Innovators and Transformers Revisiting the gap between academia and practice: insights from the green logistics phenomenon

Amer Jazairy, Timo Pohjosenperä, L. Prataviera, J. Juntunen
{"title":"Innovators and Transformers Revisiting the gap between academia and practice: insights from the green logistics phenomenon","authors":"Amer Jazairy, Timo Pohjosenperä, L. Prataviera, J. Juntunen","doi":"10.1108/ijpdlm-12-2023-0497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeLogistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) scholars and practitioners have devoted extensive efforts to advancing green logistics practices (GLPs), yet the intersection between the two domains in relation to the topic remains underexplored. To accelerate GLPs’ development amid the escalating climate crisis, this research examines this intersection by comparing the responsiveness of academia and practice to the call for green logistics over time.Design/methodology/approachTo compare between academia and practice, we combined a systematic literature review on the development of GLPs in L&SCM journals (N = 122) with a content analysis of annual and sustainability reports published by the four major global logistics service providers (LSPs: DHL, DB Schenker, UPS and FedEx; N = 156) over the past three decades.FindingsThis research reveals that all the GLPs covered in the L&SCM literature have already been applied and reported by practitioners, both consistently and over a significant period of time. Academic progress, in turn, is delayed by slow-paced empirical methods, elevated research quality standards, prolonged funding and recruitment processes, and extended peer-review intervals. Further, a tendency toward reactive knowledge creation rather than proactive knowledge transfer is evident, obscuring the role of L&SCM scholars in steering the industry’s green advancement.Practical implicationsRecommendations are offered to L&SCM authors, editors, reviewers and university departments to advance pracademic endeavors in green logistics research and increase its responsiveness to global events.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies to scrutinize the intersection between academia and practice on the evolution of GLPs. The revealed gaps prompted us to suggest a transformative paradigm for academia-practice collaborations targeting the L&SCM discipline at large, combining a bold proactive research stream aimed at knowledge transfer with a more traditional reactive stream aimed at knowledge creation.","PeriodicalId":135362,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management","volume":"116 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-12-2023-0497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeLogistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) scholars and practitioners have devoted extensive efforts to advancing green logistics practices (GLPs), yet the intersection between the two domains in relation to the topic remains underexplored. To accelerate GLPs’ development amid the escalating climate crisis, this research examines this intersection by comparing the responsiveness of academia and practice to the call for green logistics over time.Design/methodology/approachTo compare between academia and practice, we combined a systematic literature review on the development of GLPs in L&SCM journals (N = 122) with a content analysis of annual and sustainability reports published by the four major global logistics service providers (LSPs: DHL, DB Schenker, UPS and FedEx; N = 156) over the past three decades.FindingsThis research reveals that all the GLPs covered in the L&SCM literature have already been applied and reported by practitioners, both consistently and over a significant period of time. Academic progress, in turn, is delayed by slow-paced empirical methods, elevated research quality standards, prolonged funding and recruitment processes, and extended peer-review intervals. Further, a tendency toward reactive knowledge creation rather than proactive knowledge transfer is evident, obscuring the role of L&SCM scholars in steering the industry’s green advancement.Practical implicationsRecommendations are offered to L&SCM authors, editors, reviewers and university departments to advance pracademic endeavors in green logistics research and increase its responsiveness to global events.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies to scrutinize the intersection between academia and practice on the evolution of GLPs. The revealed gaps prompted us to suggest a transformative paradigm for academia-practice collaborations targeting the L&SCM discipline at large, combining a bold proactive research stream aimed at knowledge transfer with a more traditional reactive stream aimed at knowledge creation.
创新者与变革者 重新审视学术界与实践之间的差距:从绿色物流现象中获得的启示
目的物流与供应链管理(L&SCM)领域的学者和从业人员在推进绿色物流实践(GLPs)方面做出了大量努力,但这两个领域在这一课题上的交叉点仍未得到充分探讨。为了在不断升级的气候危机中加快绿色物流实践的发展,本研究通过比较学术界和实践界对绿色物流呼声的响应程度,对这一交叉点进行了研究。设计/方法/途径为了比较学术界与实践界,我们将物流与供应链管理期刊上有关 GLP 发展的系统文献综述(N = 122)与过去三十年全球四大物流服务供应商(LSP:DHL、DB Schenker、UPS 和 FedEx;N = 156)发布的年度报告和可持续发展报告的内容分析相结合。反过来,缓慢的实证方法、较高的研究质量标准、冗长的筹资和招聘过程以及较长的同行评审周期又拖延了学术进步。此外,被动创造知识而非主动传授知识的倾向也很明显,这掩盖了物流与供应链管理学者在引导行业绿色发展方面所起的作用。原创性/价值这是第一批对学术界与实践界在全球物流标准演变方面的交叉点进行仔细研究的研究之一。所发现的差距促使我们针对整个物流与供应链管理学科,提出了学术界与实践界合作的转型范式,将以知识转让为目标的大胆主动研究流与以知识创造为目标的更为传统的被动研究流结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信