third-party logistics a literature review

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0925-5273/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.ijp

�Tel.: +39 08

E-mail addre

Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Third-party logistics: A literature review

Alessandra Marasco�

Institute for Service Industry Research, National Research Council, Via M. Schipa 91, 80122 Naples, Italy

Received 31 March 2006; accepted 3 May 2007

Available online 24 July 2007

Abstract

Third-party logistics (TPL) has attracted considerable research attention in the recent past. Despite the growing body of

literature on this topic, precious little effort has been devoted to synthesizing the overall state of art of research on TPL. In

this paper, an attempt is made to review the status of literature on TPL. A literature review scheme is presented. A total of

152 articles published between 1989 and 2006 in 33 reputable international journals are reviewed and classified into

content- and methodology-related issues. Based on the review, suggestions for future research are likewise provided.

r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Third-party logistics; Interorganizational relationships; Literature review

1. Introduction

In the recent past, third-party logistics (TPL),also referred to as logistics outsourcing (e.g.Knemeyer et al., 2003; Maltz and Ellram, 1997;Razzaque and Sheng, 1998), has received consider-able attention from logistics scholars, resulting in aplethora of research and writing in this field. Theinterest of researchers in TPL should continueas several recent studies suggest that a steadilyincreasing number of companies across industrysectors use third-party providers for the manage-ment of all or part of their logistics operations (e.g.Lieb and Bentz, 2004, 2005a; Lieb and Miller, 2002;Lieb and Randall, 1999a).

Despite the growing body of literature on thistopic, efforts to synthesize the overall state of art ofresearch on TPL have so far been rather limited.Razzaque and Sheng (1998) provided a comprehen-

front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

e.2007.05.017

1 2470961; fax: +39 081 2470956.

ss: [email protected]

sive review of the logistics outsourcing literature,highlighting key research findings from journals andother publications. An overview of TPL research isalso offered by Skjoett-Larsen et al. (2003); beingaimed at identifying the distinctive characteristics ofthe ‘‘Nordic School of TPL’’ in terms of researchmethodology, theoretical approaches or empiricalfindings, their study reviewed only the contributionof Nordic TPL researchers to the internationalresearch agenda. More recently, Maloni and Carter(2006) provided a review of the survey-based portionof the TPL academic literature to assess its progress.Their work is only based on 45 publications, i.e. itdoes not cover all extant articles concerning TPL.

As an attempt to fill this gap, this paper presents areview of the major literature and key findings onTPL. An extensive literature search of academicjournals from 1989 to 2006 was conducted, yieldinga total of 152 articles. A framework is developed foridentifying the key content of the literature on TPLand used to classify the articles. The existingliterature is also examined from a methodological

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.05.017

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147128

point of view, providing an overview of researchapproaches taken in the collected articles. Hope-fully, this study will serve as a roadmap of TPLliterature for both academicians and practitionersand help stimulate further interest.

This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2,background is given on the concept of TPL byexamining the various approaches taken in theliterature for defining TPL. The applied methodol-ogy for this study is illustrated in Section 3, whileSection 4 presents the results of the literaturereview. In Section 5, an overview of researchapproaches used in the examined articles is pro-vided. Section 6 closes the paper by offeringconclusions and an attempt to provide someperspectives on future research.

2. Defining TPL

One of the challenges in trying to evaluate thegrowing body of literature on TPL is the lack of asingle consistent definition of the concept. Indeed,many definitions and interpretations of TPL can befound in the literature (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000;Halldorsson and Skjoett-Larsen, 2004). Van Laar-hoven et al. (2000) highlight that the terminology inthis field is not always consistent; in some cases TPLis used as a label for traditional ‘‘arm’s length’’sourcing of transportation and/or warehousing,whereas in other instances the term is used todescribe an outsourcing of a more complex char-acter that can encompass the entire logistics process.Likewise, Ojala (2003) as well as Knemeyer andMurphy (2005a, b) point out that a number ofbroad and narrow approaches to defining/interpret-ing TPL have been used by researchers. Someexamples may help illustrate the varying scope ofexisting interpretations of the term TPL.

According to Lieb (1992, p. 29), TPL involves ‘‘theuse of external companies to perform logisticsfunctions that have traditionally been performedwithin an organization. The functions performed bythe third party can encompass the entire logisticsprocess or selected activities within that process’’. In asimilar vein, Coyle et al. (2003, p. 425) suggest thatTPL involves an external organisation ‘‘that performsall or part of a company’s logistics functions’’. These‘‘broad’’ definitions appear to suggest that TPLincludes any form of outsourcing of logistics activitiespreviously performed ‘‘in-house’’. Alternative, ‘‘nar-rower’’ definitions link the TPL concept to somedistinctive functional and/or interorganizational fea-

tures of the logistics outsourcing relationship. Amongthem, Berglund et al. (1999, p. 59) emphasise thesupply of management support in addition tooperational activities by providers and the durationof the relationship as follows: ‘‘Third-party logisticsare activities carried out by a logistics service provideron behalf of a shipper and consisting of at leastmanagement and execution of transportation andwarehousing. In addition, other activities can beincluded, for example inventory management, infor-mation related activities, such as tracking and tracing,value added activities, such as secondary assemblyand installation of products, or even supply chainmanagement. Also, the contract is required to containsome management, analytical or design activities, andthe length of the co-operation between shipper andprovider to be at least one year, to distinguish third-party logistics from traditional ‘‘arm’s length’’ sour-cing of transportation and/or warehousing’’. Murphyand Poist (1998, p. 26) stress the duration andwin–win nature of the relationship along with thecustomization and broader range of logistics servicesin the arrangement. According to their definition,TPL involves ‘‘a relationship between a shipper andthird party, which, compared with basic services, hasmore customized offerings, encompasses a broadernumber of service functions and is characterized by alonger term, more mutually beneficial relationship’’.By these narrower definitions, TPL appears to bedistinguished from the ‘‘traditional’’ outsourcing oflogistics functions on a transaction-by-transactionbasis presupposing that several features are fulfilledbefore the relationship between buyer and provider oflogistics services can be characterized as TPL. Thesefeatures include the provision of a broad range ofservices, a long-term duration, joint efforts to developcooperation, the customization of the logistics solu-tion, and a fair sharing of benefits and risks, andsuggest that TPL incorporates strategic and not justtactical dimensions (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000).

A sort of conciliation between the alternativebroader and narrower views of TPL can be found inthe definition offered by Bask (2001, p. 474), whichdescribes TPL as ‘‘relationships between interfacesin the supply chains and third-party logisticsproviders, where logistics services are offered, frombasic to customized ones, in a shorter or longer-term relationship, with the aim of effectiveness andefficiency’’. This definition is applied in the presentarticle, because it clearly points out the essence ofthe TPL concept as involving business-to-businessrelationships where third parties fulfil the logistics

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147 129

needs of their clients in the supply chain they areoperating in (Berglund, 2000), while recognizing thepotentially wide range of these relationships interms of scope, content and duration. It is to benoted that Bask (2001) conceives TPL as a set ofthree dyadic relationships linking seller, buyer andlogistics service provider in a supply chain. How-ever, as the author himself and Berglund (2000)observe, this triadic form of relationship cannot beconsidered as the normal case in that most TPLrelationships are limited either to the dyadicrelationship between seller (of the goods) andlogistics service provider or buyer (of the goods)and logistics service provider and, accordingly, mostresearch addresses the two-way linkage between thelogistics service provider and either the buyer orsupplier (of the goods). In this study, this con-ceptualization of TPL as a dyadic relationshipbetween shippers (buyers or sellers of the goods)and logistics service providers in a supply chain isadopted.

3. Methodology

When conducting an investigation of the state ofknowledge in a field or subject, three basicapproaches have been used (Li and Cavusgil,1995). One approach is the Delphi method throughwhich experts who are familiar with the area aresurveyed. The second approach is meta-analysis inwhich empirical studies on the specific subject aregathered and statistically analysed. This approachhas been applied by Ashenbaum et al. (2005) forestimating the TPL growth rate in the US. The thirdapproach, the one adopted in this study, is contentanalysis—a research method for systematic, quali-tative and quantitative description of the manifestcontent of literature in an area. At a general level,the procedure for conducting content analysis iscentred on two major steps (Li and Cavusgil, 1995;Seuring et al., 2005): (1) definition of sources andprocedures for the search of articles to be analysedand (2) definition of categories instrumental to theclassification of the collected articles. These havebeen applied in the present review of TPL literatureand are described in detail in the following sections.

3.1. Literature search procedures

The first step of the analysis consisted ofsearching for articles relevant to the purpose of this

study. The search was limited to academic journalsand utilized several methods.

Initially, 23 journals in the areas of logistics andtransportation, operations management, business/marketing and general management covering thetime period 1989–2006 were searched for articlesdealing with any aspect of TPL. The choice of theseoutlets was based on previous studies that identifiedand ranked the journals making the highestcontribution to the transportation/logistics disci-pline (e.g. Fawcett et al., 1995; Ferguson, 1983). Forthe literature search ‘‘third party logistics’’, ‘‘logis-tics outsourcing’’, ‘‘logistics alliances’’ and severalother relevant descriptors were used. The full text ofeach article was reviewed in order to eliminate thosearticles that were not really related to TPL. As aresult of this search, 97 articles were identified. Anadditional search was conducted using the samedescriptors in ProQuest, ScienceDirect and EBSCOdatabases. Thereby, 48 other papers were found.Finally, the reference sections of key articles werescanned for additional citations; this yielded 7 otherarticles. By these procedures, a total of 33 journalsand 152 articles were identified. The reference list tothis paper contains all the collected articles.Although this search may not be exhaustive, it isbelieved that the journals selected and the articlesreviewed comprise a reasonably representative andcomprehensive body of the research work beingaccomplished in this area.

Table 1 shows the distribution of articles in thevarious journals from 1989 to 2006. The indicatedtime frame has been divided into three periods inorder to identify trends in the chronologicalprogression of research on TPL. The figures in thetable indicate that research on TPL did not begin toappear significantly in scholarly journals until themid-to-late 1990s and has increased since. Indeed,only 11 articles have been published between 1989and 1994, while contributions published in the lastperiod (2001–2006) amount to 86, representingabout 56% of the total number of collected articles.

It is to be noted that of the 11 articles publishedbetween 1989 and 1994, there is not any contribu-tion published in 1989 and only three articles havebeen published in 1990. This suggests that thestarting year of the time frame (1989) has been wellchosen. Table 1 also shows that the primarypublication outlets for TPL research are Interna-

tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, Journal of Business Logistics, The

International Journal of Logistics Management,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Distribution of articles by journal in the period 1989–2006

Journal 1989–1994 1995–2000 2001–2006 Total

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 4 13 23 40

Journal of Business Logistics 4 12 3 19

The International Journal of Logistics Management 1 7 4 12

Transportation Journal – 3 9 12

International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications – 1 9 10

Journal of Enterprise Information Managementa – 3 3 6

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal – – 6 6

International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management – – 5 5

International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1 – 3 4

Transportation Research – 1 3 4

Transport Logistics – 4 – 4

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics – 1 2 3

Journal of Supply Chain Managementb – 2 1 3

European Journal of Operational Research – 1 1 2

Industrial Marketing Management – 1 1 2

International Journal of Production Economics – – 2 2

Omega – – 2 2

European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management – – 1 1

Harvard Business Review 1 – – 1

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing – – 1 1

Production and Operations Management 1 – 1

Transport Reviews – 1 – 1

Transportation Quarterly – 1 – 1

Transportation Science – – 1 1

Othersc – 3 6 9

Total 11 55 86 152

aFormerly Logistics Information Management.bFormerly International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management.cThese include articles from Benchmarking: An International Journal, California Management Review, Communications of the ACM,

Computers & Industrial Engineering, Expert Systems, Expert Systems with Applications, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, and Technovation.

A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147130

Transportation Journal and International Journal of

Logistics: Research and Applications, collectivelypublishing about 61% of the total articles. The largenumber of articles in the International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management ispartially the result of the publication of two specialissues on TPL in 2006, an event in itself indicative ofthe growing relevance of the topic in logisticsresearch. Overall, the other primary operationsmanagement, business/marketing and general man-agement journals have not served as a significantoutlet for research in this area.

3.2. Definition of the content classification scheme

According to the working definition adopted inthis study, TPL is conceived as an interorganiza-tional (dyadic) relationship between shippers and

providers of logistics services in a supply chain.Given this view of TPL, the approach to literaturecontent analysis has been centred on the keydimensions defining such a relationship. In detail,it was assumed that the basic dimensions of the TPLrelationship delineating why, how and with whatresults it develops and functions provide anchorpoints to organize and analyse most of TPL issuesaddressed in the literature. The key dimensions ofthe TPL relationship are encapsulated in theframework shown in Fig. 1, the construction ofwhich was guided by a review of existing frame-works of interorganizational relationships. In thelast decades, several models and frameworks ofbusiness relationships have been developed fromdifferent literature areas and theoretical perspectives(for a summary, see Cousins, 2002). Among themthe work by Van de Ven (1976) and the IMP

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CONTEXT STRUCTURE AND PROCESS OUTCOME

Features of the:

external context

macro environment and supply chain network

Operationsplanning/ organization

Communication/ informationprocessing

Coordination

Control/ Monitoring

Bonding processesrelating to technical, social, administrative, legal issues

Relationship’s structural characteristics (scope, formalization, continuity, trust, commitment, etc.)

supply chain network

internal contextsingle organization:

shipper/ providerof logistics services

Build up stage

• Partner search & selection

• Negotiation

• Contract design

•

•

Execution stage Institutionalizationstage

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Outcomes at the:

internal level

single organization: shipper / provider of logistics services

external level

Fig. 1. The content analysis framework.

A. Marasco / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 127–147 131

Group1 (e.g. Ford, 1980; Hakansson, 1982, 1987;Hakansson and Snehota, 1995) have been particu-larly helpful in the move towards identifying thecrucial dimensions of TPL relationships and orga-nizing concepts and variables to describe them.Fig. 1 depicts the major components of each dimen-sion and the relationships among them.

1The International/Industrial Marketing and Purchasing

(IMP) Group was formed in the mid-1970s by European

researchers with interests in industrial markets and has now

evolved into a research community concerned with industrial

marketing and purchasing. Although the IMP Group has its

origins in the marketing discipline, it also has several other

antecedents of scientific inspiration, including organization

theory, the new institutional economic theory and certain strands

of sociology. Challenging existing models within the industrial

marketing literature that assumed competitive and adversarial

relationships as being the norm, the group developed a model of

buyer–seller relationships in industrial markets—the interaction

model—and illustrated its applicability through comparative

studies of buyer–supplier relationships within and across a

number of European countries. The model identifies groups of

variables that describe and influence the interaction between

buying and selling companies, thereby greatly advancing the

understanding of buyer–supplier relationships and the factors

influencing them. Emphasizing the embeddedness of single dyadic

relationships in the network of connected interfirm relationships,

subsequent work of the group extended the focus from individual

buyer–supplier relationships to industrial networks.

The first dimension describes the context withinwhich the TPL relationship takes place. This refersto both external and internal contextual factors.Major components of the external context includecharacteristics of the general macro environment(e.g. economic trends, regulatory framework, tech-nological developments) as well as of the supplychain representing the network2 in which the TPLrelationship is embedded (e.g. structure, processes,types of business links among actors in the chain).This conceptualization of the external context isconsistent with the prevailing view of dyads’environment within the industrial marketing andpurchasing literature according to which dyadicrelationships are embedded in a network of relation-ships that is itself enveloped by a macro environ-ment (Anderson et al., 1994). Some of the majorfeatures of the internal context of the relation-ship include organizational size, structure andstrategies of the parties involved (i.e. shipper andprovider of logistics services). The two sets ofcontextual factors combine to influence the waysin which shippers and providers structure and

2Several authors suggested the idea of the supply chain as a

confederation of partners linked together as a network (e.g.

Christopher, 1992, 2000; Hertz, 2001; Lambert and Cooper,

2000).


manage their relationship, affecting, among others,those factors that determine the shipper’s logisticsneeds and motivation to outsource, the number ofalternative relationships available for the parties,the interaction processes between the parties, andthe parties’ ability to predict and forecast changes inthe market that in turn may affect the relationship.

The second dimension relates to the structure ofthe relationship. TPL arrangements can vary widelydepending on several attributes, such as scope of theactivities involved, continuity, complexity, symme-try and degree of formalization. These are some ofthe often recurrent structural characteristics ofbusiness relationships (Hakansson and Snehota,1995). Along with them, other behavioural attri-butes are comprised in this dimension that con-tribute to shaping the climate or workingatmosphere of the TPL relationship, such asdependence, trust, equity, commitment and conflict.

The developmental process of the relationshipconstitutes the third dimension of the framework.Consistently with the approach taken in manystudies of developmental processes of interorganiza-tional relationships (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford,1980; Frazier, 1983; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994),TPL development process has been conceived asconsisting of a sequence of stages, each of whichgoes through a number of interactions/activities.The different stages of relationship development aresummarised as follows:

(a)
The early build-up stage, in which potentialproviders are selected by shippers to negotiateand develop a (formal or informal) contractspecification for the provision of logisticsservices.
(b)
The execution stage, in which the commitmentsand rules of action agreed upon by the parties inthe previous stage are carried into effect; in thisphase, operations are organized, executed, co-ordinated and monitored entailing adaptationsand increased experience between the companiesof the respective activities.
(c)
A potential long-term stage, in which routineways of dealing tend to become institutionalizedand several kind of bonds between the partiesarise/strengthen as a consequence of extensiveformal and informal adaptations that haveoccurred. These bonds have an importantfunction in favouring the creation of long-termrelations and can relate to the technologies usedand shared by the parties, personal knowledge
and trust, administrative routines, proceduresand legal contracts (Hakansson and Johanson,1990).

It is to be noted that the possibilities of re-negotiation and/or dissolution of the relationshipare implicit throughout this process conceptualiza-tion.

The final dimension of the framework reflects theoutcomes that result from the TPL relationship. Asinterorganizational relationships are connected,what is produced in a dyad has effects not onlyfor the parties directly involved but also for otherrelationships and organizations of the overall net-work in which the relationship is embedded(Hakansson and Snehota, 1995). Accordingly,TPL outcomes have been divided into internaloutcomes perceived by the parties directly involved(shipper and logistics service provider) and externaloutcomes experienced at the supply chain level.Over time, feedback on perceived outcomes of therelationship is expected to influence the otherdimensions in the framework.

The four dimensions of the framework have beenused as ‘‘macro categories’’ to review and classifyarticles according to the primary topic addressed.More in detail, the decision rule for placing articlesinto a particular category was based on thedominant or most prevalent theme addressed inthe article as derived from the indicated objective(s)/purpose(s). During the classification process, theneed arose to partially revise this original four-category scheme. Indeed, some of the collectedarticles were found to be multifaceted in that theysimultaneously address aspects of the context, thestructure, the process and the outcomes of TPLarrangements. Therefore, a fifth category wasinserted to gather these ‘‘comprehensive’’ articles.

4. Classification and review of TPL literature

In this section, the results of the content analysisof TPL literature are presented. First, the distribu-tion of the reviewed articles that come under each ofthe five content categories is provided. This isfollowed by a discussion highlighting some keyfindings from contributions within each category.

Table 2 offers a frequency distribution of thereviewed articles by content. It can be observed thatparticular emphasis has been placed by researcherson context-related issues of TPL, with about 40% ofthe total articles addressing these issues. Another


heavily investigated area is represented by issues ofthe TPL developmental process, which gathers 25%of total articles. Table 2 further shows that aconsiderable portion of the examined literature isconstituted by ‘‘comprehensive’’ articles, with about

Table 2

Distribution of articles by content

Content category Number of articles Percentage of articles

Context 61 40.1

Structure 10 6.6

Process 38 25.0

Outcome 15 9.9

Comprehensive 28 18.4

Total 152 100.0

Table 3

Summary of references under the content classification scheme of the l

Classification

category

References

Context Bask (2001), Berglund et al. (1999), Brah and Lim

Daugherty and Droge (1997), Delfmann et al. (200

(1997), Flint et al. (2005), Foggin et al. (2004), Fou

(2001), Gunasekaran and Ngai (2003, 2004), Hertz a

(2005), Krumwiede and Sheu (2002), Lai (2004), La

Dagnaes (2003), Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000), Lie

(1996b, 1999b), Lynagh et al. (2001), Makukha and

(1993), Min and Joo (2006), Murphy and Poist (199

Peters et al. (1998a), Piplani et al. (2004), Pokharel (

et al. (1996), Sinkovics and Roath (2004), Spencer e

(2001), Sum and Teo (1999), Tan and Kritchancha

et al. (2006), Ying and Dayong (2005), Zapfel and

Structure Gardner et al. (1994), Knemeyer and Murphy (200

Cunningham (1999), Pache (1998), Pappu and Mun

Process Abrahamsson and Wandel (1998), Ackerman (1996

Virum (1996, 1998), Bienstock (2002), Bottani and

Stoner (2004), Gibson et al. (1996, 2002), Gutierrez

and Stank (2001), Huiskonen and Pirttila (2002), K

(2000), Logan (2000), Maltz and Ellram (1997), McG

Ratten (2004), Sankaran et al. (2002), Seth et al. (2

Maltz (1996), Tate (1996), Vaidyanathan (2005), va

(2000), Yan et al. (2003)

Outcome Bhatnagar and Viswanathan (2000), Bolumole (200

Cooper (1990), Gentry (1996), Halldorsson and Sk

(1997), Lai and Cheng (2003), Larson and Gamme

Knemeyer (2006), Stank et al. (1996)

Comprehensive Aktas and Ulengin (2005), Arroyo et al. (2006), Bar

Dapiran et al. (1996), Fernie (1999), Hong et al. (2

2005a), Lieb and Miller (2002), Lieb and Randall (

Murphy and Poist (2000), Peters et al. (1998b), Sa

Sohal (2003), Sohail et al. (2004, 2006), Sohal et al

18% of the total articles falling into this cate-gory. Less published areas are on structure andoutcomes of TPL, accounting for 6.6% and 9.9%,respectively.

Table 3 shows the details of the classification bycontent, providing a summary of all the reviewedarticles that come under each category. This may bea helpful resource for anyone in search of referenceson specific topics.

4.1. Key findings from previous research on TPL

In the sections that follow, a review of researchand key findings in each of the five categories ispresented. Although this review is not exhaustive, itprovides some reasonable insights into the workbeing accomplished in the field.

iterature

(2006), Carbone and Stone (2005), Chapman et al. (2003),

2), Evangelista and Sweeney (2006), Evans (2000), Fabbe-Costes

lds and Luo (2006), Fung and Wong (1998), Gibson and Cook

nd Alfredsson (2003), Hum (2000), Ko et al. (2006), Koh and Tan

i et al. (2005), Larson and Gammelgaard (2001a), Lemoigne and

b and Bentz (2005b), Lieb and Kendrick (2003), Lieb and Randall

Gray (2004), Maltz (1994), Maltz and Ellram (2000), Maltz et al.

8), Neo et al. (2004), Panayides (2004), Persson and Virum (2001),

2005), Rao and Young (1994), Sauvage (2003), Sheffi (1990), Sink

t al. (1994), Stank and Daugherty (1997), Stefansson (2006), Stone

i (2006), Tyan et al. (2003), van Hoek (2000), Wu (2006), Yeung

Wasner (2002)

5a, b), Knemeyer et al. (2003), Moore (1998), Moore and

dy (2002), Rabinovich et al. (1999), Zinn and Parasuraman (1997)

), Alp et al. (2003), Andersson and Norrman (2002), Bagchi and

Rizzi (2006), Chen et al. (2001), de Boer et al. (2006), Ding and

and Duran (1997), Halldorsson and Skjoett-Larsen (2006), House

umar et al. (2006), Lambert et al. (1999), Leahy et al. (1995), Lim

innis et al. (1995), Meade and Sarkis (2002), Menon et al. (1998),

006), Sink and Langley (1997), Skjoett-Larsen (2000), Stank and

n Damme and van Amstel (1996), van Hoek (2001), Wong et al.

1, 2003), Bowersox (1990), Daugherty et al. (1996), Ellram and

joett-Larsen (2004), Knemeyer and Murphy (2004), Kopczak

lgaard (2001b), Panayides and So (2005), Rabinovich and

di and Tracey (1991), Bhatnagar et al. (1999), Boyson et al. (1999),

004), Jaafar and Rafiq (2005), Lieb (1992), Lieb and Bentz (2004,

1996a, 1999a), Lieb et al. (1993), Millen et al. (1997), Min (2002),

hay and Mohan (2006), Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005), Sohail and

. (2002), van Laarhoven et al. (2000), Wilding and Juriado (2004)


4.1.1. Research on TPL context

As the distribution of articles by content hasshown (Table 2), context-related issues of TPL havedrawn considerable attention among researchers,resulting in a plethora of contributions devoted tothe analysis of factors of the external and internalcontext influencing structure and development ofTPL arrangements.

With regard to the external environmental factorsimpacting TPL, a comprehensive descriptive analy-sis of the several economic, regulatory and techno-logical drivers behind the rise of TPL has beenprovided by Sheffi (1990). Increased global compe-tition, deregulation of the transportation industry,rising customer expectations on superior logisticalservice, growing focus of companies on corecompetencies, increasing popularity of just-in-time(JIT), and revolution in computers and commu-nication technology are indicated as the main forcescausing TPL services to experience explosivegrowth. Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000) furtheraddressed the implications of advancements ininformation technology (IT) for TPL development.They observed that the rapid progress in informa-tion processing and communication technologysupports the outsourcing of logistics activities tothird-party firms as IT allows buyers and sellers oflogistics services to communicate directly over data-rich, easy-to-use information channels, therebyreducing coordination costs and fostering strategicpartnerships based on mutually agreed goals.

Beside the forces of the general external environ-ment, TPL is affected by changes in the structure,processes and strategies of the supply chain in whichit is embedded, as highlighted in the works by Bask(2001) and Delfmann et al. (2002). Stressing theneed for a strategic view focusing on the relation-ship between supply chain strategies and TPL, Bask(2001) proposed a normative framework for orga-nizing relationships between alternative supplychain strategies and different types of TPL services.Delfmann et al. (2002) analysed implications ofchanges in supply chain configurations induced bye-commerce for TPL. Their work illustrated howe-commerce—through the emergence of electronicmarketplaces in the upstream part of the chainand the disintermediation of the downstreamchain—affects the structure of supply chains, there-by causing challenges for TPL operations andstrategies.

Studies focusing on the external context of TPLmay be found rather scanty when compared with

the large amount of contributions addressing issuesof the internal context of TPL. Indeed, of the 61works within the context category, over 90% aredevoted to the investigation of the various char-acteristics of TPL parties (buyers and sellers oflogistics services) and their influence on the forma-tion of TPL arrangements.

Some of these studies examined how organiza-tional characteristics and strategies of users oflogistics services are related to the decision to enterin TPL arrangements. Rao and Young (1994)identified three main characteristics of shippers’business profile that drive their logistics outsourcingbehaviour and influence the formation of a favour-able or unfavourable climate for outsourcing:(a) network complexity, referring to both thegeographic dispersion of the firm’s trading partnersas well as the intensiveness of transactions withselected trading partners; (b) process complexity,referring to time and task compression (or lackthereof) in the logistics process; and (c) productcomplexity, relating to the special circumstancesrequired by products and materials due to thecomplexity of the environment (temperature, hu-midity, etc.) governing their transportation, storageand handling. In a survey-based study of USmanufacturing firms, Daugherty and Droge (1997)explored how organizational structure in divisiona-lized companies is related to logistics outsourcingdecisions and found differences in the anticipatedusage levels of external logistics service providersbetween divisionalized manufacturers with a ‘‘line/staff’’ structure (line and staff logistics responsibil-ities centrally consolidated at the corporate manage-ment level) and those with a ‘‘staff-only’’configuration (staff logistics responsibilities cen-trally consolidated and line activities decentralizedwithin business units). Murphy and Poist (1998)investigated demographic differences (in terms offirm type, firm size and number of activitiesmanaged by the logistics department) between usersand non-users of TPL services, discovering that firmsize might help to differentiate between users andnon-users of TPL services.

While early studies have focused on users oflogistics services, more recent research efforts haveturned their attention to third-party logistics serviceproviders (TPLPs). Indeed, the rapid expansion andtransformation of the TPL industry during the lastyears has been the subject of an increasing interestto logistics scholars who have increasingly attemp-ted to provide insights into issues on the provider


side of the industry. These include the industry’sservice offerings, current status and future prospects(e.g. Larson and Gammelgaard, 2001a; Lieb andBentz, 2005b; Lieb and Kendrick, 2003; Lieb andRandall, 1996b, 1999b; Peters et al., 1998a),operational issues of TPLPs, such as networkdesign/optimization (Ko et al., 2006; Zapfel andWasner, 2002), benchmarking (Min and Joo, 2006),quality (Brah and Lim, 2006; Fung and Wong,1998; Neo et al., 2004) and the role of theseoperators in logistics set-ups (Stefansson, 2006). Inparticular, by a review of the literature addressingTPLPs, it appears that much of the research in thisarea has focused on the strategic behaviour of theseoperators. Berglund et al. (1999) proposed astrategic segmentation of TPL providers based ontwo dimensions: standard services versus logisticssolutions; traditional, basic logistics activities (e.g.transportation and warehousing) versus value-added logistics. Sum and Teo (1999) examined thedifferent strategic postures of logistics servicesproviders in Singapore using Porter’s typology ofcompetitive strategies and analysed the businessperformance, technologies, operations objectivesand future plans of each strategic type. Such anapproach to the analysis of TPLPs’ strategies hasalso been used in the study by Yeung et al. (2006),which investigated the relationship of strategicchoices of pure cost, pure differentiation or acombination strategy on a composite measure offinancial performance for TPLPs in Hong Kong.Hertz and Alfredsson (2003) addressed the strategicdevelopment of TPL providers with a focus on thebalance between general problem-solving capabilityand degree of customer adaptation. Carbone andStone (2005) examined the strategic behaviouradopted by 20 leading European TPLPs, payingparticular attention to their approach to mergersand acquisitions and logistics alliances.

Recent research in this area has also focused onthe adoption of IT in these firms. Indeed, the abilityto utilize IT has been increasingly considered one ofthe key determinants of success for these operators(e.g. Langley et al., 2002, 2005), and several studieshave examined the current status of IT usage in theindustry along with the perceived benefits andbarriers to IT adoption by these companies. Piplaniet al. (2004) investigated the status of IT imple-mentation in the Singapore TPL industry and foundthat, while providers increasingly are incorporatingIT in their operations or are planning to do so,concerns about the speed of obsolescence of

advantages derived from IT and the shortage oftrained personnel still hinder full-scale IT imple-mentation. Lai et al. (2005) and Evangelista andSweeney (2006) assessed IT usage in the TPLindustry in Hong Kong and in Italy, respectively.Findings from these two studies converge inindicating that, although the importance of IT forimproving performance is well-recognized byTPLPs, lack of IT expertise and insufficientfinancial support prevent these operators, especiallysmall and medium companies, from moving to-wards its full adoption. Koh and Tan (2005) andYing and Dayong (2005) focused on the potential ofe-commerce in TPL providers, showing that the useof e-commerce applications can impact performanceand competitive advantage of these companies interms of reduction of operations’ time and costs,increase of customer service level and enhancedintegration with business processes of other supplychain members.

4.1.2. Research on TPL structure

As the use of TPL services increased, researchefforts have been made to gain a deeper under-standing of the manner in which shippers andproviders structure their arrangements, payingparticular attention to those exhibiting cooperativebehaviours between the parties. Characterization ofTPL arrangements has been based on conceptualtypologies (e.g. Pappu and Mundy, 2002; Zinn andParasuraman, 1997), but has primarily relied uponempirical investigation. Empirical research aimed atproviding insights into the nature and structure ofthese arrangements has focused on a number ofattributes, such as the scope in terms of number andtypology of activities outsourced, duration andfrequency (e.g. Pache, 1998; Rabinovich et al.,1999). Some of the studies in this area have alsofocused on the analysis of behavioural or relationalattributes of TPL relationships, such as trust,commitment, dependence, conflict and equity (e.g.Gardner et al., 1994; Knemeyer et al., 2003;Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a, b; Moore, 1998;Moore and Cunningham, 1999). Most of thesestudies use a relationship marketing perspective asthe basis for examining differences in key beha-vioural elements across different types of relation-ships. Moore and Cunningham (1999) focusedon five attributes—trust, equity, commitment, conflictand opportunism—to explore differences in beha-vioural elements that exist between logistics alliancesand transactional (or non-alliance) relationships.


Their findings suggest that trust and commitment aremajor distinguishing behavioural characteristics oflogistics alliances. Knemeyer et al. (2003) foundstatistically significant differences for the elementsof trust, commitment, investment, dependence,communication and shared benefits across distincttypes of partnerships previously suggested in thelogistics literature. More recently, Knemeyer andMurphy (2005b) compared the perspectives ofTPL users and providers with respect to therelationship marketing elements of attachment,communication, dependence, investment, opportu-nistic behaviour, reciprocity, reputation, satisfac-tory prior outcomes and trust as well as relationshipmarketing outcomes, including customer referrals,customer retention, service recovery and perfor-mance improvements.

4.1.3. Research on TPL developmental process

There has been extensive writing and modelbuilding in the area of TPL processes. Such aninterest by researchers may be attributed to theproblems experienced by companies in the establish-ment of TPL arrangements. Indeed, while TPLrelationships can yield positive outcomes for theparties, the path to achieving these results is notwithout its difficulties (House and Stank, 2001).Impediments are likely to be encountered in all thedifferent phases of relationship development andoften lead to dissolution as witnessed by the failuresreported in both academic and trade press (e.g.Ackerman, 1996; Foster, 1999). In an attempt tohelp companies to understand what resources andpractices are needed in order to successfully estab-lish and manage TPL relationships, various pre-scriptive models and decision frameworks of TPLdevelopment and implementation have been sug-gested in the literature. Bagchi and Virum (1996)offered a process model for logistics allianceformation, management and control, which com-prises three phases: identification of the need for thealliance; planning and management; and measure-ment and control of operations. Sink and Langley(1997) provided a conceptual model of the TPLbuying process with five stages: identify the need tooutsource logistics; develop feasible alternatives;evaluate and select supplier; implement service; andongoing service assessment. Maltz and Ellram(1997) proposed a major modification of the totalcost of ownership framework, which they call totalcost of relationship (TCR), to deal with logisticsoutsourcing decisions. Lambert et al. (1999) pre-

sented a model of partnership development andimplementation based on three major elements:drivers (e.g. asset/cost efficiencies, enhanced custo-mer service and profit growth/stability), facilitators(e.g. corporate compatibility, similar managerialphilosophy, mutuality and symmetry) and manage-ment components (e.g. planning, joint operatingcontrols, communications and risk/reward sharing).Andersson and Norrman (2002) modelled andcompared the purchasing process for advancedversus basic logistics services. They focused on threephases identified as particularly critical in thepurchase of advanced logistics services: servicedefinition, request for proposal and contracting.More recently, de Boer et al. (2006) presented aprescriptive model for guiding outsourcing decisionprocesses that incorporates some basic principles ofbehavioural decision-making theory, in particularthe satisficing concept. The model builds on theobservation of some discrepancies between theassumptions of existing prescriptive models andthe processes observed in practice through two casesof logistics outsourcing.

Researchers’ efforts to support managers in theestablishment and management of TPL arrange-ments have also resulted in a variety of contribu-tions addressing issues of specific activities of theTPL developmental process, such as partner selec-tion, contract design, coordination, communica-tion/information integration. By a review of thesestudies, it appears that a particular emphasis hasbeen placed by researchers on the problems ofpartner selection and contract design.

Empirically based insights into the problem ofselecting the right logistics service provider havebeen provided in the studies by McGinnis et al.(1995) and Menon et al. (1998), which investigatedcriteria for TPL selection and how the firm’scompetitive responsiveness strategy and externalenvironment affect them. Studies in this area havealso relied on conceptual-type research to providedecision-making models and frameworks for theselection process of TPL service providers. Meadeand Sarkis (2002) offered a decision-making modelbased on the analytical network process (ANP) toassist the management in the selection of providersfor the reverse logistics process. More recently,Vaidyanathan (2005) proposed a conceptual frame-work for the selection of TPL providers builtaround IT and Bottani and Rizzi (2006) presenteda multi-attribute approach based on the TOPSIS(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity


to Ideal Solution) technique and the fuzzy settheory.

As to the problem contract design, Logan (2000)illustrated how the logic of agency theory can helpto design the types of contracts and relationshipsnecessary to provide and support an environment oftrust and mutual satisfaction. Lim (2000) developeda game-theoretic model of how a contract may beestablished in order that TPL providers are encour-aged to reveal their true capabilities. Chen et al.(2001) provided a framework for analysing threeforms of third-party warehousing contracts withspace commitments and adjustment options. Alpet al. (2003) devised an approach for designingcontract parameters based on the interactions ofthree defined sub-problems: vehicle dispatchingproblem, inventory control and contract valueproblem.

4.1.4. Research on TPL outcomes

When successful, TPL relationships can give bothparties a competitive advantage in the marketplace(Tate, 1996). In particular, extant literature hasshown that involvement in TPL arrangements,especially cooperative, partnership-like relation-ships, can result in multiple economic, organiza-tional and financial benefits for shippers such asreduced logistics cost, improved service levels andend-customer satisfaction, improved access to andapplication of technology, reduced capital invest-ment in facilities, equipment and manpower, in-creased flexibility and productivity, improvedemployee morale, increased access to wider marketsand new competencies (e.g. Bowersox, 1990;Daugherty et al., 1996; Ellram and Cooper, 1990;Larson and Gammelgaard, 2001b). Research in thisarea has shown that higher levels of commitmentand integration typical of long-term TPL arrange-ments also improve third-party providers’ perfor-mance. While risks exist due to capital investment inthe alliance and high customization of suppliedservices (Bowersox, 1990), TPL providers canbenefit from a long-term source of business volume,which results in a closer match between availablecapacity and demand, as well as from serviceinnovation and growth opportunities stemmingfrom synergic work and knowledge sharing withthe customer (Bowersox, 1990; Halldorsson andSkjoett-Larsen, 2004).

Research in this area has also been conductedregarding the outcomes and benefits of TPLarrangements within the overall context of supply

chain management. Gentry (1996) illustrated thatcloser relationships between suppliers, buyers andcarriers in the supply chain, i.e. logistics triads, leadto operating improvements that can increase thelikelihood of maximizing supply chain efficiencyand improve the competitive position of the entiresupply chain in the marketplace. Kopczak (1997)investigated the linkages between formation oflogistics partnerships and supply chain restructuringin the computer industry. Study findings indicatedthat the logistics outsourcing via a partnershipfacilitates supply chain restructuring by allowinggreater changes to be made more quickly and withless investment. Moreover, evidence was providedof the beneficial effects on supply chain perfor-mance deriving from the restructuring of the supplychain as an inherent aspect of TPL alliances.Stressing the need to view the advantages of logisticsalliances within the overall context of supply chainmanagement, Bhatnagar and Viswanathan (2000)illustrated the benefits of a strategic alliancebetween a manufacturer and a global logisticsservice provider within the context of contemporarysupply chain imperatives of cost efficiency andcustomer responsiveness. Panayides and So (2005)found that logistics service provider–client relation-ships, through the adoption of relational exchange,can improve supply chain effectiveness and perfor-mance by promoting a positive climate for learningand innovation.

4.1.5. Comprehensive studies

The distribution of the reviewed works by topic(Table 2) indicates that a considerable portion of theexamined literature on TPL is constituted by‘‘comprehensive’’ articles. These are empirical,survey-based works that provide a descriptivepicture of prevalent TPL practices in specificcountries/regions. While the range of the issuesunder investigation may vary across these studies,these contributions typically focus on the followingissues: the extent of usage of TPL services and thespecific services most commonly used; the reasonsfor entering TPL; the length of contracts; theobstacles/problems encountered in implementingand managing TPL relationships; the benefits ofusing TPL services and the overall satisfaction withTPL service providers; and the future plans ofcurrent users of TPL services. These issues aregenerally explored from users’ perspective throughmulti-sector surveys of the manufacturing industry.Some of the studies falling into this area have also

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Breakdown of comprehensive studies by specific countries/

regions

Geographical

focus

References

US Bardi and Tracey (1991), Boyson et al.

(1999), Lieb (1992), Lieb and Bentz (2004,

2005a), Lieb and Randall (1996b, 1999b),

Lieb and Miller (2002), Min (2002), Murphy

and Poist (2000)

Europe Peters et al. (1998b), Van Laarhoven et al.

(2000), Wilding and Juriado (2004)

Other regions Aktas and Ulengin (2005) (Turkey),

Bhatnagar et al. (1999) (Singapore), Dapiran

et al. (1996) (Australia), Fernie (1999) (UK),

Hong et al. (2004) (China), Jaafar and Rafiq

(2005) (UK), Sahay and Mohan (2006)

(India), Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005) (Saudi

Arabia), Sohail and Sohal (2003) (Malaysia),

Sohail et al. (2002, 2004) (Australia, Ghana)

Transnational

comparisons

Arroyo et al. (2006) (Mexico–Europe–US),

Lieb et al. (1993) (US–Europe), Millen et al.

(1997) (Australia–US–Western Europe),

Sohail et al. (2006) (Singapore–Malaysia)

Table 5

Distribution of articles by research approach

Types of methodology Prescriptive Descriptive Total

No. % No. % No. %

Theoretical 18 11.8 12 7.9 30 19.7

Theoretical and empirical 6 3.9 20 13.2 26 17.1

Empirical 7 4.6 89 58.6 96 63.2

Total 31 20.3 121 79.7 152 100.0


attempted to regularly assess the evolution of TPLpractices through longitudinal surveys (e.g. Lieband Bentz, 2004, 2005a; Lieb and Randall, 1996a,1999a; Lieb and Miller, 2002; van Laarhoven et al.,2000). By a review of these works, it is observed thatearlier studies have focused on developed regionssuch as the US, Europe and Australia, whereasrecent research in this area shows more efforts toprovide insights into TPL practices in developingregions, especially Asian countries, which have beenshifting to an industrialized economy in recentdecades. Some comparative analyses have also beenundertaken to offer a cross-country view of TPL.A breakdown of these comprehensive studies bygeographical focus is provided in Table 4.

5. Review of research approaches taken in TPL

literature

In this section, the status of research approachestaken in the literature on TPL is illustrated. Basedon the scheme developed by Olsen and Ellram(1997), the collected articles have been classifiedalong two dimensions, from theoretical to empiricaland from prescriptive to descriptive. These dimen-sions have been adopted within other review works

(e.g. Croom et al., 2000; Luo et al., 2001) and allowa reasonably comprehensive assessment of researchapproaches taken in the current body of literatureon the subject by highlighting both the basicmethodology used and the aim or focus of studies.Within the first dimension, empirical research refersto studies that report practice by means of surveys,case studies, interviews or anecdotal information,while theoretically based works primarily developmodels, concepts or conceptual frameworks. Be-tween these two opposites, a third category existsthat includes articles that are both theoretical andempirical: these works typically develop a numberof hypotheses and test them empirically. The seconddistinction is made between prescriptive and de-scriptive contributions, with the first type aimed atproposing normative models (practices that organi-zations and individuals ought to adopt) and thelatter aimed at describing, explaining and summar-izing current practices. The prescriptive/descriptivedimension is really a continuum in that manyarticles are primarily descriptive but also give somemanagerial implications (Olsen and Ellram, 1997);however, in order to simplify the classification andcreate comparable groups of articles, the contribu-tions have been only categorized as prescriptive ordescriptive based on their main focus.

The distribution of articles by research approachis given in Table 5. It can be observed that themajority of reviewed articles (about 63%) fall intothe empirical category, suggesting an empirical andmore practitioner-oriented focus in the literature onTPL. Theoretical works make up about 20% of thetotal studies, while approximately 17% of thereviewed articles have a theoretical and empiricalfocus going beyond a descriptive presentation of theinvestigated factual situations and emphasizingexplanation and evaluation through the refutationor confirmation of specific hypotheses. Table 5further indicates that TPL literature is mostly


descriptive in nature, with about 80% of the totalarticles falling into this category.

Table 6 provides a summary of all the reviewedarticles that correspond to the methodology classi-

Table 6

Summary of references under the methodology classification scheme of

Prescriptive Descriptive

Theoretical Ackerman (1996), Alp et al. (2003),

Bask (2001), Bottani and Rizzi

(2006), Chen et al. (2001), Ding and

Stoner (2004), Ko et al. (2006),

Kumar et al. (2006), Lim (2000),

Logan (2000), Maltz and Ellram

(1997), Meade and Sarkis (2002),

Min and Joo (2006), Seth et al.

(2006), Tan and Kritchanchai

(2006), Vaidyanathan (2005), van

Damme and van Amstel (1996),

Yan et al. (2003)

Bienstock (

(2000), Fab

Mundy (20

Dayong (2

Theoretical/

empirical

Abrahamsson and Wandel (1998),

Bagchi and Virum (1996, 1998), de

Boer et al. (2006), Krumwiede and

Sheu (2002), Sink and Langley

(1997)

Daugherty

Gentry (19

Kopczak (1

et al. (1998

Panayides

Roath (200

Empiricala Foggin et al. (2004) I, Gunasekaran

and Ngai (2003, 2004) C, Lambert

et al. (1999) I, Tate (1996) C, Tyan

et al. (2003) C, Zapfel and Wasner

(2002) C

Aktas and

(2006) S, B

(1999) S, B

Bowersox (

Carbone a

(1990) S, E

(2005) I, F

Cook (2001

Halldorsso

C, Hong et

(2002) C, H

(2005a, b) S

S, Larson a

and Dagna

and Kendr

1999a, b) S

(2004) S, M

S, Min (20

(2004) C, P

(2001) C+

S, Rabinov

Mohan (20

F, Skjoett-

(2003) S, S

(1994) S, S

and Teo (1

S, Wong et

aIncludes the following methods: survey (S), case study (C), interv

indicated next to each reference.bBased on empirical material collected in research projects and actio

fication scheme along with the indication of thespecific research methods used in empirical articles(see the letters next to the references). It can beobserved that empirical research on TPL is largely

the literature

2002), Chapman et al. (2003), Delfmann et al. (2002), Evans

be-Costes (1997), Lewis and Talalayevsky (2000), Pappu and

02), Stank and Maltz (1996), Ratten (2004), Wu (2006), Ying and

005), Zinn and Parasuraman (1997)

and Droge (1997), Daugherty et al. (1996), Gardner et al. (1994),

96), Knemeyer and Murphy (2004), Knemeyer et al. (2003),

997), Lai (2004), Maltz (1994), Maltz and Ellram (2000), Menon

), Moore and Cunningham (1999), Murphy and Poist (1998),

(2004), Rabinovich et al. (1999), Sauvage (2003), Sinkovics and

4), Stank and Daugherty (1997), van Hoek (2000, 2001)

Ulengin (2005) S, Andersson and Norrman (2002)b, Arroyo et al.

ardi and Tracey (1991) S, Berglund et al. (1999) S, Bhatnagar et al.

hatnagar and Viswanathan (2000) C, Bolumole (2001, 2003) C,

1990) A, Boyson et al. (1999) S+I, Brah and Lim (2006) S,

nd Stone (2005) I, Dapiran et al. (1996) S, Ellram and Cooper

vangelista and Sweeney (2006) S, Fernie (1999) S, Flint et al.

oulds and Luo (2006) C, Fung and Wong (1998) C, Gibson and

) S, Gibson et al. (1996, 2002) S, Gutierrez and Duran (1997) S,

n and Skjoett-Larsen (2004, 2006) C, Hertz and Alfredsson (2003)

al. (2004) S, House and Stank (2001) C, Huiskonen and Pirttila

um (2000) C, Jaafar and Rafiq (2005) S, Knemeyer and Murphy

, Koh and Tan (2005) C, Lai and Cheng (2003) S, Lai et al. (2005)

nd Gammelgaard (2001a, b) S, Leahy et al. (1995) S, Lemoigne

es (2003) C, Lieb (1992) S, Lieb and Bentz (2004, 2005a, b) S, Lieb

ick (2003) S, Lieb and Miller (2002) S, Lieb and Randall (1996a, b;

, Lieb et al. (1993) S, Lynagh et al. (2001) S, Makukha and Gray

altz et al. (1993) S, McGinnis et al. (1995) S, Millen et al. (1997)

02) S, Moore (1998) S, Murphy and Poist (2000) S, Neo et al.

ache (1998) I, Panayides and So (2005) S, Persson and Virum

I, Peters et al. (1998a, b) S, Piplani et al. (2004) S, Pokharel (2005)

ich and Knemeyer (2006) S, Rao and Young (1994) C, Sahay and

06) S, Sankaran et al. (2002) I, Sheffi (1990) A, Sink et al. (1996)

Larsen (2000) C, Sohail and Al-Abdali (2005) S, Sohail and Sohal

ohail et al. (2004, 2006) S, Sohal et al. (2002) S, Spencer et al.

tank et al. (1996) S, Stefansson (2006) C, Stone (2001) S+I, Sum

999)S, van Laarhoven et al. (2000) S, Wilding and Juriado (2004)

al. (2000) C, Yeung et al. (2006) S

iew (I), anecdotal (A), focus group (F). The specific method is

n research.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 7

Distribution of research approaches by content categories

Content category Theoretical Theoretical and empirical Empirical Total

No. % No. % No. %

Context 11 18.0 11 18.0 39 64.0 61

Structure 2 20.0 4 40.0 4 40.0 10

Process 17 44.7 7 18.5 14 36.8 38

Outcome – – 4 26.7 11 73.3 15

Comprehensive – – – – 28 100.0 28

Total 30 19.7 26 17.1 96 63.2 152


based on surveys (about 64% of articles). However,results show a great use also of case studies, with25% of total empirical articles using this methodol-ogy. Indeed, case studies represent a very useful andappropriate instrument for research on relationshipsas they allow an in-depth, ‘‘multi-perspectival’’analysis, i.e. to consider not just the perspective ofthe actors within the study but also of theinteraction between them (Frankel et al., 2005).Finally, only few examples of the use of theinterview and anecdotal methods can be found.

In Table 7, the distribution of methodologies isarranged under the five content categories. Thefigures reported in this table confirm the empiricalfocus of TPL literature across the content cate-gories, with the exception of the process category.Indeed, in comparison to the other content areas,this category is characterized by a prevalence oftheoretically based articles, which typically proposeconceptual, normative models and frameworks ofTPL establishment/management. Table 7 furthershows that literature on TPL context and outcomesexperienced relatively more empirical contributionsthat account for 64% and 73.3% of all the articlesaddressing these issues, respectively. The structureof TPL arrangements is mostly addressed throughempirical-oriented and theoretical/empirical re-search. The latter typically proposes hypothesesrelating to lists/taxonomies of relationship’s fea-tures that are tested through surveys in order toprovide a characterization of TPL relationships.Finally, it can be observed that ‘‘comprehensive’’studies are exclusively based on empirical methods.As clarified before, these contributions primarilyaim at providing a general picture of TPL practicesin specific countries/regions and information isgathered by means of quantitative methods with ahigh potentiality for descriptive purposes such assurveys.

6. Conclusion and research implications

In the recent past, the growing research interest inand the importance of TPL has engendered aplethora of contributions on this topic. This paperhas attempted to provide a picture of the body ofresearch produced in the field of TPL during theperiod 1989–2006. The study is not without limita-tions. First, only academic journal papers wereincluded in the review, as they are generallyconsidered to be the highest level of research foracquiring information and disseminating new find-ings (e.g. Ngai and Wat, 2002). Other relevantknowledge concerning this topic might also befound in conference proceedings papers, master’stheses, doctoral dissertations and textbooks. Add-ing knowledge from these sources might havealtered the results or validated the conclusionsmade in this article. Second, some relevant articlespublished within the specified time frame may havebeen missed during the literature search. This mayalso be due to the fact that, although the numberwas small and negligible, there were some missingissues of volumes of some journals (e.g. forTransportation Science, there were two issues miss-ing out of 72 issues over the 18 years, and this wasthe highest percentage). A third potential limitationconcerns the choice of terms for the literaturesearch. Although it is believed that the rightdescriptors have been used, it cannot be guaranteedthat other articles dealing with this subject do existbut under different labels. Finally, though aconscientious effort has been made to identify theprimary topic and research approach of each article,the review and classification of the literature are to acertain extent dependent on subjective estimation.Notwithstanding these limitations, it is believed thatthis study provides some reasonable insights intothe state of the art of TPL literature. Moreover,


based on the review, classification and analysis ofthe articles, some broad suggestions for futureresearch can be put forth. Indeed, in spite of thesignificant development achieved over the lastdecade, there remain many important issues forfuture investigation. Without claiming to be ex-haustive, four issues are identified for immediateattention.

The first concerns implications of e-commerce forTPL. The rise of e-commerce has been impressive inthe past decade, impelled by the rapid developmentof telematics and computing power. Its influence asa driving force of change in logistics is undeniableboth within companies and within supply chains. Itis therefore surprising that little attention has beenpaid to investigate and assess direct as well asindirect implications of e-commerce for TPL. Inparticular, from the review of TPL literature itappears that extant studies have mostly focusedon the potential of information technologies ande-commerce applications for TPL providers toreduce costs, increase productivity and improvecustomer service (e.g. Evangelista and Sweeney,2006; Koh and Tan, 2005; Lai et al., 2005; Lynaghet al., 2001; Piplani et al., 2004). However, theinfluence of e-commerce and related informationand communication technology (ICT) developmentson TPL can take other paths that deserve furtherexploration. By influencing the operation andorganization of supply chains, e-commerce impactsthe demand for TPL services, in many cases creatingnew demands on fulfilment. E-commerce alsoprovides the buyer and seller of logistics services awide array of tools and systems for communicationand information management, which are expectedto have a substantial effect on the interactionbetween the parties and the nature of TPL relation-ships. Moreover, by offering new managementtools and transparency of logistics service markets,e-commerce gives rise to new forms of intermedia-tion for logistics services, such as the transportationor logistics exchanges that provide one-stop web-sites for accessing transportation and logisticsservices from multiple suppliers (Chow and Gritta,2001). These issues of e-commerce implications forTPL provide researchers with numerous opportu-nities for further enhancing the field.

Another area with potential for further researchand understanding concerns the role of organiza-tional culture in the formation and development ofTPL arrangements. Organizational culture plays arelevant role in the development as well as in the

maintenance over the time of TPL arrangements—especially of the close, partnership-like ones—ashighlighted, for example, in the study by House andStank (2001). While the influence of organizationalculture on TPL relationships is not debatable, therehave not yet been many attempts to capture theimplications of various culture dimensions on theformation and management of TPL relationships.Potential advancements concerning this issue are ofparticular interest given the increasing internatio-nalization trend in logistics outsourcing, whichboosts the problem of coping with cultural asym-metries within TPL relationships (Voss, 2003).

Further research within the TPL field is alsoneeded to develop a deeper understanding of thebehavioural complexities that emerge through theinteraction between the buyer and provider oflogistics services. Increasingly, it is believed thatsuccessful and lasting relational exchanges are thosein which partners go beyond short-term transac-tional benefits and incorporate behavioural factorssuch as trust and commitment (e.g. Dwyer et al.,1987; Gundlach et al., 1995; Morgan and Hunt,1994). This belief, which strongly pervades market-ing thought and studies, has also informed recentTPL research such that many scholars have begunto approach TPL from a relationship marketingperspective in order to investigate behaviouralattributes of TPL arrangements and their link withoutcomes of such relationships (e.g. Knemeyer etal., 2003; Knemeyer and Murphy, 2005a, b; Mooreand Cunningham, 1999). Although these studieshave generated significant knowledge on the beha-vioural issues associated with TPL, yet littleempirical evidence exists on the dynamics of forma-tion of such behavioural complexities over time.Given the dynamic nature of TPL arrangements,deeper insights into the evolution of behaviouralaspects of TPL arrangements could be provided byrelying on more longitudinal approaches that allowto take into account the temporal dimension ofrelationships.

A related area that needs closer investigationconcerns bonding processes and philosophies withinTPL arrangements. This concept, bonding, has beenidentified as an important concept for examiningand explaining successful buyer–seller relationships(e.g. Hakansson and Snehota, 1995; Wilson, 1995).Stability and overall performance of TPL arrange-ments are likely to be severely affected by themultiplicity of economic, technical and social bondsthat develop during the relationship between the


parties. TPL studies would benefit from moreresearch designs aimed at identifying and explainingintegrative processes that serve to bond partnersand strengthen relationships. With an increasingtrend towards creating, managing and enhancinglong-term cooperative logistics arrangements (e.g.Murphy and Poist, 2000; van Laarhoven et al.,2000), organizations increasingly need to learnabout and invest in bonding processes.

Besides the opportunity for additional research inthe above areas, an overall suggestion for futureresearch in the TPL field can be advanced concern-ing the need for a more comprehensive conceptualbasis. The literature review has shown a relative lackof theoretical work in the field when compared withempirically based studies. Consistent with the earlystages in the development of a scholarly body ofwork, much of the literature on TPL has beenlargely exploratory and descriptive. Further devel-opment of the field requires greater emphasis on thedevelopment of theory, constructs and conceptualframeworks in order to build a conceptual founda-tion for subsequent empirical studies—a pointstrongly supported by Skjoett-Larsen et al. (2003)and Maloni and Carter (2006). In particular, ourconcern with the finding that TPL literature isprimarily empirical-descriptive regards the lack of aguiding conceptual base incorporating a system-atized set of definitions, constructs and models to beused in order to investigate, describe and explainTPL relationships and the factors influencing them.The review conducted in this paper has shown thatefforts intended to develop models, conceptualiza-tions and frameworks are limited to specific aspectsof TPL, especially concerning its developmentalprocess. Also, extant conceptual-type researchrelating to specific TPL issues has been conductedfrom various perspectives and is often based ondifferent definitions or interpretations of what ismeant by TPL. Therefore, it can be argued thatadvancements in the field would benefit from thedevelopment of a systematized conceptual baseconsisting of common definitions of importantconstructs and variables—such as the IMP’s inter-action model—capable of explaining and describingTPL relationships and the relation among theconstructs. Such a basis, when recognized by alarge number of researchers in the field, wouldprovide a robust structure that enables a morecomprehensive understanding of TPL relationshipsalso through greater sharing and comparison ofanalyses and research results.

Acknowledgements

The author is most grateful to the anonymousreviewers for their comments that helped improvingreadability and contents of the paper and wouldalso like to thank Dr. Alfonso Morvillo for hisguidance and support in starting and completingthis research.

References

Abrahamsson, M., Wandel, S., 1998. A model of tiering in third-

party logistics with a service parts distribution case study.

Transport Logistics 1 (3), 181–194.

Ackerman, K.B., 1996. Pitfalls in logistics partnerships. Interna-

tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-

ment 26 (3), 35–37.

Aktas, E., Ulengin, F., 2005. Outsourcing logistics activities in

Turkey. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management

18 (3), 316–329.

Alp, O., Erkip, N.K., Gullu, R., 2003. Outsourcing logistics:

Designing transportation contracts between a manufacturer

and a transporter. Transportation Science 37 (1), 23–39.

Anderson, J.C., Hakansson, H., Johanson, J., 1994. Dyadic

business relationships within a business network context.

Journal of Marketing 58, 1–15.

Andersson, D., Norrman, A., 2002. Procurement of logistics

services—Minutes work or a multi-year project? European

Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 8, 3–14.

Arroyo, P., Gaytan, J., de Boer, L., 2006. A survey of third party

logistics in Mexico and a comparison with reports on Europe

and USA. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management 26 (6), 639–667.

Ashenbaum, B., Maltz, A., Rabinovich, E., 2005. Studies of

trends in third-party logistics usage: What can we conclude?

Transportation Journal 44 (3), 39–50.

Bagchi, P.K., Virum, H., 1996. European logistics alliances:

A management model. The International Journal of Logistics

Management 7 (1), 93–107.

Bagchi, P.K., Virum, H., 1998. Logistical alliances: Trends and

prospects in integrated Europe. Journal of Business Logistics

19 (1), 191–213.

Bardi, E.J., Tracey, M., 1991. Transportation outsourcing:

A survey of US practices. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management 21 (3), 15–21.

Bask, A.H., 2001. Relationships among TPL providers and

members of supply chains—A strategic perspective. Journal

of Business & Industrial Marketing 16 (6), 470–486.

Berglund, M., 2000. Strategic positioning of the emerging third-

party logistics providers. Department of Management and

Economics, Linkoping Studies in Management and Econom-

ics, Dissertation no. 45.

Berglund, M., van Laarhoven, P., Sharman, G., Wandel, S.,

1999. Third-party logistics: Is there a future? The Interna-

tional Journal of Logistics Management 10 (1), 59–70.

Bhatnagar, R., Viswanathan, S., 2000. Re-engineering global

supply chains—Alliances between manufacturing firms and

global logistics service providers. International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (1), 13–34.


Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A.S., Millen, R., 1999. Third party logistics

services: A Singapore perspective. International Journal

of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 29 (9),

569–587.

Bienstock, C.C., 2002. Undesrtanding buyer information acquisi-

tion for the purchase of logistics services. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

32 (8), 636–648.

Bolumole, Y.A., 2001. The supply chain role of third-party

logistics providers. The International Journal of Logistics

Management 12 (2), 87–102.

Bolumole, Y.A., 2003. Evaluating the supply chain role of

logistics service providers. The International Journal of

Logistics Management 14 (2), 93–107.

Bottani, E., Rizzi, A., 2006. A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to

support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal 11 (4), 294–308.

Bowersox, D.J., 1990. The strategic benefits of logistics alliances.

Harvard Business Review 68, 36–45.

Boyson, S., Corsi, T.M., Dresner, M.E., Rabinovich, E.,

1999. Managing effective third-party logistics partnerships:

What does it take? Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1),

73–100.

Brah, S.A., Lim, H.Y., 2006. The effects of technology and TQM

on the performance of logistics companies. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36

(3), 192–209.

Carbone, V., Stone, M.A., 2005. Growth and relational strategies

used by the European logistics service providers: Rationale

and outcomes. Transportation Research Part E 41, 495–510.

Chapman, R.L., Soosay, C., Kandampully, J., 2003. Innovation

in logistic services and the new business model—A conceptual

framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution &


Chen, F.Y., Hum, S.H., Sun, J., 2001. Analysis of third-party

warehousing contracts with commitments. European Journal

of Operational Research 131, 603–610.

Chow, G., Gritta, R., 2001. The growth and development of the

US third party logistics industry. In: Proceedings of the Ninth

World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, Korea, July

22–27 (CD Rom).

Christopher, M., 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Management.

Pitman Publishing, London.

Christopher, M., 2000. The agile supply chain. Competing in

volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management 29,

37–44.

Cousins, P.D., 2002. A conceptual model for managing long-term

inter-organisational relationships. European Journal of Pur-

chasing & Supply Management 8 (2), 71–82.

Coyle, J.J., Bardi, E.J., Langley, C.J., 2003. The Management of

Business Logistics—A Supply Chain Perspective. South-

Western Publishing, Mason.

Croom, S., Romano, P., Giannakis, M., 2000. Supply chain

management: An analytical framework for critical literature

review. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Manage-

ment 6, 67–83.

Dapiran, P., Lieb, R.C., Millen, R., Sohal, A.S., 1996. Third

party logistics services usage by large Australian firms.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management 26 (10), 36–45.

Daugherty, P., Droge, C., 1997. Organizational structure in

divisionalized manufacturers: The potential for outsourcing

logistical services. International Journal of Physical Distribu-

tion & Logistics Management 27 (5/6), 337–349.

Daugherty, P.J., Stank, T.P., Rogers, D.S., 1996. Third-party

logistics service providers: Purchasers’ perceptions. The

Journal of Supply Chain Management 32 (2), 23–29.

de Boer, L., Gaytan, J., Arroyo, P., 2006. A satisficing model of

outsourcing. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal 11 (5), 444–455.

Delfmann, W., Albers, S., Gehring, M., 2002. The impact of

electronic commerce on logistics service providers. Interna-

tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-

ment 32 (3), 203–222.

Ding, F.Y., Stoner, A., 2004. An evaluation procedure for

materials service centers. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal 9 (2), 197–204.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller

relationships. Journal of Marketing 51 (2), 11–27.

Ellram, L.M., Cooper, M.C., 1990. Supply chain manage-

ment, partnerships, and the shipper–third party relationship.

The International Journal of Logistics Management 1 (2),

1–10.

Evangelista, P., Sweeney, E., 2006. Technology usage in the

supply chain: The case of small 3PLs. The International

Journal of Logistics Management 17 (1), 55–74.

Evans, K., 2000. The remaining need for localisation of logistics

practices and services in Europe. International Journal of

Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30 (5),

443–453.

Fabbe-Costes, N., 1997. Information management in the logistics

service industry: A strategic response to the reintegration of

logistical activities. Transport Logistics 1 (2), 115–127.

Fawcett, S.E., Vellenga, D.B., Truitt, L.J., 1995. An evaluation of

logistics and transportation professional organizations, pro-

grams, and publications. Journal of Business Logistics 16 (1),

299–314.

Ferguson, W., 1983. An evaluation of journals that publish

business logistics articles. Transportation Journal 22 (4),

69–72.

Fernie, J., 1999. Outsourcing distribution in UK retailing.

Journal of Business Logistics 20 (2), 83–95.

Flint, D.J., Larsson, E., Gammelgaard, B., Mentzer, J.T., 2005.

Logistics innovation: A customer value-oriented social

process. Journal of Business Logistics 26 (1), 113–147.

Foggin, J.H., Mentzer, J.T., Monroe, C.L., 2004. A supply chain

diagnostic tool. International Journal of Physical Distribution

& Logistics Management 34 (10), 827–855.

Ford, D., 1980. The development of buyer–seller relationships in

industrial markets. European Journal of Marketing 14 (5/6),

339–353.

Foster, T.A., 1999. Lessons learned. Logistics Management and

Distribution Report 38, 67–72.

Foulds, L.R., Luo, Y., 2006. Value-added services for sustainable

third-party warehousing. International Journal of Logistics

Systems and Management 2 (2), 194–216.

Frankel, R., Naslund, D., Bolumole, Y., 2005. The ‘‘white space’’

of logistics research: A look at the role of methods usage.


Frazier, G.L., 1983. Interorganizational exchange behaviour: A

broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing 47 (4), 68–78.

Fung, P., Wong, A., 1998. Case study: Managing for total quality

of logistics services in the supply chain. Logistics Information

Management 11 (5), 324–329.


Gardner, J.T., Cooper, M.C., Noordewier, T., 1994. Under-

standing shipper–carrier and shipper–warehouser relation-

ships: Partnerships revisited. Journal of Business Logistics 15

(2), 121–143.

Gentry, J.J., 1996. The role of carriers in buyer–supplier strategic

partnerships: A supply chain management approach. Journal

of Business Logistics 17 (2), 35–55.

Gibson, B.J., Cook, R., 2001. Hiring practices in US third-party

logistics firms. International Journal of Physical Distribution


Gibson, B.J., Rutner, S.M., Mundy, R.A., 1996. Building

successful alliances: Are shippers doing their part? Transpor-

tation Quarterly 50 (2), 35–46.

Gibson, B.J., Rutner, S.M., Keller, S.B., 2002. Shipper–carrier

partnership issues, rankings and satisfaction. International


(8), 669–681.

Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., 2003. The successful manage-

ment of a small logistics company. International Journal of


825–842.

Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., 2004. 3PL: Experiences

from China resources logistics (Hong Kong). Interna-

tional Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 1 (1),

81–97.

Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S., Mentzer, J.T., 1995. The structure

of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing 59 (1),

78–92.

Gutierrez, G., Duran, A., 1997. Information technology in

logistics—A Spanish perspective. Logistics Information


Hakansson, H. (Ed.), 1982. International Marketing and

Purchasing of Industrial Goods. An Interaction Approach.

Wiley, Chichester.

Hakansson, H., 1987. Industrial Technological Development. A

Network Approach. Croom Helm, London.

Hakansson, H., Johanson, J., 1990. Formal and informal

cooperation strategies in international networks. In: Ford,

D. (Ed.), Understanding Business Markets. Academic Press,

London, pp. 459–467.

Hakansson, H., Snehota, I., 1995. Developing Relationships in

Business Networks. Routledge, London.

Halldorsson, A., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2004. Developing logistics

competencies through third party logistics relationships.

International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-

ment 24 (2), 192–206.

Halldorsson, A., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2006. Dynamics of relation-

ship governance in TPL arrangements—A dyadic perspective.


Management 36 (7), 490–506.

Hertz, S., 2001. Dynamics of alliances in highly integrated supply

chain networks. International Journal of Logistics: Research

and Applications 4 (2), 237–256.

Hertz, S., Alfredsson, M., 2003. Strategic development of third

party logistics providers. Industrial Marketing Management

32, 139–149.

Hong, J., Chin, A., Liu, B., 2004. Logistics outsourcing by

manufacturers in China: A survey of the industry. Transpor-

tation Journal 43 (1), 17–25.

House, R.G., Stank, T.P., 2001. Insights from a logistics

partnership. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal 6 (1), 16–20.

Huiskonen, J., Pirttila, T., 2002. Lateral coordination in a

logistics outsourcing relationship. International Journal of

Production Economics 78, 177–185.

Hum, S.H., 2000. A Hayes–Wheelwright framework approach

for strategic management of third party logistics services.

Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11 (2), 132–137.

Jaafar, H.S., Rafiq, M., 2005. Logistics outsourcing practices in

the UK: A survey. International Journal of Logistics:

Research and Applications 8 (4), 299–312.

Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2004. Evaluating the perfor-

mance of third-party logistics arrangements: A relationship

marketing perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management

40 (1), 35–51.

Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2005a. Exploring the potential

impact of relationship characteristics and customer attributes

on the outcomes of third-party logistics arrangements.

Transportation Journal 1, 5–19.

Knemeyer, A.M., Murphy, P.R., 2005b. Is the glass half full or

half empty? An examination of user and provider perspectives

towards third-party logistics relationships. International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

35 (10), 708–727.

Knemeyer, A.M., Corsi, T.M., Murphy, P.R., 2003. Logistics

outsourcing relationships: Customer perspectives. Journal of

Business Logistics 24 (1), 77–109.

Ko, H.J., Ko, C.S., Kim, T., 2006. A hybrid optimization/

simulation approach for a distribution network design of

3PLS. Computers & Industrial Engineering 50, 440–449.

Koh, S.C.L., Tan, Z., 2005. Using e-commerce to gain a

competitive advantage in 3PL enterprises in China. Interna-

tional Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 1 (2–3),

187–210.

Kopczak, L.R., 1997. Logistics partnerships and supply chain

restructuring: Survey results from the US computer industry.

Production and Operations Management 6 (3), 226–247.

Krumwiede, D., Sheu, C., 2002. A model for reverse logistics

entry by third-party providers. Omega 30, 325–333.

Kumar, M., Vrat, P., Shankar, R., 2006. A multi-objective 3PL

allocation problem for fish distribution. International Journal


702–715.

Lai, K.H., 2004. Service capability and performance of logistics

service providers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics

and Transportation Review 40, 385–399.

Lai, K.H., Cheng, T.C.E., 2003. Supply chain performance in

transport logistics: An assessment by service providers.

International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications

6 (3), 151–164.

Lai, K.H., Ngai, E.W.T., Cheng, T.C.E., 2005. Information

technology adoption in Hong Kong’s logistics industry.


Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain

management. Industrial Marketing Management 29, 65–83.

Lambert, D.M., Emmelhainz, M.A., Gardner, J.T., 1999.

Building successful logistics partnerships. Journal of Business

Logistics 20 (1), 165–181.

Langley, Jr., C.J., Allen, G.R., Tyndall, G.R., 2002. Third-Party

Logistics Study: Results and Findings of the 2002 Seventh

Annual Study. Unpublished Report, Georgia Institute of

Technology, Atlanta, GA.

Langley Jr., C.J., van Dort, E., Moore, P.D., Ang, A., Sykes,

S.R., 2005. 2005 Third-Party Logistics Study: Results and


Findings of the 10th Annual Study. Unpublished Report,

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

Larson, P.D., Gammelgaard, B., 2001a. Logistics in Denmark: A

survey of the industry. International Journal of Logistics:


Larson, P.D., Gammelgaard, B., 2001b. The logistics triad:

Survey and case study results. Transportation Journal 41

(2/3), 71–82.

Leahy, S.E., Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 1995. Determinants of

successful logistical relationships: A third-party provider

perspective. Transportation Journal 35 (2), 5–13.

Lemoigne, W., Dagnaes, L., 2003. Globalisation strategies and

business organisation of a network of logistics service

providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution &


Lewis, I., Talalayevsky, A., 2000. Third-party logistics: Lever-

aging information technology. Journal of Business Logistics

21 (2), 173–185.

Li, T., Cavusgil, S.T., 1995. A classification and assessment of

research streams in international marketing. International

Business Review 4 (3), 251–277.

Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2004. The use of third-party logistics

services by large American manufacturers: The 2003 survey.


Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2005a. The use of third-party logistics

services by large American manufacturers: The 2004 survey.

Transportation Journal 2, 5–15.

Lieb, R.C., Bentz, B.A., 2005b. The North American third party

logistics industry in 2004: The provider CEO perspective.


Management 35 (8), 595–611.

Lieb, R.C., Kendrick, S., 2003. The year 2002 survey: CEO

perspectives on the current status and future prospects on the

third party logistics industry in the Unites States. Transporta-

tion Journal 42 (3), 5–12.

Lieb, R.C., Miller, J., 2002. The use of third-party logistics

services by large US manufacturers, the 2000 survey.


5 (1), 1–12.

Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1996a. A comparison of the use of

third-party logistics services by large American manufac-

turers, 1991, 1994, and 1995. Journal of Business Logistics 17

(1), 305–320.

Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1996b. CEO perspectives on the

current status and future prospects of the third-party logistics

industry in the United States. Transport Logistics 1 (1),

51–66.

Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1999a. Use of third-party logistics

services by large US manufacturers in 1997 and comparisons

with previous years. Transport Reviews 19 (2), 103–115.

Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1999b. 1997 CEO perspectives on the

current status and future prospects of the third party logistics

industry in the United States. Transportation Journal 38 (3),

28–41.

Lieb, R.C., 1992. The use of third-party logistics services by large

American manufacturers. Journal of Business Logistics 13 (2),

29–42.

Lieb, R.C., Millen, R.A., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1993. Third-

party logistics services: A comparison of experienced

American and European manufacturers. International Jour-

nal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 23 (6),

35–45.

Lim, W.S., 2000. A lemons market? An incentive scheme

to induce truth-telling in third party logistics providers.

European Journal of Operational Research 125, 519–525.

Logan, M.S., 2000. Using agency theory to design successful

outsourcing relationships. The International Journal of


Luo, W., Van Hoek, R.I., Roos, H.H., 2001. Cross-cultural

logistics research: A literature review and propositions.


4 (1), 57–78.

Lynagh, P.M., Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., Grazer, W.F., 2001.

Web-based informational practices of logistics service provi-

ders: An empirical assessment. Transportation Journal 40 (4),

34–45.

Makukha, K., Gray, R., 2004. Logistics partnerships between

shippers and logistics service providers: The relevance of

strategy. International Journal of Logistics: Research and

Applications 7 (4), 361–377.

Maloni, M.J., Carter, C.R., 2006. Opportunities for research in

third-party logistics. Transportation Journal 45 (2), 23–38.

Maltz, A., 1994. The relative importance of cost and quality in

the outsourcing of warehousing. Journal of Business Logistics

15 (2), 45–62.

Maltz, A., Ellram, L.M., 1997. Total cost of relationship: An

analytical framework for the logistics outsourcing decision.


Maltz, A., Ellram, L.M., 2000. Selling inbound logistics services:

Understanding the buyer’s perspective. Journal of Business

Logistics 21 (2), 69–88.

Maltz, A., Riley, L., Boberg, K., 1993. Purchasing logistics

services in a transborder situation: Logistics outsourcing in

US–Mexico co-production. International Journal of Physical


McGinnis, M.A., Kochunny, C.M., Ackerman, K.B., 1995.

Third-party logistics choice. The International Journal of


Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 2002. A conceptual model for selecting and

evaluating third-party reverse logistics providers. Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal 7 (5), 283–295.

Menon, M.K., McGinnis, M.A., Ackerman, K.B., 1998. Selec-

tion criteria for providers of third-party logistics services: An

explanatory study. Journal of Business Logistics 19 (1),

121–137.

Millen, R., Sohal, A.S., Dapiran, P., Lieb, R., Van Wassenhove,

L.N., 1997. Benchmarking Australian firms’ usage of contract

logistics services. A comparison with American and Western

European practice. Benchmarking: An International Journal

4 (1), 34–46.

Min, H., 2002. Outsourcing freight bill auditing and payment

services. International Journal of Logistics: Research and


Min, H., Joo, S.J., 2006. Benchmarking the operational efficiency

of third party logistics providers using data envelopment

analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal 11 (3), 259–265.

Moore, K.R., 1998. Trust and relationship commitment in

logistics alliances: A buyer perspective. International Journal

of Purchasing and Materials Management 34 (4), 24–37.

Moore, K.R., Cunningham III, W.A., 1999. Social exchange

behavior in logistics relationships: A shipper perspective.


Management 29 (2), 103–121.


Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment–trust theory

of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing 58 (3), 20–38.

Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 1998. Third-party logistics usage: An

assessment of propositions based on previous research.


Murphy, P.R., Poist, R.F., 2000. Third-party logistics: Some user

versus provider perspectives. Journal of Business Logistics 21

(1), 121–133.

Neo, H.Y., Xie, M., Tsui, K.L., 2004. Service quality analysis:

Case study of a 3PL company. International Journal of

Logistics Systems and Management 1 (1), 64–80.

Ngai, E.W.T., Wat, F.K.T., 2002. A literature review and

classification of electronic commerce research. Information

& Management 39, 415–429.

Ojala, L., 2003. Estimating the size of the Finnish TPL market.

In: Andersson, D., Dryer, H.C., Halldorsson, A., Jahre, M.,

Ojala, L., Skjoett-Larsen, T., Virum, H. (Eds.), Third Party

Logistics—A Nordic Research Approach. Publications of the

Turku School of Economics and Business Administration,

Series A-4:2003, Finland, pp. 47–58.

Olsen, R.F., Ellram, L.M., 1997. Buyer–supplier relationships:

Alternative research approaches. European Journal of Pur-

chasing & Supply Management 3 (4), 221–231.

Pache, G., 1998. Logistics outsourcing in grocery distribution: A

European perspective. Logistics Information Management 11

(5), 301–308.

Panayides, P., 2004. Logistics service providers: An empirical

study of marketing strategies and company performance.


7 (1), 1–15.

Panayides, P.M., So, M., 2005. Logistics service provider–client

relationships. Transportation Research Part E 41, 179–200.

Pappu, M., Mundy, R.A., 2002. Understanding strategic

transportation buyer–seller relationships from an organiza-

tional learning perspective: A grounded theory approach.


Persson, G., Virum, H., 2001. Growth strategies for logistics

service providers: A case study. The International Journal of


Peters, M.J., Cooper, J., Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1998a. The

third-party logistics industry in Europe: Provider perspectives

on the industry’s current status and future prospects.


1 (1), 9–26.

Peters, M.J., Lieb, R.C., Randall, H.L., 1998b. The use of third-

party logistics services by European industry. Transport

Logistics 1 (3), 167–179.

Piplani, R., Pokharel, S., Tan, A., 2004. Perspectives on the use of

information technology at third party logistics service

providers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing

and Logistics 16 (1), 27–41.

Pokharel, S., 2005. Perception on information and communica-

tion technology perspectives in logistics: A study of transpor-

tation and warehouses sectors in Singapore. Journal of

Enterprise Information Management 18 (2), 136–149.

Rabinovich, E., Windle, R., Dresner, M., Corsi, T., 1999.

Outsourcing of integrated logistics functions—An examina-

tion of industry practices. International Journal of Physical


Rabinovich, E., Knemeyer, A.M., 2006. Logistics service

providers in internet supply chains. California Management

Review 48 (4), 84–108.

Rao, K., Young, R.R., 1994. Global supply chains: Factors

influencing outsourcing of logistics functions. International


(6), 11–19.

Ratten, V., 2004. Learning and information dissemination in

logistics alliances. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and

Logistics 16 (4), 65–81.

Razzaque, M.A., Sheng, C.C., 1998. Outsourcing of logistics

functions: A literature survey. International Journal of


89–107.

Ring, P.M., Van de Ven, A.H., 1994. Developmental processes of

cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of

Management Review 19 (1), 90–118.

Sahay, B.S., Mohan, R., 2006. 3PL practices: An Indian

perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution


Sankaran, J., Mun, D., Charman, Z., 2002. Effective logistics

outsourcing in New Zealand—An inductive empirical inves-

tigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution &


Sauvage, T., 2003. The relationship between technology and

logistics third-party providers. International Journal of


236–253.

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G., Vrat, P., 2006. A conceptual model

for quality of service in the supply chain. International


(7), 547–575.

Seuring, S., Muller, M., Westhaus, M., Morana, R., 2005.

Conducting a literature review—The example of sustain-

ability in supply chains. In: Kotzab, H., Seuring, S.,

Muller, M., Reiner, G. (Eds.), Research Methodo-

logies in Supply Chain Management. Physica, Heidelberg,

pp. 91–106.

Sheffi, Y., 1990. Third-party logistics: Present and future

prospects. Journal of Business Logistics 11 (2), 27–35.

Sink, H.L., Langley, C.J., 1997. A managerial framework for the

acquisition of third-party logistics services. Journal of

Business Logistics 18 (2), 163–189.

Sink, H.L., Langley, C.J., Gibson, B.J., 1996. Buyer observations

of the US third-party logistics market. International Journal


38–46.

Sinkovics, R.R., Roath, A.S., 2004. Strategic orientation,

capabilities and performance in manufacturer–3PL relation-

ships. Journal of Business Logistics 25 (2), 43–64.

Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2000. Third party logistics—From an inter-

organizational point of view. International Journal of


112–127.

Skjoett-Larsen, T., Halldorsson, A., Andersson, D., Dryer, H.,

Virum, H., Ojala, L., 2003. Third-party logistics—A nordic

approach. In: Andersson, D., Dryer, H.C., Halldorsson, A.,

Jahre, M., Ojala, L., Skjoett-Larsen, T., Virum, H. (Eds.),

Third Party Logistics—A Nordic Research Approach. Pub-

lications of the Turku School of Economics and Business

Administration, Series A-4:2003, Finland, pp. 7–24.

Sohail, M.S., Al-Abdali, O.S., 2005. The usage of third party

logistics in Saudi Arabia. Current position and future

prospects. International Journal of Physical Distribution &



Sohail, M.S., Sohal, A.S., 2003. The use of third party logistics

services: A Malaysian perspective. Technovation 23, 401–408.

Sohail, M.S., Austin, N.K., Rushdi, M., 2004. The use of third-

party logistics services: Evidence from a sub-Sahara African

nation. International Journal of Logistics: Research and


Sohail, M.S., Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A.S., 2006. A comparative

study on the use of third party logistics services by

Singaporean and Malaysian firms. International Journal of


690–701.

Sohal, A.S., Millen, R., Moss, S., 2002. A comparison of the use

of third-party logistics services by Australian firms between

1995 and 1999. International Journal of Physical Distribution


Spencer, M., Rogers, D., Daugherty, P., 1994. JIT systems and

external logistics suppliers. International Journal of Opera-

tions & Production Management 14 (6), 60–74.

Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P., 1997. The impact of operating

environment on the formation of cooperative logistics

relationships. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and

Transportation Review 33 (1), 53–65.

Stank, T.P., Maltz, A.B., 1996. Some propositions on third-party

choice: Domestic vs. international logistics providers. Journal

of Marketing Theory and Practice 4 (2), 45–54.

Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P., Ellinger, A.E., 1996. Information

exchange, responsiveness and logistics provider performance.

The International Journal of Logistics Management 7 (2),

43–57.

Stefansson, G., 2006. Collaborative logistics management and

the role of third-party service providers. International Journal


76–92.

Stone, M.A., 2001. European expansion of UK third-party

logistics service providers. International Journal of Logistics:


Sum, C.C., Teo, C.B., 1999. Strategic posture of logistics service

providers in Singapore. International Journal of Physical


Tan, A., Kritchanchai, D., 2006. An information technology

implementation framework for the logistics industry in

Singapore. International Journal of Logistics Systems and

Management 2 (4), 371–386.

Tate, K., 1996. The elements of a successful logistics partnership.



Tyan, J.C., Wang, F.K., Du, T.C., 2003. An evaluation of freight

consolidation policies in global third party logistics. Omega

31, 55–62.

Vaidyanathan, G., 2005. A framework for evaluating third-party

logistics. Communications of the ACM 48 (1), 89–94.

Van Damme, D.A., van Amstel, M.J., 1996. Outsourcing logistics

management activities. The International Journal of Logistics


Van de Ven, A.H., 1976. On the nature, formation, and

maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of

Management Review 1 (4), 24–36.

Van Hoek, R.I., 2000. The role of third-party logistics providers

in mass customization. The International Journal of Logistics


Van Hoek, R.I., 2001. The contribution of performance

measurement to the expansion of third party logistics

alliances in the supply chain. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management 21 (1/2), 15–29.

Van Laarhoven, P., Berglund, M., Peters, M., 2000. Third-party

logistics in Europe—Five years later. International Journal of


425–442.

Voss, H., 2003. International logistics outsourcing—Competitive

advantages for 3PL-providers through intercultural compe-

tence. In: Juga, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual

Conference for Nordic Researchers in Logistics ‘‘Striving for

Leading Edge Logistics,’’ 12–13 June, Faculty of Economics

and Business Administration, University of Oulu, Oulu,

Finland, pp. 447–463.

Wilding, R., Juriado, R., 2004. Customer perceptions on logistics

outsourcing in the European consumer goods industry.


Management 34 (8), 628–644.

Wilson, D.T., 1995. An integrated model of buyer–seller

relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences

23 (4), 333–345.

Wong, Y.Y., Maher, T., Nicholson, J., 2000. Strategic alliances in

logistics outsourcing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and

Logistics 12 (4), 3–21.

Wu, Y.J., 2006. Assessment of technological innovations in

patenting for 3rd party logistics providers. Journal of

Enterprise Information Management 19 (5), 504–524.

Yan, J., Chaudhry, P.E., Chaudhry, S.S., 2003. A model of a

decision support system based on case-based reasoning for

third-party logistics evaluation. Expert Systems 20 (4),

196–207.

Yeung, J.H.Y., Selen, W., Sum, C.C., Huo, B., 2006. Linking

financial performance to strategic orientation and operational

priorities. An empirical study of third-party logistics provi-

ders. International Journal of Physical Distribution &


Ying, W., Dayong, S., 2005. Multi-agent framework for third

party logistics in e-commerce. Expert Systems with Applica-

tions 29, 431–436.

Zapfel, G., Wasner, M., 2002. Planning and optimization of hub-

and-spoke transportation networks of cooperative third-party

logistics providers. International Journal of Production

Economics 78, 207–220.

Zinn, W., Parasuraman, A., 1997. Scope and intensity of

logistics-based strategic alliances. A conceptual classification

and managerial implications. Industrial Marketing Manage-

ment 26, 137–147.

third-party logistics a literature review

Documents