from 1 to 120 months. Their size also varies as follows: 16%
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 of the firms employ less than 10 employees, 24.7% employ more than 10 and less than 50,
9 of 21
50.37% employ more than 50 and less than 250, and the remaining 22.3% employ more
than 250 employees (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Number of employees in a year.

Figure 3. Number of employees in a year.

3. Results 3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
Based on
Based on the results of the
the results
survey,ofthe the most
survey, the most
widely usedwidely
typeused typeservices
of 3PL of 3PL services
is the is the
provision of transport facilities at 66.7%, followed by warehousing facilities at 42%, and
provision of transport facilities at 66.7%, followed by warehousing facilities at 42%, and
thirdly, warehousing and inventory control services at 33.3%. In the next stage, after all
thirdly, warehousing and inventory control services at 33.3%. In the next stage, after all the
the firms rated the 26 factors, they also selected the most important one. Notably, only 16
firms rated the 26werefactors, they
selected byalso selected
at least the most
one firm as theimportant one. Notably,
most determinant for 3PLonly 16 were
services demand,
selected by at least one firm as the most determinant for 3PL services demand,
characterizing the remaining 10 as less important. The most important 3PL service characterizing
the remaining 10 as lessdrivers
demand important. The mostinimportant
are presented Figures 4 3PL and service demand drivers
5. The satisfaction of 3PLare services
presented in Figures
customers4 and 5. The
is ranked satisfaction
first with 27.2%,of 3PL was
second services customers
the price is ranked
of 3PL services first and
with 14.8%,
with 27.2%, secondthirdwaswasthe
theprice
operational
of 3PLefficiency based14.8%,
services with on theanddelivery
thirdtime
waswith 9.9%. In the same
the operational
efficiency basedframework, the selection
on the delivery time with of the main
9.9%. Infactor for maintaining
the same framework, cooperation
the selectionwithof3PL
theservice
providers was reliability at 54.3%, followed by trust and improved
main factor for maintaining cooperation with 3PL service providers was reliability at 54.3%, efficiency/effectiveness
followed by trust at and
13.6% (Figure 6).efficiency/effectiveness at 13.6% (Figure 6).
improved
Therefore, we see that in terms of the general categories of demand factors for 3PL
Therefore, we see that in terms of the general categories of demand factors for 3PL
services, the most decisive is that of quality of service with a percentage of 55.6%, followed
services, the most decisive is that of quality of service with a percentage of 55.6%, followed
by the category of cost of service with 20.9%, competitiveness (9.8%), relational factors
by the category(6.2%),
of cost ofthe
and service
generalwith 20.9%, competitiveness
characteristics of the 3PL service(9.8%),
provider relational
(6.2%). factors
(6.2%), and the general characteristics
Table 3 shows theofdescriptors
the 3PL service
of theprovider
3PL service(6.2%).
demand and cooperation
Table 3 shows the descriptors
maintenance factors,ofwhere
the 3PL theservice demand and
most frequently cooperation
occurring factorsmaintenance
receive the lowest
factors, where the mostinfrequently
values occurring
terms of their range, factors
mean, andreceive the lowest
standard values
deviation, in terms
verifying theof their of the
results
range, mean, andquestionnaire and underlining
standard deviation, verifyingthe thepreference
results of shown by the respondents
the questionnaire (e.g., customer
and underlining
satisfaction,
the preference shown by theservice price, reliability,
respondents etc.). satisfaction, service price, reliability,
(e.g., customer
etc.).
Table 3. Descriptors of demand and retention subfactors for 3PL services.

Table
3PL Services 3. Descriptors of demand and retention
Demand Std. subfactors for 3PL
3PL Services services.
Maintaining Std.
Range Mean Range Mean
Subfactors Deviation Subfactors Deviation
3PL Services Demand Std. 3PL Services Std.
Range Mean Range Mean
Subfactors Deviation Maintaining Subfactors Deviation
Subfactor 14: Sufficient
Subfactor 1: Service price 2.0 3.568 0.5687 3.0 3.346 0.8391
capacity
Subfactor 2: Continuous cost
3.0 3.247 0.7337 Subfactor 15: Flexibility 2.0 3.580 0.5887
reduction efforts
Subfactor 16: Information
Subfactor 3: Payment
3.0 2.926 0.9589 Technologies, Information 3.0 3.309 0.7849
flexibility
Technology capabilities
Subfactor 4: Customer
1.0 3.864 0.3447 Subfactor 17: Location 3.0 2.914 0.8396
satisfaction
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 10 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

3PL Services Demand Std. 3PL Services Std.

Range Mean Range Mean
Subfactors Deviation Maintaining Subfactors Deviation
Subfactor 5: Operational
Subfactor 18: Standardization
efficiency based on the speed 3.0 3.580 0.6298 3.0 3.296 0.8131
(ISO etc.)
of execution
Subfactor 6: Operational
performance based on the 2.0 3.704 0.5349 Subfactor 19: Reputation 2.0 3.111 0.7583
delivery time
Subfactor 7: Operational
performance based on 3.0 3.593 0.6280 Subfactor 20: Experience 2.0 3.494 0.5942
accuracy
Subfactor 8: Problem-solving Subfactor 21: Financial
2.0 3.593 0.5869 2.0 3.494 0.5942
capability stability
Subfactor 9: Customer Subfactor 22: Environmental
3.0 3.580 0.6298 3.0 3.037 0.7322
orientation sustainability
Subfactor 10: Functional
3.0 3.346 0.6921 Subfactor 23: Safety and health 3.0 3.494 0.6731
coverage
Subfactor 11: Geographical Subfactor 24: Cultural
3.0 3.321 0.7216 3.0 3.111 0.8062
coverage of processes compatibility
Subfactor 12: Ownership of Subfactor 25: Customer
3.0 2.519 0.9501 3.0 3.444 0.6892
assets for functions relations
Subfactor 13: Technological Subfactor 26: Willingness to
3.0 3.383 0.6627 3.0 3.259 0.7207
infrastructure for operations share information
Std.
3PL services maintaining subfactors Range Mean
Deviation
1. Reliability 1.0 3.852 0.3575
2. Trustworthiness 2.0 3.728 0.5247
3. Improved efficiency/efficiency 1.0 3.605 0.4919
4. Alignment with strategic business objectives 3.0 3.272 0.7585
5. Degree of integration of provider’s supply chain
3.0 3.272 0.7248
activities
6. Contact 2.0 3.593 0.5652
7. Adherence
Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3.0 2.753 0.7831
11 of 22

Figure 4. 3PL services demand subfactors.

Figure 4. 3PL services demand subfactors.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 11 of 21

Figure 4. 3PL services demand subfactors.

Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Figure 5. 3PL services demand general factors.
Figure 5. 3PL services demand general factors.

Figure 6. Factors for maintaining cooperation with 3PL providers.

Figure 6. Factors for maintaining cooperation with 3PL providers.

3.2.3.2. Statistical Analysis

Statistical Analysis
From the questionnaire’s factors’ descriptive statistics, we can discern that in the
From the questionnaire’s factors’ descriptive statistics, we can discern that in the
question of the most important determinant factor of demand for 3PL services, customer
question of the most important determinant factor of demand for 3PL services, customer
satisfaction has the highest mean value and the lowest standard deviation of the other
satisfaction has the
factors, meaning highest
that mean value
it is consistently ratedand
withthethelowest
highest standard
score (4) ofdeviation of the other
the questionnaire
factors, meaning that it is consistently rated with the highest score
scale and with small deviations from this value (4). Moving on, Cronbach’s alpha statistic(4) of the question-
naire
[44] implicitly assumes that the average correlation of a set of items is an accurate estimate alpha
scale and with small deviations from this value (4). Moving on, Cronbach’s
statistic
of the[44] implicitly
average assumes
correlation of all that
itemsthe average
about correlation
a particular of a Therefore,
construct. set of items is an
if the accurate
value
of this of
estimate statistic exceedscorrelation
the average 0.7, the sample is considered
of all items about acceptable for further
a particular analysis.
construct. In this if the
Therefore,
particular
value case, Table
of this statistic 4 exceeds
exceeds 0.9 sample
0.7, the for 35 items (or questions)
is considered so thatfor
acceptable thefurther
sampleanalysis.
is
considered suitable. The result of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.919 (higher than
In this particular case, Table 4 exceeds 0.9 for 35 items (or questions) so that the sample 0.7), indicating a is
high internal consistency of the selected scales of the questionnaire,
considered suitable. The result of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.919 (higher than 0.7), indicating meaning that the
sample produces reliable outcomes and has a reasonable length and that the selected
a high internal consistency of the selected scales of the questionnaire, meaning that the
factors are closely related, while also ensuring the homogeneity of the sample [45]. Apart
sample produces reliable outcomes and has a reasonable length and that the selected factors
from the referred statistical analysis, more statistical tablesrelated to the study, are
arepresented
closely related, while also ensuring the homogeneity of the sample [45]. Apart from
in Appendix A.
the referred statistical analysis, more statistical tablesrelated to the study, are presented in
Appendix A.
Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha test.

Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items

0.919 35

In Table 5, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic, used to measure the sufficiency of the

sample, and Bartlett’s statistic, used to control for the sphericity of the sample, are shown.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 12 of 21

Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha test.

Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items

0.919 35

In Table 5, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic, used to measure the sufficiency of the

sample, and Bartlett’s statistic, used to control for the sphericity of the sample, are shown.
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic indicates sample adequacy above the threshold of 0.6,
which in this case proves that our sample is adequate. The Bartlett test’s [46] null hypothesis
is rejected because the significance level of the statistic (p-value) is 0.00 < a = 0.05. The
above tests combined suggest that our data are suitable for further analysis.

Table 5. KMO and Barlett’s test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.778

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 922.960
Significance 0.000

3.2.1. Categorical Regression

Categorical regression quantifies the categorical data by assigning numerical values
to the categories, resulting in an optimal linear regression equation for the transformed
variables [47]. Thus, starting with the categorical regression, we will examine the association
of qualitative variables (namely the industry sector, the number of employees, the usage
of 3PL services, and the type of 3PL services used) with the twenty-six factors influencing
3PL services. In Table 6, we observe that the industry sector is related to only two factors,
namely positively to sufficient capacity (significance level < a = 0.01) and negatively to IT
capabilities (significance level < a = 0.05).

Table 6. Industry sector’s significant coefficients.

F
Subfactors Coefficient B Std. Error Sig.
Statistic
Factor 14: Adequate capacity 1.004 0.416 5.834 0.003
Factor 16: Information
Technology, Information −0.560 0.306 3.352 0.023
Technology capabilities

Similarly in Table 7, we observe that the number of employees is positively related to

only two factors, the standardization and culture compatibility of the 3PL service providers
(level of significance < a = 0.05).

Table 7. Number of employees’ significant coefficients.

F
Subfactors Coefficient B Std. Error Sig.
Statistic
Factor 18: Standardization (ISO etc.) 0.568 0.320 3.143 0.030
Factor 24: Culture Compatibility 0.642 0.360 3.178 0.039

In Table 8, we observe that the use or non-use of 3PL services is negatively related to
culture compatibility (significance level < a = 0.05).
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 13 of 21

Table 8. Usage of 3PL services’ significant coefficients.

Std. F
Subfactors Coefficient B Sig.
Error Statistic
Factor 24: Culture Compatibility −0.567 0.335 2.861 0.038

Therefore, in Table 9, we observe that the type of 3PL services used is negatively related
to standardization (significance level < a = 0.01), and positively related to the ownership of
assets for operations (significance level < a = 0.05).

Table 9. Type of used 3PL services’ significant coefficients.

Subfactors Coefficient B Std. Error F Statistic Sig.

Factor 12: Ownership of assets
0.594 0.275 4.650 0.017
for operations
Factor 18: Standardization (ISO etc.) −1.190 0.500 5.670 0.008

3.2.2. MANOVA
MANOVA assumes multivariate normality of variables at each factor level and a
common covariance matrix [47]. In Table 10, the process of comparing the multivariable
means of the years of presence in a specific branch, of the time interval of using 3PL services,
and their quotient with the 26 factors is observed, from which it emerged that the four
tests, except for Roy’s largest root, reject the null hypothesis of MANOVA; therefore, the
variable means (mean vector) of populations are not the same (significance level < a = 0.05).
Pillai’s trace is statistically positive, meaning that increasing values of the statistic indicate
outcomes that contribute more to the model. There is evidence that Pillai’s trace is more
robust than other statistics to violations of model assumptions [48].

Table 10. Multivariate means comparison.

Factors Values F Statistic Sig. Observed Power

Years of presence
Roy’s Largest Root 207.552 65.231 0.000 1.000
in the sector
Period of use of
Roy’s Largest Root 103.880 60.141 0.000 1.000
3PL services
Years of presence
in the industry
Roy’s Largest Root 90.911 66.668 0.000 1.000
and Period of use
of 3PL services

In the second phase of the MANOVA, we compare the means of the 26 factors affecting
the demand for 3PL services, as expressed by the combination of the years of presence in a
specific industry and the period of using 3PL services (Table 11). From the results obtained,
we can see that the factors of operational performance based on accuracy and reputation
significantly impact the years of presence in a sector and period of use of 3PL services
(significance level < a = 0.05).
The last table of the MANOVA results, Table 12, presents the effect and importance
of each of the 26 factors individually in the years of presence in a specific industry and
the period of use of 3PL services. Here, we see that operational performance based on the
accuracy (significance level < a = 0.05) and 3PL service usage span have a significant effect
on years of presence in a specific sector, IT capabilities (significance level < a = 0.05), and
reputation (significance level < a = 0.01).
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 14 of 21

Table 11. MANOVA test 1.

Subfactors Pillai’s Trace F Statistic Sig. Observed Power

Factor 7: Operational
0.113 3.383 0.041 0.613
performance based on accuracy
Factor 19: Reputation 0.151 4.701 0.013 0.765

Table 12. MANOVA test 2.

Subfactors/Factors F Statistic Sig. Observed Power

Factor 7: Operational performance Years of presence in the industry 4.501 0.038 0.549
based on accuracy Period of use of 3PL services 1.495 0.227 0.225
Factor 16: Information Technologies, Years of presence in the industry 1.307 0.258 0.202
Information Technology capabilities Period of use of 3PL services 4.062 0.049 0.508
Years of presence in the industry 0.488 0.488 0.105
Factor 19: Reputation
Period of use of 3PL services 8.307 0.006 0.808

4. Discussion
The companies of the sample chose customer satisfaction as the most important
determinant at 27.2%, followed by the price of 3PL services at 14.8%, and the operational
efficiency based on the delivery time at 9.9%. As we understand from the statistical analysis
that followed, additional factors surfaced, highlighting the impact of these factors on
the demand for 3PL services and the decision to maintain cooperation with 3PL service
providers. The variables of the years of presence in a particular industry and the period of
use of 3PL services were used as dependent variables for 3PL services demand, and the
industry sector, the number of employees, the usage of 3PL services, and the type of 3PL
services used were deployed as dependent variables of the customer firms’ profile.
From the results of the statistical analysis, it can be concluded that the factors that
influence the demand of firms for supply chain services, as expressed by their years of
presence in a given industry and the period of 3PL services usage, are the reputation, the
operational performance based on accuracy, and the capabilities for IT of the provider
of 3PL services. The selection of the main factor for maintaining cooperation with 3PL
service providers and promoting firms’ sustainability, showed that the reliability of the 3PL
service provider is of greater importance, with trust and improved efficiency/effectiveness
coming second. Last in order came alignment to strategic objectives, communication, and
business integration.
Summing up, regarding the research questions of the paper, it is worth referring that
the answer to research questions 1 and 2 is:
(a) The factors of adequate capacity and IT capabilities of 3PL service providers affect the
industry sector of firms that tend to use such services, while the factors of standard-
ization and culture compatibility of 3PL service providers affect those firms’ number
of employees.
(b) The factor of 3PL service providers’ culture compatibility affects the choice of firms
for utilizing 3PL services, while the factors of standardization and ownership of assets
for operations affect the type of 3PL services used by customer firms.
Furthermore, concerning research questions 3 and 4, the following outcomes have
been provided throughout this paper:
(a) The factors that have emerged as important for accurately explaining the demand of
firms for 3PL services are 3PL service providers’ reputation, accuracy of operational
performance, and their IT capabilities.
(b) The factors that contribute more to customer firms’ intention to maintain cooperation
with 3PL service providers are their reliability level, improved service efficiency,
and trustworthiness.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 15 of 21

The specific firms in our sample did not select adherence as a factor in maintaining
their partnership with supply chain service providers at all, which means that they do
not consider it to be a sufficiently important factor compared to the other six. Of these,
therefore, we distinguish the reliability of 3PL service providers as the most dominant
sustainability factor, followed jointly by trust and improved efficiency.

5. Conclusions
The main purpose of this study was to analyze and discern the factors that influence
companies’ demand for 3PL services and their decision to maintain their cooperation with
them. The factors that affect the demand for 3PL services are the operational performance
based on the accuracy, the reputation, and the IT capabilities of the 3PL service providers.
On the other hand, the reliability, improved service efficiency, and trustworthiness of the
3PL service providers were discerned as determinant factors in customer firms’ decision to
maintain cooperation with them. With the increasing expansion of businesses on a global
scale, companies around the world need to have a highly flexible and efficient supply chain
to improve the levels of corporate sustainability. Collaboration across the supply chain is
crucial in this quest [49].
As the results of the present study demonstrate, 3PL service providers that wish
to enhance their firms’ sustainability should prioritize any activities that might enhance
the reputation of their business, as well as the accuracy of their operations and their
capability of utilizing IT tools. The results of this research are in line with the results of
Meng et al. [50], Soh [31], and Bulgurcu and Nakiboglu [32] regarding the importance
of specific determinants of demand for 3PL services, but also with the results of Huo
et al. [51], Bagchi and Virum [52], and Karmazin [53] regarding the results of maintaining
cooperation with existing 3PL service providers. Concerning the sustainability of supply
chain firms, as expressed by the decision of customer firms to maintain the usage of 3PL
services, our findings are aligned with the studies of Ji et al. [54] and Nila and Roy [55],
which refer to logistic services provider selection based on sustainability characteristics.
Moreover, our research comes in terms of the increasing need for supply chain firms to
predict their customers’ demand for their services [56], as well as the prioritization and
promotion of their sustainability through long-term relationships with their customers [57]
and operational efficiency [58].
For their part, 3PL service providers should formulate an appropriate strategy to
improve the level of their services by promoting sustainability factors such as the rep-
utation of their business, their capitalization of IT tools, and the improved accuracy of
their operations. Finally, in their need for a long-lasting collaboration with their current
customers, they should evaluate and emphasize factors that will contribute to maintaining
this cooperation. Such factors consist of a high reliability level of their services, as well as
the trust that customers have in the provider and improved efficiency in their activities
and relationships.
The present research has some weaknesses in terms of the questionnaire and the
size of the sample. In particular, the study’s sample does not include equal portions of
the business sectors, while also it does not include all the industry sectors where logistic
activities are developed and 3PL services take place. This fact affects the generalizability of
the survey results, as the sample is not representative, since the response rate [59] of the
surveyed firms is low, close to 30%. Furthermore, the representativity of the survey could
be undermined by the fact that not all of the studied firms use a supply chain management
(SCM) tool, with some using only some modules of it.
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 16 of 21

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.T.G. and N.K.; methodology, D.P.S., N.T.G. and C.C.;
software, N.T.G. and N.K.; validation, C.C. and K.S.T.; formal analysis, N.T.G., N.K. and C.C.; investi-
gation, N.T.G. and N.K.; resources, N.T.G. and N.K.; data curation, C.C. and K.S.T.;
writing—original draft preparation, N.T.G. and N.K.; writing—review and editing, N.T.G., N.K.,
C.C. and K.S.T.; visualization, D.P.S., N.T.G. and N.K.; supervision, D.P.S., C.C. and K.S.T.; project
administration, D.P.S., C.C. and K.S.T.; funding acquisition, N.K. and C.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A Statistical Tables

Table A1. Industry sector model summary.

R2 Adjusted R2 Prediction Error

0.738 0.251 0.262

Table A2. ANOVA of the industry sector.

Sum of Squares Average Square F Statistic Sig.

Regression 59.757 1.071 1.185 0.319
Residuals 21.243 0.904 - -
Sum 81.000 - - -

Table A3. Number of employees model summary.

R2 Adjusted R2 Prediction Error

0.688 0.107 0.312

Table A4. ANOVA of the number of employees.

Sum of Squares Average Square F Statistic Sig.

Regression 55.693 1.071 1.185 0.319
Residuals 25.307 0.904 - -
Sum 81.000 - - -

Table A5. Type of 3PL services used model summary.

R2 Adjusted R2 Prediction Error

0.618 0.581 0.382

Table A6. ANOVA of the type of 3PL services used.

Sum of Squares Average Square F Statistic Sig.

Regression 50.096 1.002 0.973 0.545
Residuals 30.904 1.030 - -
Sum 81.000 - - -
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 17 of 21

Table A7. Levene’s test 1.

Subfactors F Statistic Degrees of Freedom 1 Degrees of Freedom 2 Sig.

Factor 1: Service price 0.930 69 11 0.606
Factor 2: Continuous effort to cut costs 4.582 69 11 0.004
Factor 3: Payment flexibility - 69 11 -
Factor 4: Customer satisfaction 2.207 69 11 0.075
Factor 5: Operational efficiency based on the
- 69 11 -
speed of execution
Factor 6: Operational performance based on
- 69 11 -
the delivery time
Factor 7: Operational performance based
4.005 69 11 0.008
on accuracy
Factor 8: Problem-solving capability 2.837 69 11 0.030
Factor 9: Customer orientation 3.132 69 11 0.021
Factor 10: Functional coverage 3.185 69 11 0.019
Factor 11: Geographical coverage of processes 1.411 69 11 0.274
Factor 12: Ownership of assets for functions 1.995 69 11 0.104
Factor 13: Technological infrastructure
7.742 69 11 0.000
for operations
Factor 14: Sufficient capacity 12.760 69 11 0.000
Factor 15: Flexibility 1.635 69 11 0.187
Factor 16: Information Technologies,
4.261 69 11 0.006
Information Technology capabilities
Factor 17: Location 9.894 69 11 0.000
Factor 18: Standardization (ISO etc.) 5.952 69 11 0.001
Factor 19: Reputation 2.227 69 11 0.073
Factor 20: Experience 0.768 69 11 0.758
Factor 21: Financial stability 4.261 69 11 0.006
Factor 22: Environmental sustainability 1.937 69 11 0.114
Factor 23: Safety and health 2.837 69 11 0.030
Factor 24: Cultural compatibility 0.846 69 11 0.684
Factor 25: Customer relations 6.157 69 11 0.001
Factor 26: Willingness to share information 2.463 69 11 0.051

Table A8. Levene’s test 2.

Degrees of Degrees of
Factors F Statistic Sig.
Freedom 1 Freedom 2
Years of presence in the industry 156.017 79 1 0.064
Period of use of 3PL services 128.114 79 1 0.052

Table A9. Variables normality test.

Variables Kolmogorov–Smirnov Shapiro–Wilk Sig.

Years of presence in the industry 0.123 0.895 0.000/0.000
Period of use of 3PL services 0.278 0.768 0.000/0.000

Appendix B Parts of the Research Questionnaire

Part 1: Demographic characteristics
1. Sector/industry (Mandatory):
2. Years of presence in the industry (Mandatory):
3. Location—County (Optional):
4. Number of employees in a period—year (Mandatory):
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 18 of 21

Table A10. Number of employees in a period.

Very Small Sized Small Sized Medium-Sized Large Sized

0 ≤ n ≤ 10 10 ≤ n < 50 50 ≤ n < 250 250 ≤ n

Part 2: General Information

1. Do you use 3PL services? (Mandatory):
YES NO
2. If so, for how long? (Mandatory, in months):
3. Type of 3PL services used (Mandatory, multiple choice):
a. Provision of means of transport,
b. Provision of storage facilities,
c. Surplus goods transport and storage services,
d. Storage and inventory control services,
e. Enterprise management services,
f. Subcontracted physical distribution services,
g. Provision of services for the management and execution of transport and ware-
house activities,
h. Provide improved supply chain oversight and continuous information,
i. Services to reduce inventory levels, reordering time, order fulfillment time and
improve customer service,
j. Market penetration and advanced technology acquisition services,
k. Providing support on integrated supply chain issues,
l. Providing support on environmental sustainability issues,
m. Provide support in freight consolidation and distribution, cross-docking, e-
refunds, and order management.
4. Indicate, in your opinion, the importance of the following factors in the selection of
3PL services. Indicate how important each factor is (Mandatory):

Table A11. 3PL services selection factors’ importance.

Very Probably Probably Totally

Factors
Important Important Irrelevant Irrelevant
1. Price of service
2. Continuous effort to cut costs
3. Payment flexibility
4. Customer satisfaction
5. Operational efficiency based on
speed of execution
6. Operational performance based on
delivery time
7. Operational performance based
on accuracy
8. Problem solving capability
9. Customer orientation
10. Coverage of functions
11. Geographical coverage of processes
12. Ownership of assets for
the functions
13. Technological infrastructure for
the operations
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 19 of 21

Table A11. Cont.

Very Probably Probably Totally

Factors
Important Important Irrelevant Irrelevant
14. Sufficient capacity
15. Flexibility
16. Information Technologies,
Information Technology capabilities
17. Location
18. Standardization (ISO etc.)
19. Reputation
20. Experience
21. Financial stability
22. Environmental sustainability
23. Safety and health
24. Cultural compatibility
25. Customer relations
26. Willingness to share information

5. Which of the above factors do you consider most important for your business?
(Mandatory, choose only one):
6. Indicate, in your opinion, the importance of the following factors in maintaining
cooperation with 3PL service providers. Please indicate how important each factor
is (Mandatory):

Table A12. 3PL cooperation maintaining factors’ importance.

Very Probably Probably Totally

Factors
Important Important Irrelevant Irrelevant
1. Reliability
2. Trust
3. Improved efficiency/efficiency
4. Alignment with strategic
business objectives
5. Degree of integration of
provider’s supply chain activities
6. Contact
7. Adherence

7. Which of the following factors do you consider most important for maintaining your
cooperation with 3PL service providers? (Mandatory, select only one):

References
1. Slack, N.; Chambers, S.; Harland, C.; Harrison, A.; Johnston, R. Operations Management; Prentice—Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 1997.
2. Arlbjørn, J.S.; Freytag, P.V.; Haas, D.H. Service supply chain management: A survey of lean application in the municipal sector.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 277–295. [CrossRef]
3. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line for 21st Century Business; Capstone Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1997.
4. Van de Kerk, G.; Manuel, R.A. A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI—The Sustainable Society Index. Ecol.
Econ. 2008, 66, 228–242. [CrossRef]
5. Graedel, T.E.; Allenby, B. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering; Pearson: Cambridge, UK, 2009; p. 1.
6. Letunovska, N.; Offei, F.A.; Junior, P.A.; Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Kwilinski, A. Green Supply Chain Management: The Effect
of Procurement Sustainability on Reverse Logistics. Logistics 2023, 7, 47. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 20 of 21

7. Ngah, A.H.; Thurasamy, R.; Han, H. If you don’t care, I will switch: Online retailers’ behaviour on third-party logistics services.
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2023, 53, 813–837. [CrossRef]
8. Hassan, M.F.A.; Ngah, A.H.; Tio, M.B.Y. Third-party logistics intention to provide cold transportation services. The mediating
effect of top management support and organizational readiness in TOE framework. OPSEARCH 2023, 1–23. [CrossRef]
9. Narasimharajan, M.; Venkatesan, R. Factors influencing decision-making models for the estimation of competitive effectiveness
among third-party logistics providers. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2022, 33, 128–142. [CrossRef]
10. Kmiecik, M. Logistics Coordination Based on Inventory Management and Transportation Planning by Third-Party Logistics (3PL).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8134. [CrossRef]
11. Darko, E.O.; Vlachos, I. Creating Valuable Relationships with Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Providers: A Multiple-Case Study.
Logistics 2022, 6, 38. [CrossRef]
12. Khan, S.A.; Alkhatib, S.; Ammar, Z.; Moktadir, M.A.; Kumar, A. Benchmarking the outsourcing factors of third-party logistics
services selection: Analysing influential strength and building a sustainable decision model. Benchmark. Int. J. 2022, 29, 1797–1825.
[CrossRef]
13. German, J.D.; Ong, A.K.S.; Redi, A.A.N.R.; Robas, K.P.E. Predicting factors affecting the intention to use a 3PL during the
COVID-19 pandemic: A machine learning ensemble approach. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11382. [CrossRef]
14. Wu, X.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhao, X. Customer integration and the performance of third-party logistics firms: A moderated
mediation model. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 26, 615–632. [CrossRef]
15. Zailani, S.; Shaharudin, M.R.; Razmi, K.; Iranmanesh, M. Influential factors and performance of logistics outsourcing practices:
An evidence of Malaysian companies. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 53–93. [CrossRef]
16. Ali, A.; Cao, M.; Allen, J.; Liu, Q.; Ling, Y.; Cheng, L. Investigation of the drivers of logistics outsourcing in the United Kingdom’s
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Multimodal Transp. 2023, 2, 100064. [CrossRef]
17. Al-Marsy, A.; Chaudhary, P.; Rodger, J.A. A Model for Examining Challenges and Opportunities in Use of Cloud Computing for
Health Information Systems. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 15. [CrossRef]
18. Lahiri, S.; Karna, A.; Kalubandi, S.C.; Edacherian, S. Performance implications of outsourcing: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2022,
139, 1303–1316. [CrossRef]
19. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management; Pearson: London, UK, 2022; p. 6.
20. Selim, N.I.I.B.; Zailani, S.; Aziz, A.A.; Rahman, M.K. Halal logistic services, trust and satisfaction amongst Malaysian 3PL service
providers. J. Islam. Mark. 2022, 13, 81–99. [CrossRef]
21. Wei, C.-L. How Relationship Quality, Service Quality, and Value Affect the Intention to Purchase IT/IS Outsourcing Services. Inf.
Syst. Manag. 2022, 39, 202–219. [CrossRef]
22. Santa, R.; Ferrer, M.; Tegethoff, T.; Scavarda, A. An investigation of the impact of human capital and supply chain competitive
drivers on firm performance in a developing country. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274592. [CrossRef]
23. Barman, A.; Das, R.; De, P.K.; Sana, S.S. Optimal Pricing and Greening Strategy in a Competitive Green Supply Chain: Impact of
Government Subsidy and Tax Policy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9178. [CrossRef]
24. Barman, A.; Kanti De, P.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Lim, C.P.; Das, R. Optimal pricing policy in a three-layer dual-channel supply chain
under government subsidy in green manufacturing. Math. Comput. Simul. 2023, 204, 401–429. [CrossRef]
25. Deng, Q.; Noorliza, K. Integration, Resilience, and Innovation Capability Enhance LSPs’ Operational Performance. Sustainability
2023, 15, 1019. [CrossRef]
26. Luo, X.; Liao, W. Collaborative Reverse Logistics Network for Infectious Medical Waste Management during the COVID-19
Outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9735. [CrossRef]
27. Dabees, A.; Barakat, M.; Elbarky, S.S.; Lisec, A. A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics Service Quality for
Reverse Logistics Service Providers: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1755. [CrossRef]
28. Perotti, S.; Bastidas Santacruz, R.F.; Bremer, P.; Beer, J.E. Logistics 4.0 in warehousing: A conceptual framework of influencing
factors, benefits and barriers. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 193–220. [CrossRef]
29. Qureshi, M.R.N.M. A Bibliometric Analysis of Third-Party Logistics Services Providers (3PLSP) Selection for Supply Chain
Strategic Advantage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11836. [CrossRef]
30. Mismar, H.; Shamayleh, A.; Qazi, A. Prioritizing Risks in Last Mile Delivery: A Bayesian Belief Network Approach. IEEE Access
2022, 10, 118551–118562. [CrossRef]
31. Soh, S. A decision model for evaluating third-party logistics providers using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.
2010, 4, 339–349.
32. Bulgurcu, B.; Nakiboglu, G. An extent analysis of 3PL provider selection criteria: A case on Turkey cement sector. Cogent Bus.
Manag. 2018, 5, 146–183. [CrossRef]
33. Börteçine, A.S.; Ismail, I. Corporate and supply chain network governance of third party logistics service providers: The effects
on buyers’ intention to relationship continuity, Management & Marketing. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2017, 12, 277–296. [CrossRef]
34. Gardas, B.B.; Raut, D.R.; Narkhede, E.B. Analyzing the 3PL service provider’s evaluation criteria through a sustainable approach.
Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 958–980. [CrossRef]
35. SEB. Development of Logistics with European Standards: A Determining Factor for the Extroversion of Greek Production,
Economy & Business, 10 January 2019. 2019. Available online: http://www.sev.org.gr/Uploads/Documents/EconBulletin_10_0
1_2019_V4.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2019).
Logistics 2023, 7, 73 21 of 21

36. SEB. Future Occupations and Skills in Supply Chain, Economy & Business, 22 October 2018. 2018. Available online: http:
//www.sev.org.gr/Uploads/Documents/51600/sr_efodiastiki_alysida_22_10_2018.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2019).
37. ICAP. The Leading Sectors of the Greek Economy 2011; ICAP Group A.E.: Athens, Greece, 2011.
38. Cedillo-Campos, M.G.; Piña-Barcenas, J.; Pérez-González, C.M.; Mora-Vargas, J. How to measure and monitor the transportation
infrastructure contribution to logistics value of supply chains? Transp. Policy 2022, 120, 120–129. [CrossRef]
39. Travis, L. One of Many Free Survey Tools: Google Docs. J. Electron. Resour. Med. Libr. 2010, 7, 105–114. [CrossRef]
40. Zadeh, L.A.; Kacprzyk, I.; Mastorakis, N.; Kuri-Morales, A.; Borne, P.; Kazovsky, L. Recent Advances in Artificial Intelligence,
Knowledge Engineering and Data Bases. In Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Knowledge Engineering and Data Bases (Aiked ‘10), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 20–22 February 2010; WSEAS
Press: Attica, Greece, 2010.
41. Mangan, J.; Lalwani, C.; Gardner, B. Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2004, 34, 565–578. [CrossRef]
42. Baruch, Y.; Holtom, C.B. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum. Relat. 2008, 61, 1139–1160.
[CrossRef]
43. Anseel, F.; Lievens, F.; Schollaert, E.; Choragwicka, B. Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic
Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers. J. Bus Psychol. 2010, 25, 335–349. [CrossRef]
44. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [CrossRef]
45. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 27, 53–55. [CrossRef]
46. Bartlett, M.S. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1954, 16, 296–298.
47. Aguinis, H. Regression Analysis for Categorical Moderators; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2004.
48. Olson, C.L. Comparative Robustness of Six Tests in Multivariate Analysis of Variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1974, 69, 894–908.
[CrossRef]
49. Sudusinghe, J.I.; Seuring, S. Supply chain collaboration and sustainability performance in circular economy: A systematic
literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 245, 108402. [CrossRef]
50. Meng, X.; Yang, Z.; Sun, J. Understanding Influential Factors in Selecting Sustainable Third-party Logistics Providers: An
Interpretive Structural Modeling and MICMAC Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Bangkok, Thailand, 16–19 December 2018; pp. 864–868. [CrossRef]
51. Huo, B.; Liu, C.; Chen, H.; Zhao, X. Dependence, trust, and 3PL integration: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 927–948. [CrossRef]
52. Bagchi, P.K.; Virum, H. European logistics alliances: A management model. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 1996, 7, 93–108. [CrossRef]
53. Karmazin, G. Research Results on the Key Success Factors of Hungarian Logistics Service Providers. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng.
2014, 42, 91–95. [CrossRef]
54. Ji, J.; Zheng, H.; Qi, J.; Ji, M.; Kong, L.; Ji, S. Financial and Logistical Service Strategy of Third-Party Logistics Enterprises in
Cross-Border E-Commerce Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6874. [CrossRef]
55. Nila, B.; Joy, J. A new hybrid MCDM framework for third-party logistics provider selection under sustainability perspectives.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 234, 121009. [CrossRef]
56. Mazanec, J.; Harantová, V.; Štefancová, V.; Brůhová Foltýnová, H. Estimating Mode of Transport in Daily Mobility during the
COVID-19 Pandemic Using a Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4600. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
57. Caldeirinha, V.; Felício, J.A.; Pinho, T. Role of Cargo Owner in Logistic Chain Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10018.
[CrossRef]
58. Andruetto, C.; Mårtensson, J.; Von Wieding, S.; Pernestål, A. Indicators for Sustainability Assessment in City Logistics: Perspec-
tives of Society and Logistic Service Providers. Transp. Res. Board Annu. Meet. 2023, 1–14. [CrossRef]
59. Han, J.; Fang, M.; Ye, S.; Chen, C.; Wan, Q.; Qian, X. Using decision tree to predict response rates of consumer satisfaction, attitude,
and loyalty surveys. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2306. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.